FAIR - User contributions [en]

Mormonism and Church discipline/Scholars

2010-09-04T17:03:22Z

Pistas3: /* D. Michael Quinn */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{draft}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
*It is often claimed, despite the fact that these disciplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
*Critics claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
*The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.

{{CriticalSources}}

=Response=

==Sonia Johnson==

{{main|Equal_Rights_Amendment_and_the_Church#The_Excommunication_of_Sonia_Johnson|l1=Excommunication of Sonia Johnson}}

==The "September Six"==

Six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September 1993. Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

*Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
*Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated, now back in full fellowship)
*Maxine Hanks (excommunicated)
*D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
*Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
*Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. It is probably inaccurate to lump him in with the other individuals here discussed.

The remaining five disciplinees have tended to claim that they were disciplined because of their writing and speaking on such matters as Church history, feminism, and abuses of power within the Church.{{ref|claims.sept5}} Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. Thus, former members are able to claim whatever they like about excommunication without contradiction from the Church.

It is useful, however, to compare what these five individuals have said and done publicly, and what others have revealed about them, as we try to assess whether their excommunication was only about Church history or if other behaviors contributed to the unfortunate result.

===Lavina Fielding Anderson===

Lavina Anderson is the only former member who continues to attend LDS worship services.

{{nw}}

===Maxine Hanks===

{{nw}}

===D. Michael Quinn===

Quinn claims that his excommunication was the direct result of his historical research on the origins of Mormonism. He refused to attend his own disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."{{ref|hanks.1}}

Despite Quinn's belief that his Church discipline was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are '''''not''''' related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing."{{ref|hanks.2}} On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and "demanded that Michael explain the 'moral allegations' [he] had heard about him." Lavina Fielding Anderson, another member of the "September Six," is critical of Quinn's stake president for later alluding to Quinn's sexual orientation. Writes Anderson:

:A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and "plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this." He added a ham-handed post-script: "Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare." The allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.{{ref|hanks.3}}

Lavina Anderson further writes:

:Michael resigned from Signature [Book]'s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable....He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard....

:[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath....

:When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family's past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.{{ref|anderson.1}}

Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, "He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering."{{ref|anderson.2}}

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."{{ref|quinn.1}} "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions. Church leaders have an obligation to take action if behavior that is considered unacceptable comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson's account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Quinn was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with church leaders.

Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges "of ''conduct unbecoming a member of the Church'' and ''apostasy''." Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.{{ref|anderson.excomm}}

Anderson tells us later that "Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened."{{ref|anderson.3}} Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.{{ref|quinn.out}} Quinn also wrote a book claiming that "the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders."{{ref|quinn.2}} Any doubt of Quinn's position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly "because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman."{{ref|quinn.mutual.love}}

So this is a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. In addition, Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
* he called BYU an "Auschwitz of the mind," and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.{{ref|stalin.1}}
* he compared his Stake President's desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul's decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.{{ref|martyr}}
* Anderson praises Quinn's "ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways."{{ref|anderson.5}} She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This accusation ignores, however, Quinn's frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.{{ref|quinn.packer}} (For more information, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|Quinn on Boyd K. Packer]].)

Because Quinn refused to attend his own disciplinary council, his claim that his excommunication was all because of his history work is conjecture — even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that there were more serious matters at stake.



Quinn's stake president's efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank's efforts as "sounding plaintive and unjustly accused," "mildly phrased but...threatening," accompanied by "a ham-handed postscript." For Anderson, at best Hanks "was probably sincere,".

Quinn's letters, by contrast, are "temperate...even sympathetic," showing "a tone of genuine weariness," and he is filled with a "calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him."{{ref|anderson.6}}

Despite Anderson's one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying for months to speak privately with a wayward member who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth. Thus, the historical record tells a somewhat different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six."

===Paul Toscano===
{{nw}}

* {{FR-6-2-15}}
* {{FR-7-1-17}}

===Lynee Kanavel Whitesides===
{{nw}}

===September Six: conclusions===
{{nw}}

==Next section==
{{nw}}


======
Janice Allred. See:
* {{FR-12-1-8}} 

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|claims.sept5}} See, for example, {{Sunstone1|author=Paul Toscano|article=An Interview with Myself|date=December 1993|num=130|start=19}}



#{{note|hanks.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.2}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.3}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 18 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.1}} Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in ''Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters'', edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
#{{note|anderson.2}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages=xiii}}
#{{note|anderson.3}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.excom}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon," italics from the charges were in Pres. Hanks' original letter.
#{{note|quinn.out}} {{FR-10-1-5}}, page 132-133. 
#{{note|quinn.2}} ''Publishers Weekly'' 243/45 (4 November 1996): 47; cited in {{FR-10-1-6}}
#{{note|quinn.mutual.love}} Quinn, quoted in ''Sunstone'' (Dec 2003): 27.
#{{note|stalin.1}} "'BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That's like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.' When an administrator asked Michael whether he had been quoted accurately, Michael not only confirmed it but added, 'Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).'" - "Ex-BYU Professor Claims Beliefs Led to Dismissal," Salt Lake Tribune (30 July 1988): B-1; and Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian," 94; cited by Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|martyr.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 19 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.packer}} For examples see {{FR-9-2-16}} A more detailed examination of Quinn's treatment of Elder Packer's remarks can be found [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|here]].
#{{note|anderson.6}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."



=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==
==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{LyingWiki}}
==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{LyingFAIR}}
==={{External links label}}===
{{LyingLinks}}
==={{Printed material label}}===
{{LyingPrint}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Church discipline/Scholars]]

Mormonism and Church discipline/Scholars

2010-09-04T17:02:03Z

Pistas3: /* The "September Six" */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{draft}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
*It is often claimed, despite the fact that these disciplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
*Critics claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
*The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.

{{CriticalSources}}

=Response=

==Sonia Johnson==

{{main|Equal_Rights_Amendment_and_the_Church#The_Excommunication_of_Sonia_Johnson|l1=Excommunication of Sonia Johnson}}

==The "September Six"==

Six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September 1993. Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

*Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
*Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated, now back in full fellowship)
*Maxine Hanks (excommunicated)
*D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
*Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
*Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. It is probably inaccurate to lump him in with the other individuals here discussed.

The remaining five disciplinees have tended to claim that they were disciplined because of their writing and speaking on such matters as Church history, feminism, and abuses of power within the Church.{{ref|claims.sept5}} Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. Thus, former members are able to claim whatever they like about excommunication without contradiction from the Church.

It is useful, however, to compare what these five individuals have said and done publicly, and what others have revealed about them, as we try to assess whether their excommunication was only about Church history or if other behaviors contributed to the unfortunate result.

===Lavina Fielding Anderson===

Lavina Anderson is the only former member who continues to attend LDS worship services.

{{nw}}

===Maxine Hanks===

{{nw}}

===D. Michael Quinn===

Quinn claims that his excommunication was the direct result of his historical research on the origins of Mormonism. He refused to attend his own disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."{{ref|hanks.1}}

Despite Quinn's belief that his Church discipline was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are '''''not''''' related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing."{{ref|hanks.2}} On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and "demanded that Michael explain the 'moral allegations' [he] had heard about him." Lavina Fielding Anderson, another member of the "September Six," is critical of Quinn's stake president for later alluding to Quinn's sexual orientation. Writes Anderson:

:A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and "plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this." He added a ham-handed post-script: "Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare." The allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.{{ref|hanks.3}}

Lavina Anderson further writes:

:Michael resigned from Signature [Book]'s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable....He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard....

:[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath....

:When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family's past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.{{ref|anderson.1}}

Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, "He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering."{{ref|anderson.2}}

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."{{ref|quinn.1}} "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions. Church leaders have an obligation to take action if behavior that is considered unacceptable comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson's account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Quinn was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with church leaders.

Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges "of ''conduct unbecoming a member of the Church'' and ''apostasy''." Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.{{ref|anderson.excomm}}

Anderson tells us later that "Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened."{{ref|anderson.3}} Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.{{ref|quinn.out}} Quinn also wrote a book claiming that "the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders."{{ref|quinn.2}} Any doubt of Quinn's position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly "because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman."{{ref|quinn.mutual.love}}

So this is a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. In addition, Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
* he called BYU an "Auschwitz of the mind," and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.{{ref|stalin.1}}
* he compared his Stake President's desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul's decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.{{ref|martyr}}
* Anderson praises Quinn's "ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways."{{ref|anderson.5}} She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This accusation ignores, however, Quinn's frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.{{ref|quinn.packer}} (For more information, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|Quinn on Boyd K. Packer]].)

Because Quinn refused to attend his own disciplinary council, his claim that his excommunication was all because of his history work is conjecture — even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that there were more serious matters at stake.



Quinn's stake president's efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank's efforts as "sounding plaintive and unjustly accused," "mildly phrased but...threatening," accompanied by "a ham-handed postscript." For Anderson, at best Hanks "was probably sincere,".

Quinn's letters, by contrast, are "temperate...even sympathetic," showing "a tone of genuine weariness," and he is filled with a "calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him."{{ref|anderson.6}}

Despite Anderson's one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying for months to speak privately with a wayward member who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.

Thus, the historical record tells a somewhat different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six."

===Paul Toscano===
{{nw}}

* {{FR-6-2-15}}
* {{FR-7-1-17}}

===Lynee Kanavel Whitesides===
{{nw}}

===September Six: conclusions===
{{nw}}

==Next section==
{{nw}}


======
Janice Allred. See:
* {{FR-12-1-8}} 

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|claims.sept5}} See, for example, {{Sunstone1|author=Paul Toscano|article=An Interview with Myself|date=December 1993|num=130|start=19}}



#{{note|hanks.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.2}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.3}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 18 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.1}} Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in ''Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters'', edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
#{{note|anderson.2}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages=xiii}}
#{{note|anderson.3}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.excom}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon," italics from the charges were in Pres. Hanks' original letter.
#{{note|quinn.out}} {{FR-10-1-5}}, page 132-133. 
#{{note|quinn.2}} ''Publishers Weekly'' 243/45 (4 November 1996): 47; cited in {{FR-10-1-6}}
#{{note|quinn.mutual.love}} Quinn, quoted in ''Sunstone'' (Dec 2003): 27.
#{{note|stalin.1}} "'BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That's like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.' When an administrator asked Michael whether he had been quoted accurately, Michael not only confirmed it but added, 'Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).'" - "Ex-BYU Professor Claims Beliefs Led to Dismissal," Salt Lake Tribune (30 July 1988): B-1; and Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian," 94; cited by Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|martyr.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 19 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.packer}} For examples see {{FR-9-2-16}} A more detailed examination of Quinn's treatment of Elder Packer's remarks can be found [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|here]].
#{{note|anderson.6}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."



=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==
==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{LyingWiki}}
==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{LyingFAIR}}
==={{External links label}}===
{{LyingLinks}}
==={{Printed material label}}===
{{LyingPrint}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Church discipline/Scholars]]

Mormonism and Church discipline/Scholars

2010-09-04T16:52:49Z

Pistas3: /* D. Michael Quinn */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{draft}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
*It is often claimed, despite the fact that these disciplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
*Critics claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
*The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.

{{CriticalSources}}

=Response=

==Sonia Johnson==

{{main|Equal_Rights_Amendment_and_the_Church#The_Excommunication_of_Sonia_Johnson|l1=Excommunication of Sonia Johnson}}

==The "September Six"==

Six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September 1993. Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

*Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
*Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated, now back in full fellowship)
*Maxine Hanks (excommunicated)
*D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
*Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
*Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. It is probably inaccurate to lump him in with the other individuals here discussed.

The remaining five disciplinees have tended to claim that they were disciplined because of their writing and speaking on such matters as Church history, feminism, and abuses of power within the Church.{{ref|claims.sept5}} Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. We must remember, then, that former members are generally free to claim whatever they like about their excommunication, without much fear of contradiction from the Church.

It is useful, however, to compare what these five individuals have said and done publicly, and what others have revealed about them, as we try to assess whether their excommunication was "just" about Church history or related matters.

===Lavina Fielding Anderson===

Lavina Anderson is the only former member who continues to attend LDS worship services.

{{nw}}

===Maxine Hanks===

{{nw}}

===D. Michael Quinn===

Quinn claims that his excommunication was the direct result of his historical research on the origins of Mormonism. He refused to attend his own disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."{{ref|hanks.1}}

Despite Quinn's belief that his Church discipline was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are '''''not''''' related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing."{{ref|hanks.2}} On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and "demanded that Michael explain the 'moral allegations' [he] had heard about him." Lavina Fielding Anderson, another member of the "September Six," is critical of Quinn's stake president for later alluding to Quinn's sexual orientation. Writes Anderson:

:A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and "plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this." He added a ham-handed post-script: "Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare." The allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.{{ref|hanks.3}}

Lavina Anderson further writes:

:Michael resigned from Signature [Book]'s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable....He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard....

:[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath....

:When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family's past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.{{ref|anderson.1}}

Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, "He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering."{{ref|anderson.2}}

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."{{ref|quinn.1}} "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions. Church leaders have an obligation to take action if behavior that is considered unacceptable comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson's account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Quinn was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with church leaders.

Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges "of ''conduct unbecoming a member of the Church'' and ''apostasy''." Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.{{ref|anderson.excomm}}

Anderson tells us later that "Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened."{{ref|anderson.3}} Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.{{ref|quinn.out}} Quinn also wrote a book claiming that "the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders."{{ref|quinn.2}} Any doubt of Quinn's position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly "because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman."{{ref|quinn.mutual.love}}

So this is a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. In addition, Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
* he called BYU an "Auschwitz of the mind," and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.{{ref|stalin.1}}
* he compared his Stake President's desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul's decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.{{ref|martyr}}
* Anderson praises Quinn's "ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways."{{ref|anderson.5}} She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This accusation ignores, however, Quinn's frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.{{ref|quinn.packer}} (For more information, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|Quinn on Boyd K. Packer]].)

Because Quinn refused to attend his own disciplinary council, his claim that his excommunication was all because of his history work is conjecture — even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that there were more serious matters at stake.



Quinn's stake president's efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank's efforts as "sounding plaintive and unjustly accused," "mildly phrased but...threatening," accompanied by "a ham-handed postscript." For Anderson, at best Hanks "was probably sincere,".

Quinn's letters, by contrast, are "temperate...even sympathetic," showing "a tone of genuine weariness," and he is filled with a "calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him."{{ref|anderson.6}}

Despite Anderson's one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying for months to speak privately with a wayward member who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.

Thus, the historical record tells a somewhat different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six."

===Paul Toscano===
{{nw}}

* {{FR-6-2-15}}
* {{FR-7-1-17}}

===Lynee Kanavel Whitesides===
{{nw}}

===September Six: conclusions===
{{nw}}

==Next section==
{{nw}}


======
Janice Allred. See:
* {{FR-12-1-8}} 

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|claims.sept5}} See, for example, {{Sunstone1|author=Paul Toscano|article=An Interview with Myself|date=December 1993|num=130|start=19}}



#{{note|hanks.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.2}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.3}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 18 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.1}} Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in ''Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters'', edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
#{{note|anderson.2}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages=xiii}}
#{{note|anderson.3}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.excom}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon," italics from the charges were in Pres. Hanks' original letter.
#{{note|quinn.out}} {{FR-10-1-5}}, page 132-133. 
#{{note|quinn.2}} ''Publishers Weekly'' 243/45 (4 November 1996): 47; cited in {{FR-10-1-6}}
#{{note|quinn.mutual.love}} Quinn, quoted in ''Sunstone'' (Dec 2003): 27.
#{{note|stalin.1}} "'BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That's like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.' When an administrator asked Michael whether he had been quoted accurately, Michael not only confirmed it but added, 'Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).'" - "Ex-BYU Professor Claims Beliefs Led to Dismissal," Salt Lake Tribune (30 July 1988): B-1; and Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian," 94; cited by Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|martyr.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 19 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.packer}} For examples see {{FR-9-2-16}} A more detailed examination of Quinn's treatment of Elder Packer's remarks can be found [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|here]].
#{{note|anderson.6}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."



=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==
==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{LyingWiki}}
==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{LyingFAIR}}
==={{External links label}}===
{{LyingLinks}}
==={{Printed material label}}===
{{LyingPrint}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Church discipline/Scholars]]

Mormonism and Church discipline/Scholars

2010-09-04T16:48:14Z

Pistas3: /* D. Michael Quinn */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{draft}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
*It is often claimed, despite the fact that these disciplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
*Critics claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
*The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.

{{CriticalSources}}

=Response=

==Sonia Johnson==

{{main|Equal_Rights_Amendment_and_the_Church#The_Excommunication_of_Sonia_Johnson|l1=Excommunication of Sonia Johnson}}

==The "September Six"==

Six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September 1993. Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

*Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
*Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated, now back in full fellowship)
*Maxine Hanks (excommunicated)
*D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
*Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
*Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. It is probably inaccurate to lump him in with the other individuals here discussed.

The remaining five disciplinees have tended to claim that they were disciplined because of their writing and speaking on such matters as Church history, feminism, and abuses of power within the Church.{{ref|claims.sept5}} Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. We must remember, then, that former members are generally free to claim whatever they like about their excommunication, without much fear of contradiction from the Church.

It is useful, however, to compare what these five individuals have said and done publicly, and what others have revealed about them, as we try to assess whether their excommunication was "just" about Church history or related matters.

===Lavina Fielding Anderson===

Lavina Anderson is the only former member who continues to attend LDS worship services.

{{nw}}

===Maxine Hanks===

{{nw}}

===D. Michael Quinn===

Quinn claims that his excommunication was the direct result of his historical research on the origins of Mormonism. He refused to attend his own disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."{{ref|hanks.1}}

Despite Quinn's belief that his Church discipline was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are '''''not''''' related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing."{{ref|hanks.2}} On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and "demanded that Michael explain the 'moral allegations' [he] had heard about him." Lavina Fielding Anderson, another member of the "September Six," is critical of Quinn's stake president for later alluding to Quinn's sexual orientation. Writes Anderson:

:A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and "plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this." He added a ham-handed post-script: "Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare." The allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.{{ref|hanks.3}}

Lavina Anderson further writes:

:Michael resigned from Signature [Book]'s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable....He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard....

:[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath....

:When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family's past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.{{ref|anderson.1}}

Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, "He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering."{{ref|anderson.2}}

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."{{ref|quinn.1}} "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions. Church leaders have an obligation to take action if behavior that is considered unacceptable comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson's account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Quinn was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with church leaders.

Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges "of ''conduct unbecoming a member of the Church'' and ''apostasy''." Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.{{ref|anderson.excomm}}

Anderson tells us later that "Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened."{{ref|anderson.3}} Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.{{ref|quinn.out}} Quinn also wrote a book claiming that "the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders."{{ref|quinn.2}} Any doubt of Quinn's position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly "because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman."{{ref|quinn.mutual.love}}

So this a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. In addition, Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
* he called BYU an "Auschwitz of the mind," and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.{{ref|stalin.1}}
* he compared his Stake President's desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul's decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.{{ref|martyr}}
* Anderson praises Quinn's "ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways."{{ref|anderson.5}} She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This accusation ignores, however, Quinn's frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.{{ref|quinn.packer}} (For more information, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|Quinn on Boyd K. Packer]].)

Because Quinn refused to attend his own disciplinary council, his claim that his excommunication was all because of his history work is conjecture — even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that there were more serious matters at stake.



Quinn's stake president's efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank's efforts as "sounding plaintive and unjustly accused," "mildly phrased but...threatening," accompanied by "a ham-handed postscript." For Anderson, at best Hanks "was probably sincere,".

Quinn's letters, by contrast, are "temperate...even sympathetic," showing "a tone of genuine weariness," and he is filled with a "calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him."{{ref|anderson.6}}

Despite Anderson's one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying over months to speak privately with a wayward member who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.

Thus, the historical record tells a different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six."

===Paul Toscano===
{{nw}}

* {{FR-6-2-15}}
* {{FR-7-1-17}}

===Lynee Kanavel Whitesides===
{{nw}}

===September Six: conclusions===
{{nw}}

==Next section==
{{nw}}


======
Janice Allred. See:
* {{FR-12-1-8}} 

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|claims.sept5}} See, for example, {{Sunstone1|author=Paul Toscano|article=An Interview with Myself|date=December 1993|num=130|start=19}}



#{{note|hanks.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.2}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.3}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 18 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.1}} Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in ''Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters'', edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
#{{note|anderson.2}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages=xiii}}
#{{note|anderson.3}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.excom}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon," italics from the charges were in Pres. Hanks' original letter.
#{{note|quinn.out}} {{FR-10-1-5}}, page 132-133. 
#{{note|quinn.2}} ''Publishers Weekly'' 243/45 (4 November 1996): 47; cited in {{FR-10-1-6}}
#{{note|quinn.mutual.love}} Quinn, quoted in ''Sunstone'' (Dec 2003): 27.
#{{note|stalin.1}} "'BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That's like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.' When an administrator asked Michael whether he had been quoted accurately, Michael not only confirmed it but added, 'Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).'" - "Ex-BYU Professor Claims Beliefs Led to Dismissal," Salt Lake Tribune (30 July 1988): B-1; and Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian," 94; cited by Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|martyr.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 19 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.packer}} For examples see {{FR-9-2-16}} A more detailed examination of Quinn's treatment of Elder Packer's remarks can be found [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|here]].
#{{note|anderson.6}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."



=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==
==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{LyingWiki}}
==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{LyingFAIR}}
==={{External links label}}===
{{LyingLinks}}
==={{Printed material label}}===
{{LyingPrint}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Church discipline/Scholars]]

Mormonism and Church discipline/Scholars

2010-09-04T16:47:29Z

Pistas3: /* D. Michael Quinn */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{draft}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
*It is often claimed, despite the fact that these disciplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
*Critics claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
*The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.

{{CriticalSources}}

=Response=

==Sonia Johnson==

{{main|Equal_Rights_Amendment_and_the_Church#The_Excommunication_of_Sonia_Johnson|l1=Excommunication of Sonia Johnson}}

==The "September Six"==

Six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September 1993. Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

*Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
*Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated, now back in full fellowship)
*Maxine Hanks (excommunicated)
*D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
*Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
*Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. It is probably inaccurate to lump him in with the other individuals here discussed.

The remaining five disciplinees have tended to claim that they were disciplined because of their writing and speaking on such matters as Church history, feminism, and abuses of power within the Church.{{ref|claims.sept5}} Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. We must remember, then, that former members are generally free to claim whatever they like about their excommunication, without much fear of contradiction from the Church.

It is useful, however, to compare what these five individuals have said and done publicly, and what others have revealed about them, as we try to assess whether their excommunication was "just" about Church history or related matters.

===Lavina Fielding Anderson===

Lavina Anderson is the only former member who continues to attend LDS worship services.

{{nw}}

===Maxine Hanks===

{{nw}}

===D. Michael Quinn===

Quinn claims that his excommunication was the direct result of his historical research on the origins of Mormonism. He refused to attend his own disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."{{ref|hanks.1}}

Despite Quinn's claims that his Church discipline was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are '''''not''''' related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing."{{ref|hanks.2}} On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and "demanded that Michael explain the 'moral allegations' [he] had heard about him." Lavina Fielding Anderson, another member of the "September Six," is critical of Quinn's stake president for later alluding to Quinn's sexual orientation. Writes Anderson:

:A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and "plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this." He added a ham-handed post-script: "Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare." The allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.{{ref|hanks.3}}

Lavina Anderson further writes:

:Michael resigned from Signature [Book]'s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable....He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard....

:[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath....

:When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family's past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.{{ref|anderson.1}}

Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, "He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering."{{ref|anderson.2}}

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."{{ref|quinn.1}} "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions. Church leaders have an obligation to take action if behavior that is considered unacceptable comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson's account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Quinn was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with church leaders.

Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges "of ''conduct unbecoming a member of the Church'' and ''apostasy''." Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.{{ref|anderson.excomm}}

Anderson tells us later that "Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened."{{ref|anderson.3}} Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.{{ref|quinn.out}} Quinn also wrote a book claiming that "the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders."{{ref|quinn.2}} Any doubt of Quinn's position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly "because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman."{{ref|quinn.mutual.love}}

So this a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. In addition, Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
* he called BYU an "Auschwitz of the mind," and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.{{ref|stalin.1}}
* he compared his Stake President's desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul's decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.{{ref|martyr}}
* Anderson praises Quinn's "ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways."{{ref|anderson.5}} She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This accusation ignores, however, Quinn's frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.{{ref|quinn.packer}} (For more information, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|Quinn on Boyd K. Packer]].)

Because Quinn refused to attend his own disciplinary council, his claim that his excommunication was all because of his history work is conjecture — even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that there were more serious matters at stake.



Quinn's stake president's efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank's efforts as "sounding plaintive and unjustly accused," "mildly phrased but...threatening," accompanied by "a ham-handed postscript." For Anderson, at best Hanks "was probably sincere,".

Quinn's letters, by contrast, are "temperate...even sympathetic," showing "a tone of genuine weariness," and he is filled with a "calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him."{{ref|anderson.6}}

Despite Anderson's one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying over months to speak privately with a wayward member who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.

Thus, the historical record tells a different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six."

===Paul Toscano===
{{nw}}

* {{FR-6-2-15}}
* {{FR-7-1-17}}

===Lynee Kanavel Whitesides===
{{nw}}

===September Six: conclusions===
{{nw}}

==Next section==
{{nw}}


======
Janice Allred. See:
* {{FR-12-1-8}} 

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|claims.sept5}} See, for example, {{Sunstone1|author=Paul Toscano|article=An Interview with Myself|date=December 1993|num=130|start=19}}



#{{note|hanks.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.2}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.3}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 18 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.1}} Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in ''Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters'', edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
#{{note|anderson.2}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages=xiii}}
#{{note|anderson.3}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.excom}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon," italics from the charges were in Pres. Hanks' original letter.
#{{note|quinn.out}} {{FR-10-1-5}}, page 132-133. 
#{{note|quinn.2}} ''Publishers Weekly'' 243/45 (4 November 1996): 47; cited in {{FR-10-1-6}}
#{{note|quinn.mutual.love}} Quinn, quoted in ''Sunstone'' (Dec 2003): 27.
#{{note|stalin.1}} "'BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That's like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.' When an administrator asked Michael whether he had been quoted accurately, Michael not only confirmed it but added, 'Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).'" - "Ex-BYU Professor Claims Beliefs Led to Dismissal," Salt Lake Tribune (30 July 1988): B-1; and Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian," 94; cited by Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|martyr.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 19 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.packer}} For examples see {{FR-9-2-16}} A more detailed examination of Quinn's treatment of Elder Packer's remarks can be found [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|here]].
#{{note|anderson.6}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."



=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==
==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{LyingWiki}}
==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{LyingFAIR}}
==={{External links label}}===
{{LyingLinks}}
==={{Printed material label}}===
{{LyingPrint}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Church discipline/Scholars]]

Mormonism and Church discipline/Scholars

2010-09-04T16:35:20Z

Pistas3: /* D. Michael Quinn */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{draft}}
=={{Criticism label}}==
*Critics claim that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
*It is often claimed, despite the fact that these disciplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
*Critics claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
*The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.

{{CriticalSources}}

=Response=

==Sonia Johnson==

{{main|Equal_Rights_Amendment_and_the_Church#The_Excommunication_of_Sonia_Johnson|l1=Excommunication of Sonia Johnson}}

==The "September Six"==

Six individuals were disciplined by the Church in September 1993. Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

*Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
*Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated, now back in full fellowship)
*Maxine Hanks (excommunicated)
*D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
*Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
*Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. It is probably inaccurate to lump him in with the other individuals here discussed.

The remaining five disciplinees have tended to claim that they were disciplined because of their writing and speaking on such matters as Church history, feminism, and abuses of power within the Church.{{ref|claims.sept5}} Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. We must remember, then, that former members are generally free to claim whatever they like about their excommunication, without much fear of contradiction from the Church.

It is useful, however, to compare what these five individuals have said and done publicly, and what others have revealed about them, as we try to assess whether their excommunication was "just" about Church history or related matters.

===Lavina Fielding Anderson===

Lavina Anderson is the only former member who continues to attend LDS worship services.

{{nw}}

===Maxine Hanks===

{{nw}}

===D. Michael Quinn===

Quinn claims that his excommunication was the direct result of his historical research on the origins of Mormonism. He refused to attend his own disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."{{ref|hanks.1}}

Despite Quinn's claims that his Church discipline was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are '''''not''''' related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing."{{ref|hanks.2}} On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and "demanded that Michael explain the 'moral allegations' [he] had heard about him." Lavina Fielding Anderson, another member of the "September Six," is critical of Quinn's stake president for later alluding to Quinn's sexual orientation. Writes Anderson:

:A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and "plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this." He added a ham-handed post-script: "Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare." The allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.{{ref|hanks.3}}

Lavina Anderson further writes:

:Michael resigned from Signature [Book]'s board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable....He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard....

:[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath....

:When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family's past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.{{ref|anderson.1}}

Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, "He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering."{{ref|anderson.2}}

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."{{ref|quinn.1}} "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions.

Church leaders have an obligation to take action if behavior that is considered unacceptable comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson's sympathetic account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Quinn was put on formal probation, and again encouraged to meet with church leaders.

Quinn was eventually asked to appear to answer the charges "of ''conduct unbecoming a member of the Church'' and ''apostasy''." Quinn claims that inside sources told him that the high council could not agree on the apostasy charge, and he was finally excommunicated for failure to meet with his priesthood leaders.{{ref|anderson.excomm}}

Anderson tells us later that "Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened."{{ref|anderson.3}} Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.{{ref|quinn.out}} Quinn also wrote a book claiming that "the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders."{{ref|quinn.2}} Any doubt of Quinn's position is erased when one reads his announcement that he does not agree with the Church partly "because I claim that the mutual love of two men or of two women is as valid as the mutual love of a man and a woman."{{ref|quinn.mutual.love}}

So this a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. In addition, Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:
* he called BYU an "Auschwitz of the mind," and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.{{ref|stalin.1}}
* he compared his Stake President's desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul's decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.{{ref|martyr}}
* Anderson praises Quinn's "ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways."{{ref|anderson.5}} She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This glowing claim ignores, however, Quinn's frequent manipulation of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.{{ref|quinn.packer}} (For more information, see [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|Quinn on Boyd K. Packer]].)

Since Quinn refused to attend his own disciplinary council, he can thus continue to claim that it was all because of his history work—though even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that far more was going on than Quinn would like to admit.



Quinn's stake president's efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who describes President Hank's efforts as "sounding plaintive and unjustly accused," "mildly phrased but...threatening," accompanied by "a ham-handed postscript." For Anderson, at best Hanks "was probably sincere," though Quinn's sincerity and rectitude is never questioned for a moment.

Quinn's letters, by contrast, are "temperate...even sympathetic," showing "a tone of genuine weariness," and he is filled with a "calm spirit of peace and comfort at the very center of his being. He crossed the last threshold of fear, the fear that he would not be able to bear what the church would do to him."{{ref|anderson.6}}

Despite Anderson's one-sided telling, even her account shows a leader trying over months to speak privately with a wayward member who refuses to believe the problem can be with him, and who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.

Thus, the historical record tells a different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six."

===Paul Toscano===
{{nw}}

* {{FR-6-2-15}}
* {{FR-7-1-17}}

===Lynee Kanavel Whitesides===
{{nw}}

===September Six: conclusions===
{{nw}}

==Next section==
{{nw}}


======
Janice Allred. See:
* {{FR-12-1-8}} 

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|claims.sept5}} See, for example, {{Sunstone1|author=Paul Toscano|article=An Interview with Myself|date=December 1993|num=130|start=19}}



#{{note|hanks.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.2}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|hanks.3}} Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 18 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.1}} Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in ''Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters'', edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
#{{note|anderson.2}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.1}} {{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages=xiii}}
#{{note|anderson.3}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|anderson.excom}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon," italics from the charges were in Pres. Hanks' original letter.
#{{note|quinn.out}} {{FR-10-1-5}}, page 132-133. 
#{{note|quinn.2}} ''Publishers Weekly'' 243/45 (4 November 1996): 47; cited in {{FR-10-1-6}}
#{{note|quinn.mutual.love}} Quinn, quoted in ''Sunstone'' (Dec 2003): 27.
#{{note|stalin.1}} "'BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That's like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.' When an administrator asked Michael whether he had been quoted accurately, Michael not only confirmed it but added, 'Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).'" - "Ex-BYU Professor Claims Beliefs Led to Dismissal," Salt Lake Tribune (30 July 1988): B-1; and Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian," 94; cited by Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|martyr.1}} D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 19 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
#{{note|quinn.packer}} For examples see {{FR-9-2-16}} A more detailed examination of Quinn's treatment of Elder Packer's remarks can be found [[One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Boyd_K._Packer_on_the_truth|here]].
#{{note|anderson.6}} Anderson, "DNA Mormon."



=={{Conclusion label}}==
{{nw}}

=={{Further reading label}}==
==={{FAIR wiki articles label}}===
{{LyingWiki}}
==={{FAIR web site label}}===
{{LyingFAIR}}
==={{External links label}}===
{{LyingLinks}}
==={{Printed material label}}===
{{LyingPrint}}
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

[[fr:Church discipline/Scholars]]

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2009-10-14T00:34:51Z

Pistas3: /* Post-election events */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...''

:''Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendment, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.''

:—''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', Nov. 5, 2008
[[Image:NoOn8.vandalism.png|center]]

=Overview=
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. {{ref|pew1}} This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse]). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle] (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

'''Further information'''
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/measured-voices-provide-reason-support-amidst-proposition-8-reaction Measured Voices Provide Reason, Support Amidst Proposition 8 Reaction] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*[http://mormontimes.com/people_news/church_news/?id=5115 LDS Church issues new Prop. 8 overview] (Nov. 21, 2008)
*Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, [http://www.byub.org/devotionals/?selectedMonth=10&selectedYear=2008 On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government], BYU Devotional (Oct. 2008)—A good explanation of why this matters to the Church. (Currently available as video only)
*LDS Newsroom, [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-response-to-california-supreme-court-decision-on-proposition-8 Church Response to California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8] (May 26, 2009).

=The text of Proposition 8=
The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

:This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
:SECTION 1. Title
:This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
:SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
:''SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

California Attorney General Jerry Brown modified the title of the measure to read "Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry" before it appeared on the ballot.

=The Family: A Proclamation to the World=
In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"{{ref|proclamation}}.

It reads in part:

:''We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.''

It also declares:

:''All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.''

=Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF In Re Marriage Cases],'' on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.{{ref|sosd1}}

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.{{ref|state1}}

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

==Initial letter to members==
Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

:'''Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families'''

:''In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.''

:''The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.''

:''A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.''

:''We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

==Satellite broadcast==
The Church followed up the letter with a satellite broadcast to members on October 8, 2008. During the broadcast, members were told:
<blockquote>
"We invite you tonight to consider the following as your time and circumstances allow. For those with young families, substantial involvement may be out of the question, even though it may matter most to you. For others, however, we hope what we are inviting you to consider tonight will inspire you to respond with your time and your energy."
</blockquote>

Among the suggestions made during the broadcast for member involvement was a request from Elder Russell M. Ballard for young people to make use of the latest communication technology to support Proposition 8:
<blockquote>
“How do we go about that? You are critical in this effort because so many of you are connected. You are engaged in conversations through the use of technologies that were the dreams of science fiction in my day. As most of you know, we encourage members to join in the conversation. Many of you will text message, blog, make phone calls, walk your neighborhoods, and just talk to friends, associates and neighbors. These methods of engaging will be major elements of informing people of the issues and of the coalition’s position. As you do this, please do so in a sensitive manner. Our approach must always be with respect for others and their positions and opinions.”
</blockquote>

{{Heading2|Establishment of call centers}}
Among the plans mentioned by Church leaders during the satellite broadcast was the establishment of call centers. These call centers were set up in individual members' homes within the state of California. Members were to come with their mobile phones, work from coordinated lists, and then make calls. The first pass was to simply poll the people and ascertain where they stood on the issue, and if they were not familiar with it, introduce it to them. There were no "pitch" efforts involved, only education and polling.

Once the polling process was done, the day(s) before the actual election California members gathered together and went through the list of those polled and made calls to remind those considered "yes" or "probably yes" to get out and vote.
The day of the election member began calling in the morning and went to the actual polling locations to check the list of voters. Those who were on the previously compiled list of "yes" and "probably yes" who had not voted were called again. In some areas, callers asked voters who planned to vote "yes" if they knew where their polling place was and in some cases even asked them if they needed a ride to the polls.

These phone banks were not set up to "push" the passage of the proposition, but were instead designed only to be sure
that those who ''favored'' the proposition had every chance and reminder to get out and vote on the day of the election. At no time was there a pressure sale to the voters. When explaining the amendment, members were instructed to state that the proposition was for a constitutional amendment that added the following 14 words to the California constitution "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". If someone asked what that meant, the caller explained that it meant marriage as it has been traditionally defined would be the only form of union recognized as marriage in California, meaning that marriage was only between individuals of the opposite sex.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote and commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter and the satellite broadcast, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded. While prophets may ask people to do some things, the actual “doing” is left to the individual and their agency. It is ''their'' choice to determine whether to do what the prophet asks and how much to actually do. Church leaders are aware that members within the church come from different backgrounds, have different life experiences, and different ideologies. To make an ultimatum on this issue would unnecessarily alienate people.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}


In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were expected to fulfill the request to lend support to their requests. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause," but were also left to decide for themselves how they might support Proposition 8. Support developed in several ways that typically accompany political campaigns. Members support for passage of the proposition included:

*Monetary donations
*Going door-to-door to poll voters
*Phoning voters to remind them to vote
*Sign-waving on street corners
*Hanging voting reminders on doors

There is nothing unusual in the methods that were used to support passage of the amendment. Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities. This network succeeded, as well as it did, because the members were used to working together on projects that involved contacting people and asking for their support for various Church activities. According to David Campbell (professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame), Latter-day Saints "only get mobilized when a match is lit, and that doesn't happen very often." {{ref|sltrib.11-21}} Additionally, they were personally committed to the concept of traditional marriage, and were willing to make a special personal effort to help the proposition pass. This personal commitment was crucial to the outpouring of support for, and eventual passage of Proposition 8.

=The "No on 8" response=
:''"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics...."and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price.''"
:—"Same-Sex Setback," ''Rolling Stone'' (Dec. 11, 2008) 
{{parabreak}}
The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, Proposition 8 was portrayed as ''removing'' marriage rights. The passage of Proposition 8 did not remove already existing rights for same-sex couples, except for the use of the word "marriage" to describe such unions. The same rights, privileges and protections that were in place before the election remained in place after the election. However, religious organizations perceived a very real threat to their rights if Proposition 8 did not pass. The right to be licensed to perform adoptions was in jeopardy in California, as demonstrated by the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. case decided on 1 April 2008 by the California Supreme Court. This decision held that those who are licensed by the State cannot treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. It is easy to see how such a holding will result in LDS Social Services being denied licensing to perform adoptions if it won't perform adoptions for homosexual couples. Thus, religious groups perceived no gain and no loss to same-sex couples from passing Proposition 8, but anticipated a large possible downside to religious organizations and their essential services if it did not pass.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
:''There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
*Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is ''not recorded by the state''. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}} Hansen gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcL9R94MGMk speech at the 2008 Sunstone Symposium] on Proposition 8 prior to the election.

*Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the ''Daily Kos'' linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
:''What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
:''Nope.''
:''This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.''
:''The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.
:—Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg2-2008dec02,0,6411205.column An ugly attack on Mormons], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Dec. 2, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
===The ads===
The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. {{ref|thurston1}} This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. {{ref|ostler1}} Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release])

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

With regard to schools, we see this statement from the "No on 8" side weeks after the election:

:Thankfully there are some great organizations out there to help schools create a safer, more inclusive environment. GLSEN works with school communities to create safe learning environments through policy advocacy and trainings for school administrators, teachers and students. Groundspark, creator of a number of educational films on preventing school bias and celebrating family diversity, will soon premier "Straightlaced," a new film encouraging teens to question their assumptions about gender roles and homophobia. Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere and (in the Bay Area) Our Family Coalition help families and youth navigate the school system and advocate for all families.

:So there's one thing both the proponents and opponents of Prop. 8 were right about -- Prop. 8 had nothing to do with the schools. And it had everything to do with the schools.
:—Isobel White, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isobel-white/prop-8-and-our-schools_b_150720.html Prop. 8 and our schools -- time to tell it like it is.], ''Huffington Post'', (Dec. 12, 2008)

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

===Claims by the "No on 8" campaign===
The following claims were made by "No on 8" supporters regarding the "Yes on 8" campaign: {{ref|edge1}}
*"Unless marriage rights were rescinded, schoolchildren would be forced to learn about gay marriage in the classroom starting as early as kindergarten."
*Proposition 8 supporters "fraudulently indicated to voters that Barack Obama was in favor of Proposition 8."

===Issues incorporated into the "Yes on 8" ads during the campaign===
The following incidents occurred during the course of the campaign and influenced the "Yes on 8" advertising:

*A group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers. The "No on 8" campaign stated that "an outing of second graders to the wedding of their lesbian teacher made headlines and proved to be a ready-made example for the Yes on 8 campaign’s claims." {{ref|edge2}}

*A teacher at the Faith Ringgold School of Arts and Science, a public school that is part of the Hayward Unified School District, "passed out cards produced by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network to her class of kindergartners." The children were asked to sign these cards, which pledged them to "not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) language or slurs; intervene, when I feel I can, in situations where others are using anti-LGBT language or harassing other students and actively support safer schools efforts." {{ref|faith1}} After this incident, the "Yes on 8" campaign produced a new video about the [http://californiacrusader.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/faith-ringgold-school-kindergarten-pledge-card/ Faith Ringgold Kindergarten School Pledge Card].

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for some travel expenses. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side and that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side constituted a higher percentage of the overall "No" funding than out-of-state contributions did for the "Yes" side.

There have been various estimates of monies donated to the "Yes on 8" campaign by LDS Church members, ranging from $14 to $20 million. No firm figures are available because the State of California does not request or record the religion of donors.

Estimates of LDS-related monies also do not include donations the "No on 8" campaign received as a result of LDS Church involvement in the campaign. For instance, Bruce Bastian, a onetime Mormon, has publicly stated that he donated $1 million to the "No on 8" campaign in response to LDS involvement as an effort to "level the financial playing field."{{ref|bast1}}

=The vote=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the 52% to 48% margin (7,001,084 to 6,401,482) by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|Voter demographics}}

*Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
*Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions and myths=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Questions and myths}}

A number of questions have arisen, and some new myths have been propagated, since the passage of the proposition. The following links provide further detail:

*[[/Questions and myths#Questions|Questions]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
** [[/Questions and myths#Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church use its facilities or donation processing system to collect money destined for the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?|Did the Church violate its tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#But what about the companies that the Church owns?|But what about the companies that the Church owns?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?]]
**[[/Questions and myths#How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?]]
*[[/Questions and myths#Myths|Myths]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8|Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian|Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers|The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers]]
**[[/Questions and myths#MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign|The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign]]

=Post-election events=
{{Main|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Post-Election Events}}
[[Image:Ukiah.vandalism.1B.png|right]]
:''In the days after the election, tens of thousands of people, gay and straight, took to the streets of cities and towns throughout the country in spontaneously organized protest. But the mood at these gatherings, by all accounts, was seldom angry; it was cheerful, determined, and hopeful.''
:—Hendrik Hertzberg, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27887428/ (Proposition) Eight is enough], ''The New Yorker'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.''
:—Editorial, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA Legislating Immorality], ''National Review Online'' (Nov. 24, 2008)
{{parabreak}}
:''The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs...This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they've forgotten some lessons.''
:—San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, at a protest in front of the Oakland Temple
{{parabreak}}
:''Members of the Mormon church have experienced significant intolerance ranging from expulsion from Illinois in the dead of winter to an extermination order by the Governor of Missouri. It has seen its members raped and murdered as the result of state sponsored intolerance, acts you seem to condone by implication. Are these the lessons you refer to, and are you proposing to apply those lessons again? Are you suggesting that Mormons need your permission to participate in the political process or to practice our beliefs, and what remedy do you propose for failed compliance?''
:—FAIR's response to Supervisor Dufty, which remains unanswered.
{{parabreak}}
There were a large number of post-election events targeted toward Latter-day Saints, and some targeted towards others. Click on any of the following items to see complete details:

*[[/Post-Election Events#Threats from "No on 8" supporters|Threats from "No on 8" supporters]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Church response|Church response]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Negative reactions|Negative reactions]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Accusations of hatred and bigotry|Accusations of hatred and bigotry]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at LDS places of worship|Protests at LDS places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Protests at other Christian places of worship|Protests at other Christian places of worship]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Harassment|Harassment]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?|Mormons have "forgotten some lessons"?]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Terrorist tactics|Terrorist tactics]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Hacking of Church related web site|Hacking of Church related web site]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Blacklists and boycotts|Blacklists and boycotts]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Intimidation of gays and lesbians|Intimidation of gays and lesbians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Absence of support from political leaders|Absence of support from political leaders]]
*[[/Post-Election Events#Positive effects|Positive effects]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Expressions of support from other Christians|Expressions of support from other Christians]]
**[[/Post-Election Events#Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8|Condemnation of criminal activity by those who opposed Proposition 8]]

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom
#{{note|sltrib.11-21}}Peggy Fletcher Stack, [http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11044660?source=rss Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church], ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 21, 2008)

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|edge1}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)
#{{note|edge2}}Kilian Melloy, [http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83977 ’No on 8’ Heads Justify Their Losing Campaign], ''Edge'' (Nov. 27, 2008)
#{{note|faith1}}Michelle Maskaly , [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html School Clams Up on 'Gay' Pledge Cards Given to Kindergartners], ''Fox News'' (Nov. 1, 2008)
#{{note|bast1}}John Wildermuth, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BAJG144PTB.DTL&type=politics Wealthy gay men backed anti-Prop. 8 effort]," ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 16, 2008).

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB0lZ8XbmJM advanced Conversation - No On Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opx-v_OhFnQ Parents]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7LdC1RxvZg Senator Feinstein: No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools], Jack O. Connell, California Superintendant of Schools
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSCop9BtgdU&feature=related California Clergy Urge You to Vote No on Prop 8]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

[[de:Proposition_8]]

Question: Why did Mormon leaders oppose the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the United States?

2009-04-14T00:24:09Z

Pistas3: /* The Excommunication of Sonia Johnson */

{{draft}}
==Question==

Why did church leaders oppose the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)?

==Answer==

Critics assume that because the Church opposed the proposed "Equal Rights" Amendment, that the Church opposed equal rights for women. In fact, the Church did not oppose equal rights for women, but rather was opposed to other potential consequences of the ERA. Church leaders felt that the ERA would have a negative impact on women's rights and families. Furthermore, the Church felt that the Constitution already prohibited sex discrimination and that an amendment was unnecessary.

===The Church's Stance on Equal Rights===

Church leaders have spoken out against inequality on several occasions and have never condoned abuse or oppression. Men and women are seen as equally important in the plan of salvation, the happiness and fulfillment of both being equal priorities.

The Church felt that equality could be obtained without trying to blur the distinctions between men and women. Leaders and members also felt that women might ''lose'' rights specific to women, for instance, the right to depend on her husband financially and stay at home caring for her children.

===The Excommunication of Sonia Johnson===

Sonia Johnson, a feminist and ERA activist, was excommunicated. Her excommunication came after she gave a speech, titled "Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church."{{ref|sj.1}} She spoke several more times on the topic, always harshly criticizing the Church and its leaders.

Johnson often cites her stance on ERA to be the reason for her [[Excommunication|excommunication]], although there is no evidence that this is actually the case. The reasons for an individual's excommunication are rarely publicly released by the Church. In this particular case, however, Johnson and those close to her claimed that she was excommunicated for apostasy.{{ref|sillitoe.1}} When one considers the scathing and critical tone of her public speeches, it isn't hard to imagine that she would be excommunicated for apostasy. No other individual has ever claimed to have been excommunicated for their stance on the ERA, although a number of other members did publicly disagree with Church leaders on the issue.

Johnson's later remarks in Chapter 5 of her book, ''Going Out Of Our Minds: The Metaphysics Of Liberation'' also make it clear that there were other issues at work, though in keeping with the Church's practice of disciplinary council confidentiality, they were not revealed at the time.

===Conclusion===

The Church opposed the ERA, but not equal rights, as expressed by the campaign slogan, "Equal Rights, Yes. ERA, No!"

==Endnotes==
#{{note|sj.1}} Sonia Johnson, "Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church" speech given at the American Psychological Association Meetings, New York City, 1 September 1979. {{link|url=http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon415.htm}}
#{{note|sillitoe.1}} {{Sunstone1|author=Linda Sillitoe|article=Church Politics and Sonia Johnson: The Central Conundrum|num=19|date=January-February 1980}} {{pdflink|url=https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/019-35-43.pdf}}
#{{note|sj.2}} Sonia Johnson, ''Going Out Of Our Minds: The Metaphysics Of Liberation'' (Crossing Press, 1987), chapter 5.

==Further reading==

==FAIR Wiki Articles==
{{WomenWiki}}

==FAIR Articles==
*{{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai138.html|topic=Gender & Women's Issues}}

===External links===

* {{Ensign1|author=Anonymous|article=The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue|date=March 1980|start=insert: 1}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f8a4615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
* {{Ensign1|author=Boyd K. Packer|article=The Equal Rights Amendment|date=March 1977|start=6}} {{link|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d13b1f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}

Non-existent quotes/Haight: assistance of the moon

2009-01-19T00:53:30Z

Pistas3: /* The talk */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Elder David B. Haight "reinvoked the astrological principle that people should 'do nothing without the assistance of the moon'" in a talk that he gave during General Conference in 1998.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=352, n155}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=521 (HB) 519n58 (PB)}}
*{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages= 291}}

==Response==
===Was an embarrassing phrase removed from Elder Haight's talk?===
''Becoming Gods'' makes this claim on page 352, endnote 155:
<blockquote>
LDS Apostle David B. Haight "reinvoked the astrological principle that people should 'do nothing without the assistance of the moon'" (Quinn, ''Early Mormonism'', p. 291). Haight's remark "do nothing without the assistance of the moon" was made during his lecture at the 168th Annual General Conference. But when the transcribed text of the speech was made available online through the LDS Church's official Internet site, '''the phrase had been deleted.'''" {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Conference talks are routinely edited before they are printed. General Authorities may make off-the-cuff remarks or inject other comments that may not make it into the final printed version. But this accusation is different: the author of this book is asserting that there was something removed in order to hide it, despite the fact that the phrase would have been heard by the entire conference, and the video of the talk recorded. These recordings are easily accessible in many LDS meeting house libraries, so it is a relatively simple task to check the validity of this claim.

Was there a cover-up directed at removing an embarrassing "magic related" remark made by Elder Haight ''in front of the entire Church'' during a General Conference? Note that in the criticism that the suspicious phrase "do nothing without the assistance of the moon" is actually singled out twice. To resolve this claim, we will examine the published text of Elder Haight's talk and compare it of a transcript that was made from a video recording of the same talk.

===The talk===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="33%"|Transcription of live talk [April 1998 General Conference] from home recorded video in Rancho Cucamonga , CA Chaffey Ward church library.
!width="33%"|Talk as printed in the Ensign: David B. Haight, “Live the Commandments,” Ensign, May 1998, p 6.
!width="34%"|Comments
|-
|
And as we left that little meeting that evening and left that little farmhouse, there was a full moon shining down through the trees. And I said to Ruby,
||
As we left our meeting that evening and left that little farmhouse, there was a full moon shining down through the trees. I said to Ruby,
||
*Some minor grammar cleanup to remove the repetition of the phrase "that little."
|-
|
“I can imagine that on the night of April 6, 1830, after that small group had assembled, the Church had been organized, the six members had signed the necessary papers to see that it was recognized under the laws of the state of New York.
||
“I can imagine the night of April 6, 1830, after that small group had assembled, the Church had been organized, and six men agreeable to its organization were present to be in harmony with the laws of the state of New York;
||
*The phrase "agreeable to its organization" was added.
*The spoken phrase "recognized under the laws" was reworded to read "in harmony with the laws."
|-
|
And of the occasion was said what was prophesied, the future of the church, the testimony that would have been born. I said I would imagine that the night of April the 6th, 1830, the moon was shining showing that our Savior smiled upon that occasion and upon that setting.
||
I can imagine what was said, what was prophesied about the future of the Church, and the testimonies that would have been borne.” Then I said, “I would imagine that on the night of April the 6th, 1830, there was a full moon shining, showing that our Savior was smiling upon that occasion and upon that setting.”
||
*Grammar modifications.
|-
|
And later I said that to the little group and Brother Chamberlin who then was the director of the Hansen Planetarium in Salt Lake heard me say that. And he was thoughtful enough to get in touch with our, with our observatory, naval observatory, to find out what might have happened on April the 6th, 1830.
||
Later I expressed that idea to a group where Brother Chamberlain, who then was the director of the Hansen Planetarium in Salt Lake, heard me say it. He was thoughtful enough to get in touch with the naval observatory to find out what might have happened on April the 6th, 1830.
||
*Grammar cleanup
|-
|
They didn’t have records back that far and so he was thoughtful enough to contact in England the Naval Observatory and the records that might have been available over there and he later sent me some document-- documentar-- documentary indicating what was happening in the horizon in that week of April the 6th, 1830 and indicating on there that there was evidence that there was a full moon those days before and after and during April the 6th, 1830, which I have now as a prized possession that there was a full moon. The glories of the Lord had been poured out upon the occasion.
||
They didn’t have records back that far, so he was thoughtful enough to contact the Royal Observatory at Greenwich in England for records that might have been available over there. He later sent me some documents indicating what was happening in the horizon that week of April the 6th, 1830, indicating that there was a full or beautifully beaming moon those days before and after April the 6th. The glories of the Lord had been poured out upon the occasion.
||
*Grammar again.
|}

==Conclusion==
There is no question that grammar and phrasing of the talk was edited. The question is: where is the phrase "do nothing without the assistance of the moon" that the author highlighted ''twice'' before claiming that it had been removed from the printed version of the talk? There is no other portion of this talk which makes any reference to the moon.

The bottom line: this is a false claim and a false accusation.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{LyingWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{LyingFAIR}}

===External links===
{{LyingLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{LyingPrint}}

Non-existent quotes/Haight: assistance of the moon

2009-01-19T00:51:58Z

Pistas3: /* Conclusion */

{{draft}}

==Criticism==
*Critics claim that Elder David B. Haight "reinvoked the astrological principle that people should 'do nothing without the assistance of the moon'" in a talk that he gave during General Conference in 1998.

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=352, n155}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=521 (HB) 519n58 (PB)}}
*{{CriticalWork:Quinn:Magic World View|pages= 291}}

==Response==
===Was an embarrassing phrase removed from Elder Haight's talk?===
''Becoming Gods'' makes this claim on page 352, endnote 155:
<blockquote>
LDS Apostle David B. Haight "reinvoked the astrological principle that people should 'do nothing without the assistance of the moon'" (Quinn, ''Early Mormonism'', p. 291). Haight's remark "do nothing without the assistance of the moon" was made during his lecture at the 168th Annual General Conference. But when the transcribed text of the speech was made available online through the LDS Church's official Internet site, '''the phrase had been deleted.'''" {{ea}}
</blockquote>

Conference talks are routinely edited before they are printed. General Authorities may make off-the-cuff remarks or inject other comments that may not make it into the final printed version. But this accusation is different: the author of this book is asserting that there was something removed in order to hide it, despite the fact that the phrase would have been heard by the entire conference, and the video of the talk recorded. These recordings are easily accessible in many LDS meeting house libraries, so it is a relatively simple task to check the validity of this claim.

Was there a cover-up directed at removing an embarrassing "magic related" remark made by Elder Haight ''in front of the entire Church'' during a General Conference? Note that in the criticism that the suspicious phrase "do nothing without the assistance of the moon" is actually singled out twice. To resolve this claim, we will examine the published text of Elder Haight's talk and compare it of a transcript that was made from a video recording of the same talk.

===The talk===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="33%"|Transcription of live talk [April 1998 General Conference] from home recorded video in Rancho Cucamonga , CA Chaffey Ward church library.
!width="33%"|Talk as printed in the Ensign: David B. Haight, “Live the Commandments,” Ensign, May 1998, 6
!width="34%"|Comments
|-
|
And as we left that little meeting that evening and left that little farmhouse, there was a full moon shining down through the trees. And I said to Ruby,
||
As we left our meeting that evening and left that little farmhouse, there was a full moon shining down through the trees. I said to Ruby,
||
*Some minor grammar cleanup to remove the repetition of the phrase "that little."
|-
|
“I can imagine that on the night of April 6, 1830, after that small group had assembled, the Church had been organized, the six members had signed the necessary papers to see that it was recognized under the laws of the state of New York.
||
“I can imagine the night of April 6, 1830, after that small group had assembled, the Church had been organized, and six men agreeable to its organization were present to be in harmony with the laws of the state of New York;
||
*The phrase "agreeable to its organization" was added.
*The spoken phrase "recognized under the laws" was reworded to read "in harmony with the laws."
|-
|
And of the occasion was said what was prophesied, the future of the church, the testimony that would have been born. I said I would imagine that the night of April the 6th, 1830, the moon was shining showing that our Savior smiled upon that occasion and upon that setting.
||
I can imagine what was said, what was prophesied about the future of the Church, and the testimonies that would have been borne.” Then I said, “I would imagine that on the night of April the 6th, 1830, there was a full moon shining, showing that our Savior was smiling upon that occasion and upon that setting.”
||
*Grammar modifications.
|-
|
And later I said that to the little group and Brother Chamberlin who then was the director of the Hansen Planetarium in Salt Lake heard me say that. And he was thoughtful enough to get in touch with our, with our observatory, naval observatory, to find out what might have happened on April the 6th, 1830.
||
Later I expressed that idea to a group where Brother Chamberlain, who then was the director of the Hansen Planetarium in Salt Lake, heard me say it. He was thoughtful enough to get in touch with the naval observatory to find out what might have happened on April the 6th, 1830.
||
*Grammar cleanup
|-
|
They didn’t have records back that far and so he was thoughtful enough to contact in England the Naval Observatory and the records that might have been available over there and he later sent me some document-- documentar-- documentary indicating what was happening in the horizon in that week of April the 6th, 1830 and indicating on there that there was evidence that there was a full moon those days before and after and during April the 6th, 1830, which I have now as a prized possession that there was a full moon. The glories of the Lord had been poured out upon the occasion.
||
They didn’t have records back that far, so he was thoughtful enough to contact the Royal Observatory at Greenwich in England for records that might have been available over there. He later sent me some documents indicating what was happening in the horizon that week of April the 6th, 1830, indicating that there was a full or beautifully beaming moon those days before and after April the 6th. The glories of the Lord had been poured out upon the occasion.
||
*Grammar again.
|}

==Conclusion==
There is no question that grammar and phrasing of the talk was edited. The question is: where is the phrase "do nothing without the assistance of the moon" that the author highlighted ''twice'' before claiming that it had been removed from the printed version of the talk? There is no other portion of this talk which makes any reference to the moon.

The bottom line: this is a false claim and a false accusation.

==Endnotes==

''None''



==Further reading==
===FAIR wiki articles===
{{LyingWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{LyingFAIR}}

===External links===
{{LyingLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{LyingPrint}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Cognitive dissonance

2009-01-19T00:47:21Z

Pistas3: /* Criticism */

==Criticism==
Many critics of the Church are fond of portraying all members as either naive, ill-informed dupes or cynical exploiters. Fortunately, most fair-minded people realize that—just as in any religion—there are many intelligent, well-informed people who become or remain members of the Church. To get around this, some critics appeal to the psychological concept of 'cognitive dissonance' to try to 'explain away' the spiritual witness of intelligent, articulate members.

===Source(s) of the Criticism===
* Bob McCue, “Notes for Van Hale’s Radio Show”; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
*Bob McCue, “Van Hale’s ‘Mormon Miscellaneous’ Radio Talk Show,” Version 3, 20 Sept 2004.

==Response==

===What is cognitive dissonance?===
Cognitive dissonance theory was first described in the mid 1950s by Leon Festinger.

Cognitive dissonance explains behavior by pointing out that all people have various beliefs, thoughts, or ideas, called "cognitions." From time to time, these cognitions will come into conflict—for example, someone might believe that their child is honest and law-abiding. However, they might learn one day that their child has been charged with shoplifting. There are now two cognitions in tension:
*cognition #1: "my child is honest"
*cognition #2: "my child has been arrested for shoplifting"

These cognitions create conflict, or "dissonance" because they create internal conflict—it is not readily apparent how both cognitions can be 'true'. This realization is a psychologically unpleasant experience, and according to the theory, people seek to minimize or resolve dissonance. This can be done in a number of ways:
;the former cognition can be rejected:"I guess my child isn't as honest as I thought he was."
;the new cognition can be rejected:"My child wouldn't take something without paying. There must be a mistake." ''or'' "It's a lie! He was framed!"
;a new cognition can eventually be formed which reconciles the two conflicting cognitions:"My child put something in his shopping cart, and forgot to pay for it on leaving the store. Thus, he was not trying to be dishonest, but it is understandable why he was arrested. It was a misunderstanding."

The important point is that ''all'' people experience cognitive dissonance whenever they encounter something that does not match what they have thought or believed previously. People may choose appropriate means of reconciling their dissonance (e.g. accepting new truths, adopting new perspectives, rejecting or modifying previous beliefs) or less appropriate ones (e.g. denying new truths, clinging to false ideas).

The presence of cognitive dissonance alone says nothing about the quality or truth of someone's beliefs. For example, in the third case, the child might ''really'' have forgotten to pay for the article, or the parent might have seized on a rather threadbare excuse (not bothering to ask, "How did you ''forget'' the radio was hidden under your jacket?") and accepted it uncritically, because rejecting the first cognition—my child is honest—is too painful. The presence, or resolution, of dissonance proves nothing about the facts.

===How do the critics misuse it?===

Michael Shermer, an agnostic and writer for ''Skeptic'' magazine, specifically dismissed the idea that "cognitive dissonance" could serve as a tool to explain away the convictions of religious believers as a group:

:It would be a long stretch to classify [millions of white, middle class American Christians] as oppressed, disenfranchised, or marginalized…[millions of apocalyptically-inclined] Americans are anything but in a state of learned helplessness or cognitive dissonance. Indeed, some recent polls and studies indicate that religious people, on average, may be both physically and psychologically happier and healthier than non-believers.{{ref|shermer1}}

This is not to say that Shermer would deny that ''some'' believers might be the victims of cognitive dissonance. However, an attempt to use cognitive dissonance to explain an entire group of believers is too unscientific a stance for Shermer to embrace.

Critics like to pretend that their use of 'cognitive dissonance' is very scientific, and objective. However, they usually ignore one of the most important principles of a scientific explanation: falsifiability.

:The criterion of falsifiability...says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.{{ref|popper1}}

The hallmark of pseudoscience is its inability to be falsified. That is why neither religion or any other philosophical system can ever be called science, or tested by science. “God made it all out of nothing in seven days, and faked the evidence,” says the young earth creationist. “Any Mormon who doesn’t interpret the evidence as I do must be suffering cognitive dissonance,” says the anti-Mormon.

How could a faithful Mormon's behavior or attitude toward the evidence prove that he or she is not subject to the critics' "cognitive dissonance"?

There is nothing which the critic could not shoe-horn into his theory—cognitive dissonance is thus little but a handy club to beat anyone who does not share his interpretation. “Of course you see it differently,“ the critic can kindly, but oh-so-condescendingly assure his Mormon friend. “You’re still in the grip of cognitive dissonance.”

The anti-Mormon (ab)use of the theory is especially vulnerable to the charge of being unfalsifiable, but a lack of falsifiability has long been the chief criticism of cognitive dissonance theory generally:

:One continuous criticism of Dr. Festinger's theory is that is may not be falsifiable. That is, there is no solid empirical data that proves without a doubt that people will react in a specific manner in a given situation or when dealing with dissonance.{{ref|web1}}

Dissonance is easier to point to when a group of people is exposed to the same situation and choices under controlled conditions. Trying to tease out why a given individual holds to or rejects specific religious or philosophical positions is a much taller order. There are no controls on the critics' rampant speculation, since they often wave the idea of "cognitive dissonance" about without having studied a particular believer under controlled conditions (or even without having spoken with the person they are 'diagnosing').

===Is turnabout fair play?===

This is not to say that cognitive dissonance cannot play a role in religious belief. It plays a potential roles in beliefs of ''all sorts''—the religious as well as the a-religious.

It might play a role in some Mormons' refusal to accept an uncomfortable truth. It could also play a role in the critics' experiences, in which their expectations and beliefs did not meet their perceptions of reality. Each critic is the only one able to make that assessment.

But, lacking access to others’ reasoning and spiritual experiences, a critic cannot objectively judge the influence (if any) of cognitive dissonance in others’ decisions. He can worry about the dissonant [http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/7/3#5 beams] in his own eye; others’ [http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/6/41#42 motes] are out of the reach of his self-justifying inquiry.

Many critics seem unwilling to recognize that men and women of good will and sound intelligence might honestly disagree on the interpretation of evidence, even if considered with all the objectivity they can muster. This is, for example, why some people will buy stock at a price at which other people are eager to sell. (But perhaps the entire economy is merely an exercise in cognitive dissonance?)

LDS critics often have a naïve, super-simplified view of the historian’s work whereby anyone who disbelieves a religious account is somehow automatically more free from bias than a believer. Such a stance ignores the fact that unbelievers may feel at least as great a stake in disproving uncomfortable and uncompromising religious claims as believers might in supporting them. It is therefore no surprise that critics label interpretations with which they do not agree as examples of “cognitive dissonance” in action, while the critics' positions are portrayed as merely the product of dispassionate analysis.

One critic fond of this 'theory' tells us:

:The most important part of this analysis, by far, is to recognize that the forces we are about to discuss [cognitive dissonance] operate mostly at the subconscious level. To the extent we drag them into the conscious realm, they largely stop operating.{{ref|mccue1}}

“Subconscious” forces which are used to explain behavior, especially by the outside observer, are a classic unfalsifiable hypothesis. How can we know that a “cause” which has been supposedly dragged from subconscious to awareness is the genuine article?

Why isn’t our “discovered” reason simply a rationalization, which is driven in turn by an even deeper “subconscious force” and so on down forever? Since a person is—by definition—unaware of unconscious processes, how can the critic know with any confidence that the "forces we are about to discuss" look anything like the unconscious ones?

How can you say that A and B are the same thing if no one can get a certain look at A?

If this is difficult in oneself, how much harder is it in another person, to whose mind and experience the outsider has no direct access? Despite these major hurdles, the critics seems to presume that they can reliably determine what others’ unconscious processes are and “drag them into the conscious realm.” Freud would have been envious.

The critic then makes the equally strange assertion that these effects “largely stop operating” if we are but aware of them. Even if the critic, by the greatest fortune, has indeed identified a proper “subconscious force”—something of which he can never be sure—this belief is extraordinarily optimistic. Anyone who has spent any time in counseling or mental health work knows that awareness of a problem rarely provides a direct line to altered thinking or behavior. If it did, therapy would be just a dump of information to the patient.

The critic goes on:

:The message that booms through the above evidence to me is that the denial inducing nature of cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to self-diagnose.{{ref|mccue2}}

Unfortunately for the critic, if we assume that this is true, then ''critics'' are equally vulnerable to the same treatment. The Mormon could just as easily respond that an anti-Mormon's perspective is all due to cognitive dissonance. He just doesn't know it, because such a condition is "difficult to self-diagnose."

This illustrates that whatever else might be said about the flaws in this misuse of cognitive dissonance theory—the lynch-pin (“most important part…by far”) of which is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim about subconscious motives—it is not rational and not scientific.

But, appeals to "cognitive dissonance" allow the critic to fit the evidence to his biases, and “diagnose” flaws in others. No matter how much his Mormon target might insist that the critic does not understand the Mormon's point of view or evaluation of the evidence, this just serves as stronger evidence to the critic of how deluded the Mormon is. Cognitive dissonance in the critics' hands is nothing but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy self-fulfilling prophecy], or a variation of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect observer-expectancy effect]. It is full of [[Cognitive_dissonance#Further reading | fallacies]], a substitute for rational discussion of the evidence and the witness of the Spirit.

==Conclusion==
"Cognitive dissonance theory," when applied in the critics' idiosyncratic way to explain away the witness and convictions of others, is hardly scientific. The critics' efforts fail on many grounds:

* the critic is generally the one who decides what sorts of evidence or beliefs are "rational," and which are "false" or "irrational." But, in doing so, the dice are loaded against their target from the start, since epistomologic assumptions control the outcome.
* the critic can explain and dismiss any attitude, any belief, or any conviction
* the critic relies on claims about hidden, unverifiable, “subconscious” motivations as explanations
* the critic arrogantly assumes that the ''interpreter'' knows more about the person and his/her experiences than the person him/herself, even if the subject disagrees with the analysis

And, any argument which the critic uses against a member can be used in just as strong a form against the critic in turn, since whoever establishes the ground rules for what is rational or "true" controls the outcome of the analysis.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|shermer1}}Michael Shermer, ''How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science'' (New York: WH Freeman and Company, 1999),211–212.
#{{note|popper1}}Karl Popper, ''Conjectures and Refutations'' (London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963), 33.
#{{note|web1}}M. Bruce Abbot, “Cognitive Dissonance Theory,” class notes for ADV382J, University of Texas at Austin, September 2003 (accessed 31 October 2005). {{link|url=http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_03/adv382J/mbabbott/critique2.htm}}
#{{note|mccue1}}Bob McCue, “Notes for Van Hale’s Radio Show”; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
#{{note|mccue2}}Bob McCue, “Notes for Van Hale’s Radio Show”; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{FallacyBegin}}
*[[Logical_fallacies#Ad_hominem | Ad hominem]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_ridicule | Appeal to ridicule]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Begging_the_question | Begging the question]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#False_premise | False premise]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Faulty_generalization | Faulty generalization]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Judgemental_language | Judgemental language]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Negative_proof | Negative proof]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Poisoning_the_well | Poisoning the well]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Red_herring| Red herring]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof | Shifting the burden of proof]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Special_pleading | Special pleading]]
*[[Logical_fallacies#Wrong_direction | Wrong direction fallacy]]
{{FallacyEnd}}
{{LyingWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
*{{FR-17-2-11}}
* Blake T. Ostler, "Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment," (2007 FAIR Conference Presentation). {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2007_Spiritual_Experiences.html}}{{NB}}
*Wendy Ulrich, "'Believest thou...?': Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience," {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2005UlrW.html}}{{NB}}

===Video===
{{Video:Ulrich:2005:Cognitive Dissonance}}

===External links===
* Cognitive dissonance - multiple links {{link|url=http://www.intractableconflict.org/m/cognitive_dissonance.jsp}}
* Critique of Cognitive Dissonance Theory {{link|url=http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_03/adv382J/mbabbott/critique.htm}}
* Clark Goble, "Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias," Mormon Metaphysics blog post, (20 July 2007), ''libertypages.com''. {{link|url=http://www.libertypages.com/clark/11001.html}}
*{{FR-18-1-11}}
* Daniel C. Peterson and William J. Hamblin, "Is Spirituality All in Your Head?," ''MeridianMagazine.com'' {{link|url=http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/040216neurotheology.html}}
* {{FR-12-1-20}}

===Printed material===
*Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, ''When Prophecy Fails: a Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World'', (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1956).
*Leon Festinger, ''A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance'' (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957). ISBN 0804701318

Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married/Was Jesus a polygamist

2009-01-04T22:59:00Z

Pistas3: /* Answer */

{{JesusChristPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==
Do Mormons believe Jesus Christ was a polygamist?

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=239, n. 80-83}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=288, 576n42-43 (PB)}}

==Answer==

The easy answer is that no, Mormon doctrine does not teach that Jesus was married, polygamist or otherwise. In fact, there is no official Church doctrine on this issue. Members are free to believe as they wish concerning this matter.

Since members in the nineteenth century were commanded to practice polygamy, many presumed that Jesus would have had to also practice this law.

===Early LDS views===

====Jedediah M. Grant====
{{main|Journal of Discourses}}

Jedediah M. Grant said:

:...This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:—.Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

:The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."

:But if you pass on in their history to seek for uniformity and beauty, you will find some grand flare-ups among them. Look, for instance, at Paul and Peter, disputing and quarrelling with each other....{{ref|grant.1}}

Grant is not making up this claim out of the void—he is noting that early writers, hostile to the Christians, charged members and even Jesus, with polygamy (a charge which would have offended sophisticated Roman opinion in the day). Grant sees the obvious parallels with how the Saints have been treated over the same issue, but Jesus' marital state is not his main point, but conflict and persecution.

====Orson Hyde====
{{main|Journal of Discourses}}

Likewise, Orson Hyde remarked:

:I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

:All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."{{ref|hyde.1}}

Hyde is again not focused on Jesus' matrimonial state, and notes that being married and begetting children—polygamously or otherwise—is no evil, but is in accordance with God's commandments from time to time. We remark too that Hyde indicates his uncertainty: "''if'' Jesus begat children," he is only following the pattern of God the Father, who also had a Son.

{{main|Jesus Christ's conception}}

====Orson Pratt: ''The Seer''====

{{main|The_Seer}}

In his defense of plural marriage, Orson Pratt wrote:

:From the passage in the forty-fifth Psalm, it will be seen that the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion, was a Polygamist, as well as the Patriarch Jacob and the prophet David from whom He descended according to the flesh. Paul says concerning Jesus, "Verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (Heb. 2: 16.) Abraham the Polygamist, being a friend of God, the Messiah chose to take upon himself his seed; and by marrying many honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that he approbated the plurality of Wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensations in which His Polygamist ancestors lived.

: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. (See Psalm 45: 16.)

:Jesus says there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." (Luke 13: 28.) There are many in this generation so pious that they would consider themselves greatly disgraced to be obliged to associate with a man having a plurality of wives; would it not be well for such to desire a place separate from the kingdom of God, that they may not be contaminated with the society of these old Polygamists? And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives, all eating occasionally at the same table, and visiting one another, and conversing about their numerous children and their kingdoms. Oh, ye delicate ladies of Christendom, how can you endure such a scene as this? Oh, what will you do, when you behold on the very gates of the holy Jerusalem the names of the Twelve sons of the four wives of the Polygamist Jacob? If you do not want your morals corrupted, and your delicate ears shocked, and your pious modesty put to the blush by the society of polygamists and their wives, do not venture near the holy Jerusalem, nor come near the New Earth; for Polygamists will be honored there, and will be among the chief rulers in that Kingdom.{{ref|pratt.1}}

Pratt likewise argues that Old Testament figures were polygamists, and that Christ and the Father were likewise. This section is preceded by several paragraphs in which Pratt argues that the parables of Christ being "married" to the Church, and that references to him as the "bridegroom" ought to be seen literally. Most modern members—like, doubtless, much of Pratt's nineteenth century audience—would find this line of argument strained and unpersuasive.

Some elements of Pratt's publication were disavowed by the First Presidency of the day (see: [[The_Seer|here]]). While ''The Seer'' contains much of value, and may well reflect how many nineteeth-century saints saw these matters, it cannot be considered an authoritative exposition of LDS doctrine. Pratt's speculations and arguments are certainly not binding on Church members.

{{NoOfficial}}

==Conclusion==
The Bible is silent on the issue of Jesus' marital state, and there has been no modern revelation stating he was or was not married. This leaves the issue an open question. Jesus' purported polygamy plays no role in present-day LDS discourse.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|grant.1}} {{JoD1_1|start=346|author=Jedediah M. Grant|title=UNIFORMITY|date= 7 August 1853}} {{link|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_1/Uniformity}}
#{{note|hyde.1}}{{JoD2_1|start=210|author=Orson Hyde|title=THE JUDGEMENTS OF GOD ON THE UNITED STATES—THE SAINTS AND THE WORLD|date=18 March 1855}} {{link|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_2/The_Judgements_of_God_on_the_United_States}}
#{{note|pratt.1}} Orson Pratt, "Celestial Marriage," ''The Seer'' 1/11 (November 1853): 172.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{JesusWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{JesusFAIR}}

===External links===
{{JesusLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{JesusPrint}}

Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married/Was Jesus a polygamist

2009-01-04T22:50:21Z

Pistas3: /* Conclusion */

{{JesusChristPortal}}
{{question}}

==Question==
Do Mormons believe Jesus Christ was a polygamist?

===Source(s) of criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=239, n. 80-83}}
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:One Nation|pages=288, 576n42-43 (PB)}}

==Answer==

The easy answer is that no, Mormons don't officially believe that Jesus was married in any sense, polygamist or otherwise. In fact, there is no official Church doctrine on this issue. Individual members are free to believe as they wish concerning this matter.

Since members in the nineteenth century were commanded to practice polygamy, many presumed that Jesus would have had to also practice this law.

===Early LDS views===

====Jedediah M. Grant====
{{main|Journal of Discourses}}

Jedediah M. Grant said:

:...This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:—.Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

:The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."

:But if you pass on in their history to seek for uniformity and beauty, you will find some grand flare-ups among them. Look, for instance, at Paul and Peter, disputing and quarrelling with each other....{{ref|grant.1}}

Grant is not making up this claim out of the void—he is noting that early writers, hostile to the Christians, charged members and even Jesus, with polygamy (a charge which would have offended sophisticated Roman opinion in the day). Grant sees the obvious parallels with how the Saints have been treated over the same issue, but Jesus' marital state is not his main point, but conflict and persecution.

====Orson Hyde====
{{main|Journal of Discourses}}

Likewise, Orson Hyde remarked:

:I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

:All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father do."{{ref|hyde.1}}

Hyde is again not focused on Jesus' matrimonial state, and notes that being married and begetting children—polygamously or otherwise—is no evil, but is in accordance with God's commandments from time to time. We remark too that Hyde indicates his uncertainty: "''if'' Jesus begat children," he is only following the pattern of God the Father, who also had a Son.

{{main|Jesus Christ's conception}}

====Orson Pratt: ''The Seer''====

{{main|The_Seer}}

In his defense of plural marriage, Orson Pratt wrote:

:From the passage in the forty-fifth Psalm, it will be seen that the great Messiah who was the founder of the Christian religion, was a Polygamist, as well as the Patriarch Jacob and the prophet David from whom He descended according to the flesh. Paul says concerning Jesus, "Verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (Heb. 2: 16.) Abraham the Polygamist, being a friend of God, the Messiah chose to take upon himself his seed; and by marrying many honorable wives himself, show to all future generations that he approbated the plurality of Wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensations in which His Polygamist ancestors lived.

: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. (See Psalm 45: 16.)

:Jesus says there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." (Luke 13: 28.) There are many in this generation so pious that they would consider themselves greatly disgraced to be obliged to associate with a man having a plurality of wives; would it not be well for such to desire a place separate from the kingdom of God, that they may not be contaminated with the society of these old Polygamists? And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives, all eating occasionally at the same table, and visiting one another, and conversing about their numerous children and their kingdoms. Oh, ye delicate ladies of Christendom, how can you endure such a scene as this? Oh, what will you do, when you behold on the very gates of the holy Jerusalem the names of the Twelve sons of the four wives of the Polygamist Jacob? If you do not want your morals corrupted, and your delicate ears shocked, and your pious modesty put to the blush by the society of polygamists and their wives, do not venture near the holy Jerusalem, nor come near the New Earth; for Polygamists will be honored there, and will be among the chief rulers in that Kingdom.{{ref|pratt.1}}

Pratt likewise argues that Old Testament figures were polygamists, and that Christ and the Father were likewise. This section is preceded by several paragraphs in which Pratt argues that the parables of Christ being "married" to the Church, and that references to him as the "bridegroom" ought to be seen literally. Most modern members—like, doubtless, much of Pratt's nineteenth century audience—would find this line of argument strained and unpersuasive.

Some elements of Pratt's publication were disavowed by the First Presidency of the day (see: [[The_Seer|here]]). While ''The Seer'' contains much of value, and may well reflect how many nineteeth-century saints saw these matters, it cannot be considered an authoritative exposition of LDS doctrine. Pratt's speculations and arguments are certainly not binding on Church members.

{{NoOfficial}}

==Conclusion==
The Bible is silent on the issue of Jesus' marital state, and there has been no modern revelation stating he was or was not married. This leaves the issue an open question. Jesus' purported polygamy plays no role in present-day LDS discourse.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|grant.1}} {{JoD1_1|start=346|author=Jedediah M. Grant|title=UNIFORMITY|date= 7 August 1853}} {{link|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_1/Uniformity}}
#{{note|hyde.1}}{{JoD2_1|start=210|author=Orson Hyde|title=THE JUDGEMENTS OF GOD ON THE UNITED STATES—THE SAINTS AND THE WORLD|date=18 March 1855}} {{link|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_2/The_Judgements_of_God_on_the_United_States}}
#{{note|pratt.1}} Orson Pratt, "Celestial Marriage," ''The Seer'' 1/11 (November 1853): 172.

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{JesusWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{JesusFAIR}}

===External links===
{{JesusLinks}}

===Printed material===
{{JesusPrint}}

The Lamanite curse

2008-12-28T03:14:37Z

Pistas3: /* Conclusion */

{{DNAPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that the Church believed that Lamanites who accepted the Gospel would become light-skinned.
*"Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."
*God cursed the Lamanites with a "red skin."

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=73, 367 n.138}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=43}}
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=40, 184}}

==Response==
===The curse and the mark===
The change in skin color that the Lord applied to the Lamanites is often described as a curse. As critic Fawn Brodie described it in her book [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith|''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'']]: “God cursed the Lamanites with a ‘red skin’.” It should be noted that nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it state that the Lamanites’ skin was turned red—this is an obvious allusion by Brodie to Native Americans.

The Bible does indeed use the word ''curse'' to describe a punishment to be inflicted as the result of disobedience to God’s commandments. For example, in Deuteronomy we see:

: The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. {{s||Dueteronomy|28|20}}

John A. Tvedtnes notes the distinction between the ''curse'' and the ''mark'' that the Lord set upon the Lamanites. {{ref|tvedtnes.1}}

: Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites ''have I cursed'', and I ''will set a mark on them'' that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. {{s||Alma|3|14}} {{ea}}

Referring to the passage above, Tvedtnes notes the distinction between the Lamanites having been cursed ''and'' having the mark set upon them. The Book of Mormon, however, sometimes does call the mark a curse, as shown in Alma 3:6-7.

:And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the ''mark which was set upon their fathers'', which was a ''curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion'' against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, ''therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them'', yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. {{s||Alma|3|6-7}} {{ea}}

Although this passage refers to the mark as the curse, it later makes a distinction between the curse and the mark. These passages also indicate that the curse was applied prior to the mark. {{ref|tvedtnes.2}}

===What is the curse?===
Tvedtnes suggests that curse applied to the Lamanites was that they were cut off from the presence of the Lord. Nephi states:

: Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. {{s|2|Nephi|5|20}}

A group of Nephites who joined the Lamanites illustrates. Their skin color was not changed because of their rejection of the Gospel but the curse was applied to them. Hugh Nibley describes the situation of the Amlicites:

:Thus we are told ({{s||Alma|3|13-14}},{{s||Alma|2|18}}) that while the fallen people "set the mark upon themselves," it was none the less God who was marking them: "I will set a mark upon them," etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" ({{s||Alma|3|18}}). ''Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually place upon themselves.'' The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by "whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites" ({{s||Alma|3|10}});{{ref|nibley1}} {{ea}}

===Is the lifting of the curse associated with a change in skin color?===

The Lamanites are promised that if they return to Christ, that "the scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes:"

:And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers.
:And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.{{s|2|Nephi|30|5-6}}

Some Church leaders, most notably Spencer W. Kimball, made statements indicating that they believed that the Indians were becoming "white and delightsome." Once such statement made by Elder Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference, 15 years before he became president of the Church:

:I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.{{ref|era.1960}}

President Kimball felt that the Indians were becoming a “white and delightsome” people through the power of God as a result their acceptance of the Gospel. This was not an uncommon belief at the time. At the time that this statement was made by Elder Kimball, the Book of Mormon did indeed say "white and delightsome." This passage is often quoted relative to the lifting of the curse since the phrase [[Book of Mormon textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"|"white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome"]] in the 1840 (and again in the 1981) editions of the Book of Mormon. The edit made by Joseph Smith in 1840 in which this phrase was changed to "pure and delightsome" had been omitted from subsequent editions, which were actually based upon the 1837 edition rather than the 1840 edition. The modification was not restored again until the 1981 edition with the following explanation:

:''Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.''

It seems evident from the passage in 2 Nephi that the lifting of the curse of the Lamanites was the removal of the "scales of darkness" for their eyes. It is sometimes indicated that Lamanites who had converted to the Gospel and thus had the curse lifted also had the mark removed.

:And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year. {{s|3|Nephi|2|15-16}}

As with the invocation of the curse followed by the application of the mark, this passage indicates that the curse was revoked ''and'' the mark was removed when the Lamanites' skin "became white like unto the Nephites." This may not have necessarily been the case in all instances. For example, the 2000 "stripling warriors" of Helaman were Lamanites who had accepted the Gospel. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of any change in skin color as the result of this conversion, yet these Lamanites and their parents had committed themselves to the Lord, and were often more righteous than than the Nephites were. Although a change in skin color is sometimes mentioned in conjuction with the lifting of the curse, it does not appear to always have been the case.

===Chapter headings modified in the 2006 Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon===
Chapter headings in the Book of Mormon are not part of the translated text and were never present in the 1830 edition. The most significant expansion of chapter headings occurred in the 1981 edition of all of the Standard Works. Changes made in the chapter headings of the 2006 Doubleday edition reflect the view of the curse being a separation from the presence of the Lord, rather than a "skin of blackness." Note the following two changes to the chapter headings between the 1981 and 2006 (Doubleday) editions {{ea}}:{{ref|blog1}}

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="10%"|Chapter
!width="45%"|Chapter 1981 (Official LDS Church Edition)
!width="45%"|2006 (Doubleday Edition)
|-
|2 Nephi 5||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are '''cursed, receive a skin of blackness''', and become a scourge unto the Nephites.||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are '''cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed''', and become a scourge unto the Nephites.
|-
|Mormon 5||The Lamanites '''shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people'''||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites '''will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them'''
|}

==Conclusion==
Although the curse of the Lamanities is often associated directly with their skin color, it seems evident that the mark that was placed upon them was done so for the purpose of identifying them and separating them from the Nephites. The curse itself came upon them as a result of their rejection of the Gospel. It was possible to be subject to the curse, and to be given a mark, without it being associated with a change in skin color, as demonstrated in the case of the Amlicites. The curse is apparently a separation from the Lord.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|tvedtnes1}}{{FR-15-2-10}} 
#{{note|tvedtnes2}}Tvedtnes.
#{{note|nibley1}}{{Nibley5_1|start=Chapter 4}}
#{{note|era.1960}}Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report, October, 1960
#{{note|blog1}}[http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/no-more-skin-of-blackness-race-and-recent-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon/ No More “Skin of Blackness”?: Race and Recent Changes in the Book of Mormon]

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[The "curse of Cain " and "curse of Ham"]]
*[[Book of Mormon textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"]]
*[[Native Americans to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage?]]



===External links===
*{{Dialogue | author=Douglas Campbell | article=[http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=11247&REC=14&CISOSHOW=11019 “White” or “Pure”: Five Vignettes]|vol=29|num=4|date=Winter 1996|start=119|end=135 }}
*Armand Mauss, [http://books.google.com/books?id=7lXq9JfR_EYC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=%223+nephi+2:15%22&source=web&ots=S-yD009Txd&sig=hY5SArjvncEz8ehqKwwwTatwgYQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result All Abraham's Children]

The Lamanite curse

2008-12-28T03:12:49Z

Pistas3: /* What is the curse? */

{{DNAPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that the Church believed that Lamanites who accepted the Gospel would become light-skinned.
*"Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."
*God cursed the Lamanites with a "red skin."

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=73, 367 n.138}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=43}}
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=40, 184}}

==Response==
===The curse and the mark===
The change in skin color that the Lord applied to the Lamanites is often described as a curse. As critic Fawn Brodie described it in her book [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith|''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'']]: “God cursed the Lamanites with a ‘red skin’.” It should be noted that nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it state that the Lamanites’ skin was turned red—this is an obvious allusion by Brodie to Native Americans.

The Bible does indeed use the word ''curse'' to describe a punishment to be inflicted as the result of disobedience to God’s commandments. For example, in Deuteronomy we see:

: The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. {{s||Dueteronomy|28|20}}

John A. Tvedtnes notes the distinction between the ''curse'' and the ''mark'' that the Lord set upon the Lamanites. {{ref|tvedtnes.1}}

: Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites ''have I cursed'', and I ''will set a mark on them'' that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. {{s||Alma|3|14}} {{ea}}

Referring to the passage above, Tvedtnes notes the distinction between the Lamanites having been cursed ''and'' having the mark set upon them. The Book of Mormon, however, sometimes does call the mark a curse, as shown in Alma 3:6-7.

:And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the ''mark which was set upon their fathers'', which was a ''curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion'' against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, ''therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them'', yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. {{s||Alma|3|6-7}} {{ea}}

Although this passage refers to the mark as the curse, it later makes a distinction between the curse and the mark. These passages also indicate that the curse was applied prior to the mark. {{ref|tvedtnes.2}}

===What is the curse?===
Tvedtnes suggests that curse applied to the Lamanites was that they were cut off from the presence of the Lord. Nephi states:

: Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. {{s|2|Nephi|5|20}}

A group of Nephites who joined the Lamanites illustrates. Their skin color was not changed because of their rejection of the Gospel but the curse was applied to them. Hugh Nibley describes the situation of the Amlicites:

:Thus we are told ({{s||Alma|3|13-14}},{{s||Alma|2|18}}) that while the fallen people "set the mark upon themselves," it was none the less God who was marking them: "I will set a mark upon them," etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" ({{s||Alma|3|18}}). ''Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually place upon themselves.'' The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by "whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites" ({{s||Alma|3|10}});{{ref|nibley1}} {{ea}}

===Is the lifting of the curse associated with a change in skin color?===

The Lamanites are promised that if they return to Christ, that "the scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes:"

:And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers.
:And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.{{s|2|Nephi|30|5-6}}

Some Church leaders, most notably Spencer W. Kimball, made statements indicating that they believed that the Indians were becoming "white and delightsome." Once such statement made by Elder Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference, 15 years before he became president of the Church:

:I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.{{ref|era.1960}}

President Kimball felt that the Indians were becoming a “white and delightsome” people through the power of God as a result their acceptance of the Gospel. This was not an uncommon belief at the time. At the time that this statement was made by Elder Kimball, the Book of Mormon did indeed say "white and delightsome." This passage is often quoted relative to the lifting of the curse since the phrase [[Book of Mormon textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"|"white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome"]] in the 1840 (and again in the 1981) editions of the Book of Mormon. The edit made by Joseph Smith in 1840 in which this phrase was changed to "pure and delightsome" had been omitted from subsequent editions, which were actually based upon the 1837 edition rather than the 1840 edition. The modification was not restored again until the 1981 edition with the following explanation:

:''Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.''

It seems evident from the passage in 2 Nephi that the lifting of the curse of the Lamanites was the removal of the "scales of darkness" for their eyes. It is sometimes indicated that Lamanites who had converted to the Gospel and thus had the curse lifted also had the mark removed.

:And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year. {{s|3|Nephi|2|15-16}}

As with the invocation of the curse followed by the application of the mark, this passage indicates that the curse was revoked ''and'' the mark was removed when the Lamanites' skin "became white like unto the Nephites." This may not have necessarily been the case in all instances. For example, the 2000 "stripling warriors" of Helaman were Lamanites who had accepted the Gospel. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of any change in skin color as the result of this conversion, yet these Lamanites and their parents had committed themselves to the Lord, and were often more righteous than than the Nephites were. Although a change in skin color is sometimes mentioned in conjuction with the lifting of the curse, it does not appear to always have been the case.

===Chapter headings modified in the 2006 Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon===
Chapter headings in the Book of Mormon are not part of the translated text and were never present in the 1830 edition. The most significant expansion of chapter headings occurred in the 1981 edition of all of the Standard Works. Changes made in the chapter headings of the 2006 Doubleday edition reflect the view of the curse being a separation from the presence of the Lord, rather than a "skin of blackness." Note the following two changes to the chapter headings between the 1981 and 2006 (Doubleday) editions {{ea}}:{{ref|blog1}}

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="10%"|Chapter
!width="45%"|Chapter 1981 (Official LDS Church Edition)
!width="45%"|2006 (Doubleday Edition)
|-
|2 Nephi 5||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are '''cursed, receive a skin of blackness''', and become a scourge unto the Nephites.||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are '''cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed''', and become a scourge unto the Nephites.
|-
|Mormon 5||The Lamanites '''shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people'''||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites '''will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them'''
|}

==Conclusion==
Although the curse of the Lamanities is often associated directly with their skin color, it seems evident that the mark that was placed upon them was done so for the purpose of identifying them and separating them from the Nephites. The curse itself came upon them as a result of their rejection of the Gospel. It was possible to be subject to the curse, and to be given a mark, without it being associated with a change in skin color, as demonstrated in the case of the Amlicites. A change in skin color can rightly be said to have been one result of the curse, however, the curse itself is apparently a separation from the Lord.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|tvedtnes1}}{{FR-15-2-10}} 
#{{note|tvedtnes2}}Tvedtnes.
#{{note|nibley1}}{{Nibley5_1|start=Chapter 4}}
#{{note|era.1960}}Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report, October, 1960
#{{note|blog1}}[http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/no-more-skin-of-blackness-race-and-recent-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon/ No More “Skin of Blackness”?: Race and Recent Changes in the Book of Mormon]

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[The "curse of Cain " and "curse of Ham"]]
*[[Book of Mormon textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"]]
*[[Native Americans to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage?]]



===External links===
*{{Dialogue | author=Douglas Campbell | article=[http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=11247&REC=14&CISOSHOW=11019 “White” or “Pure”: Five Vignettes]|vol=29|num=4|date=Winter 1996|start=119|end=135 }}
*Armand Mauss, [http://books.google.com/books?id=7lXq9JfR_EYC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=%223+nephi+2:15%22&source=web&ots=S-yD009Txd&sig=hY5SArjvncEz8ehqKwwwTatwgYQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result All Abraham's Children]

The Lamanite curse

2008-12-28T02:55:41Z

Pistas3: /* The curse and the mark */

{{DNAPortal}}
==Criticism==
*Critics claim that the Church believed that Lamanites who accepted the Gospel would become light-skinned.
*"Mormon folklore" claims that Native Americans and Polynesians carry a curse based upon "misdeeds on the part of their ancestors."
*God cursed the Lamanites with a "red skin."

===Source(s) of the criticism===
*{{CriticalWork:Abanes:Becoming Gods|pages=73, 367 n.138}}
*{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=43}}
*{{CriticalWork:Southerton:Losing|pages=40, 184}}

==Response==
===The curse and the mark===
The change in skin color that the Lord applied to the Lamanites is often described as a curse. As critic Fawn Brodie described it in her book [[No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith|''No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith'']]: “God cursed the Lamanites with a ‘red skin’.” It should be noted that nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it state that the Lamanites’ skin was turned red—this is an obvious allusion by Brodie to Native Americans.

The Bible does indeed use the word ''curse'' to describe a punishment to be inflicted as the result of disobedience to God’s commandments. For example, in Deuteronomy we see:

: The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. {{s||Dueteronomy|28|20}}

John A. Tvedtnes notes the distinction between the ''curse'' and the ''mark'' that the Lord set upon the Lamanites. {{ref|tvedtnes.1}}

: Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites ''have I cursed'', and I ''will set a mark on them'' that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. {{s||Alma|3|14}} {{ea}}

Referring to the passage above, Tvedtnes notes the distinction between the Lamanites having been cursed ''and'' having the mark set upon them. The Book of Mormon, however, sometimes does call the mark a curse, as shown in Alma 3:6-7.

:And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the ''mark which was set upon their fathers'', which was a ''curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion'' against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, ''therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them'', yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. {{s||Alma|3|6-7}} {{ea}}

Although this passage refers to the mark as the curse, it later makes a distinction between the curse and the mark. These passages also indicate that the curse was applied prior to the mark. {{ref|tvedtnes.2}}

===What is the curse?===
Dr. Tvedtnes suggests that curse applied to the Lamanites was that they were cut off from the presence of the Lord. Nephi states:

: Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. {{s|2|Nephi|5|20}}

Particularly interesting is the case of a group of Nephites who joined the Lamanites. Their skin color was not changed, yet, because of their rejection of the Gospel, the curse was applied to them. Hugh Nibley describes the situation of the Amlicites:

:Thus we are told ({{s||Alma|3|13-14}},{{s||Alma|2|18}}) that while the fallen people "set the mark upon themselves," it was none the less God who was marking them: "I will set a mark upon them," etc. So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" ({{s||Alma|3|18}}). ''Here God places his mark on people as a curse, yet it is an artificial mark which they actually place upon themselves.'' The mark was not a racial thing but was acquired by "whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites" ({{s||Alma|3|10}});{{ref|nibley1}} {{ea}}

===Is the lifting of the curse associated with a change in skin color?===

The Lamanites are promised that if they return to Christ, that "the scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes:"

:And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers.
:And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.{{s|2|Nephi|30|5-6}}

Some Church leaders, most notably Spencer W. Kimball, made statements indicating that they believed that the Indians were becoming "white and delightsome." Once such statement made by Elder Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference, 15 years before he became president of the Church:

:I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.{{ref|era.1960}}

President Kimball felt that the Indians were becoming a “white and delightsome” people through the power of God as a result their acceptance of the Gospel. This was not an uncommon belief at the time. At the time that this statement was made by Elder Kimball, the Book of Mormon did indeed say "white and delightsome." This passage is often quoted relative to the lifting of the curse since the phrase [[Book of Mormon textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"|"white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome"]] in the 1840 (and again in the 1981) editions of the Book of Mormon. The edit made by Joseph Smith in 1840 in which this phrase was changed to "pure and delightsome" had been omitted from subsequent editions, which were actually based upon the 1837 edition rather than the 1840 edition. The modification was not restored again until the 1981 edition with the following explanation:

:''Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.''

It seems evident from the passage in 2 Nephi that the lifting of the curse of the Lamanites was the removal of the "scales of darkness" for their eyes. It is sometimes indicated that Lamanites who had converted to the Gospel and thus had the curse lifted also had the mark removed.

:And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year. {{s|3|Nephi|2|15-16}}

As with the invocation of the curse followed by the application of the mark, this passage indicates that the curse was revoked ''and'' the mark was removed when the Lamanites' skin "became white like unto the Nephites." This may not have necessarily been the case in all instances. For example, the 2000 "stripling warriors" of Helaman were Lamanites who had accepted the Gospel. The Book of Mormon makes no mention of any change in skin color as the result of this conversion, yet these Lamanites and their parents had committed themselves to the Lord, and were often more righteous than than the Nephites were. Although a change in skin color is sometimes mentioned in conjuction with the lifting of the curse, it does not appear to always have been the case.

===Chapter headings modified in the 2006 Doubleday edition of the Book of Mormon===
Chapter headings in the Book of Mormon are not part of the translated text and were never present in the 1830 edition. The most significant expansion of chapter headings occurred in the 1981 edition of all of the Standard Works. Changes made in the chapter headings of the 2006 Doubleday edition reflect the view of the curse being a separation from the presence of the Lord, rather than a "skin of blackness." Note the following two changes to the chapter headings between the 1981 and 2006 (Doubleday) editions {{ea}}:{{ref|blog1}}

{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="10%"|Chapter
!width="45%"|Chapter 1981 (Official LDS Church Edition)
!width="45%"|2006 (Doubleday Edition)
|-
|2 Nephi 5||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are '''cursed, receive a skin of blackness''', and become a scourge unto the Nephites.||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites are '''cut off from the presence of the Lord, are cursed''', and become a scourge unto the Nephites.
|-
|Mormon 5||The Lamanites '''shall be a dark, filthy, and loathsome people'''||Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites '''will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them'''
|}

==Conclusion==
Although the curse of the Lamanities is often associated directly with their skin color, it seems evident that the mark that was placed upon them was done so for the purpose of identifying them and separating them from the Nephites. The curse itself came upon them as a result of their rejection of the Gospel. It was possible to be subject to the curse, and to be given a mark, without it being associated with a change in skin color, as demonstrated in the case of the Amlicites. A change in skin color can rightly be said to have been one result of the curse, however, the curse itself is apparently a separation from the Lord.

==Endnotes==
#{{note|tvedtnes1}}{{FR-15-2-10}} 
#{{note|tvedtnes2}}Tvedtnes.
#{{note|nibley1}}{{Nibley5_1|start=Chapter 4}}
#{{note|era.1960}}Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report, October, 1960
#{{note|blog1}}[http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/no-more-skin-of-blackness-race-and-recent-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon/ No More “Skin of Blackness”?: Race and Recent Changes in the Book of Mormon]

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
*[[The "curse of Cain " and "curse of Ham"]]
*[[Book of Mormon textual changes/"white" changed to "pure"]]
*[[Native Americans to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage?]]



===External links===
*{{Dialogue | author=Douglas Campbell | article=[http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=11247&REC=14&CISOSHOW=11019 “White” or “Pure”: Five Vignettes]|vol=29|num=4|date=Winter 1996|start=119|end=135 }}
*Armand Mauss, [http://books.google.com/books?id=7lXq9JfR_EYC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=%223+nephi+2:15%22&source=web&ots=S-yD009Txd&sig=hY5SArjvncEz8ehqKwwwTatwgYQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result All Abraham's Children]

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-19T05:42:41Z

Pistas3: /* Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8 */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...''

:''Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.''

:—''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', Nov. 5, 2008

=Overview=
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. {{ref|pew1}} This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. {{ref|ldspr1}} See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse]). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle] (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

=The text of Proposition 8=
The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

:This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
:SECTION 1. Title
:This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
:SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
:''SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=The Family: A Proclamation to the World=
In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"{{ref|proclamation}}.

It reads in part:

:''We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.''

It also declares:

:''All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.''

=Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''[http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF In Re Marriage Cases],'' on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.{{ref|sosd1}}

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.{{ref|state1}}

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

:'''Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families'''

:''In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.''

:''The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.''

:''A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.''

:''We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote on Proposition 8?}}
Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Support was organized at a local level and volunteers' experiences varied according to area, need and campaign leaders. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|How did Church members respond to the request to become involved?}}
[[Image:Polarization.on.prop8.jpg|right|thumb|100px|Sign waving produced a variety of responses, even from within the same family (Click to enlarge. Warning: contains graphic gesture)]]

In the letter from the First Presidency, there was no indication of how members were supposed to fulfill the request to lend support. Members were told that "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause." The main ways that this support unfolded and that members ended up supporting the proposition were the following:

*Monetary donations
*Going door-to-door to poll voters
*Phoning voters to remind them to vote
*Sign-waving on street corners
*Hanging voting reminders on doors

Members of the LDS Church proved instrumental in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 because members were already part of a "network" of individuals that could be utilized to educate, encourage, and mobilize others within their communities.

=The "No on 8" response=
The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
*Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is ''not recorded by the state''. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the ''Daily Kos'' linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. {{ref|thurston1}} This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. {{ref|ostler1}} Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release])

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]
*[http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2008/10/proposition-8-and-californias.html Proposition 8 and California's Schoolchildren: A Primer on Falsehoods]

During the course of the campaign, a group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers.

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side.

=The vote=

The LDS, while instrumental in helping with the passage of Proposition 8, were not solely responsible for the margin by which the proposition passed in the general electorate; the number of LDS voters was simply too small to account for the margin. Encouragement from LDS volunteers may have been key in turning out the "Yes on 8" vote, but to say that LDS involvement was solely responsible for such turnout seems rather myopic.

LDS may encourage their neighbors to vote "Yes on 8," but the neighbor still has to actually cast the vote. Anecdotal reports from FAIR members who live in California indicate that LDS volunteers worked closely with non-LDS volunteers to promote the proposition and turn out the vote.

{{Heading2|Voter demographics}}

*Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
*Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Latter-day Saints likely voted near the affirmative ratio (84-16) that their peer group that attends church at least weekly did. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Latter-day Saint vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough by itself to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout (10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportionate amount of credit for passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. California ballots are cast by "secret ballot" meaning that any vote cast is not associated with a particular voter. As such, votes cast by Church members remain private unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record and has a long standing respect for the separation of civic responsibility and church participation.

The Church may apply discipline based upon other behavior by individual members. Such discipline, if any, is left to local leaders (bishops and stake presidents) who are more intimately acquainted with the behavior that may be in question. it is conceivable that strong feelings on the Church's position compelled certain members to individually take public stands against the Church or its leadership. Depending on the nature of behavior of the individual, some persons may have received admonition or other actions relative to their membership that would be considered "disciplinary" in nature. However, such actions would only be in reaction to the behavior of the individual and not in reaction to their personal feelings or their voting record. Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
[[Image:22million.jpg|right|200px]]
From the Internal Revenue Service:
:''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.''

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

:''Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

{{Heading2|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?}}
California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?}}
Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
The Church funds a significant humanitarian effort through member donations. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything that members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.

{{Heading2|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?}}
Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
[[Image:6wives1husband.jpg|right|200px|6 wives vs. 1 husband?]]
The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice. Prop 8 protesters, however, do like to raise the issue of polygamy, and make no distinction between the LDS Church and splinter groups.

It is important to realize that 19th century Mormons who practiced plural marriage did not seek federal recognition of their marriages. They would have been pleased to simply be left alone, instead of being subject to spy networks, home invasion by federal marshals, loss of the right to vote simply for being members of the Church even if they were not polygamists, jail time, and threats of military occupation by the Congress.

Homosexuals in California with access to domestic partnership laws have far more legal protection and benefits for their cohabitation relationships than 19th century Mormons ever had. Homosexuals who choose to simply cohabitate are likewise unmolested by the state, unlike LDS polygamists of the 19th century.

LDS opposition to homosexual "marriage" derives, however, from a belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, contrary to the commandments of God, and something which believers should not support. Homosexuals are free to make their own choices about behavior, but Church members cannot in good conscience encourage that behavior by lending their voice to efforts which socially sanction it.

=Post-election events=
Upon passage of Proposition 8 by the California electorate, and despite the fact that LDS members constitute a small minority of those who voted in California, the Church came under attack for its role in encouraging its members to support the "Yes on 8" campaign. This produced a number of negative and positive effects.

{{Heading2|Threats from "No on 8" supporters}}
*"Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers"
*"While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
*"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
*""I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done" {{ref|wnd1}}

There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:

:''...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|Church response}}
The Church issued the following statement:

:''It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.''

:''Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.''

:''While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.''

:''Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
[[Image:Burninhell.png|right|200px]]
There were, unfortunately, negative effects from the vote in the days immediately following the election. Members of the gay community (and their supporters) were vocal and visible in their negative demonstrations. Some of those negative effects are documented in the following sections.

This documentation should not be taken as a blanket indictment of those in the "No on 8" camp. While leadership of the "No on 8" group have been negative toward LDS involvement, that negativity did not reach the level of vitriol and "over the top" behavior noted in some of the sections below. Various LGBT groups have organized, encouraged, or participated in the demonstrations targeted specifically at the LDS Church (such as those conducted outside LDS temples).

The first call that we know of by an LGBT group to <i>not</i> target the LDS Church specifically was by JoinTheImpact.com, which organized the nationwide demonstrations that (for the most part) occurred at government facilities on Saturday, November 15. (See the [http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Mission+Statement JoinTheImpact mission statement].) It is unfortunate that the actions of extremists specifically targeting the Church went uncriticized or rebuked by "No on Prop 8" leaders or state politicians until several days had passed—one would have hoped that they would immediately speak out against such inappropriate behavior, no matter who the target.

It still remains to be seen whether the moderating efforts of JoinTheImpact to express displeasure across the board instead of toward a single group will be accepted by the LGBT community and the other LGBT groups who have chosen to target primarily the LDS.

{{Heading2|Accusations of hatred and bigotry}}
The tactics of those who oppose the decision are to label LDS "haters" and "bigots." Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" is being applied to supporters of Prop 8:

:''The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd....When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.'' {{ref|ball1}}

The protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:
*'''Los Angeles Temple''' (Westwood, California). Protests held daily beginning November 6 through November 9, 2008.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on October 26, 2008{{ref|sfchron2}} and November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron3}}.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}
*'''Washington Temple''' (Kensington, Maryland). Protest held on November 15, 2008.{{ref|gaz1}}

The Church has hired extra security to watch over the Sacramento temple, and has been "asking members to drive by church buildings late at night." In addition, Latter-day Saints who work in law enforcement "are keeping track of Internet chatter to find out where protests will be held." {{ref|sacbee.11-17}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*'''The Saddleback Church''' (Lake Forest, Orange County) was the target of one protest. {{ref|saddleback1}}

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}
Opponents of Proposition 8 have resorted to vandalism against LDS chapels. A San Francisco Bay Area newspaper expressed the following opinion after observing the results of two weeks of protests—they finally associated the term "hate crime" with the attacks on LDS meetinghouses:

:''The indignation of gay Californians and their allies is understandable. All committed couples should have an equal right to marriage, as the state Supreme Court ruled they did earlier this year. And civil protest is healthy. But some extremes we're seeing are just plain wrong. For example, the vandalism of Mormon churches might be interpreted as a hate crime if it were directed at gay and lesbian institutions. Some other tactics are legal but equally counterproductive.''
:—[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)

The following incidents of vandalism have occurred:
*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}
*'''Olympia, Washington.''' A group vandalized a LDS chapel, and then boasted of their act on the internet. "Last night, under the veil of fog, we visited the Church of Latter Day Saints. We left their locks glued with anarchist messages scrawled in spray paint over their boring veneer." {{ref|bashback1}} The vandalism was confirmed by the Olympia Police Dept. The same group is responsible for the invasion of worship services in the Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan on November 9th.{{ref|bashback2}}

{{Heading2|Harrassment}}
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q Gay Marriage Proponents Attack Elderly Woman] An elderly woman carrying a large cross is harrassed by a large man during a Prop. 8 rally.

{{Heading2|Terrorist tactics}}
On Thursday, November 13, 2008, envelopes containing white powder were received by the Church at two locations and by a facility of the Knights of Columbus. Both organizations were prominent supporters of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

*'''Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples.''' An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples, forcing their closure while Hazardous Material teams were called in to investigate. The powder turned out to be harmless. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.

{{Heading2|Hacking of Church related web site}}
*The web site which hosts ''Meridian Magazine'' was hacked. Content was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbian films," according to the site owner. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status}}
The organization "Californians Against Hate" made a rather fascinating plea to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the Church's alleged "undeclared" donations to the Prop 8 campaign. {{ref|calhate1}} First, they claimed that "[t]he Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign." Then, they proceeded to accuse the Church of not sufficiently hiding its involvement from the general public:

:"Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers."

:"...Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all."

:"All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public."

Critics can't have it both ways—either the Church was "highly secretive," or it was offering presentations that were "clearly designed to communicate with the public." The absurdity of this approach speaks for itself.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ AntiGayBlacklist.com]
*"Californians Against Hate" also created what they call a "Dishonor Roll," which lists donors, the amount they donated, place of business, addresses and phone numbers. It is notable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not appear on this list, with the largest single donor listed being the Knights of Columbus ($1,425,000).

* Alison Stateman, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). According to an editorial in the ''The Mercury News'', "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." {{ref|mercnews.11-17}} Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*Boycott of LA radio station (K-Earth 101) called for when it was found out one of the on-air personalities donated to "Yes on 8."{{ref|kabc1}}

*Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”], Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)

*Boycott of an ice cream store in Sacramento (Catholic owned). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8}}
The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:

*A lesbian mother was forced to resign her position as President of the PTA at a Catholic school in Fresno, California after she publicly voiced her opposition to Prop. 8. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there were no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, did encourage those attempting to overturn the proposition to "never ever give up...They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done." {{ref|governator1}}

=Myths=
Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the move West, over polygamy, over the repeal of polygamy, over the priesthood ban, over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

{{Heading2|MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian}}
Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to classify them as non-Christian, however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers}}
NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign}}
Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|ldspr1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse] (Nov. 14, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron2}}Matthai Kuruvila, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron3}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|gaz1}}Jen Beasley, "[http://www.gazette.net/stories/11182008/prinnew73410_32548.shtml Gay marriage supporters rally at Mormon church]," ''Gazette.Net,'' Maryland Community Newspapers (Nov. 18, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee.11-17}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1403369.html Mormons step up security after anti-Prop. 8 vandalism]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).
#{{note|saddleback1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up]

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|bashback1}}[http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081116190907330 Bash Back! Trashes Mormon Church in Olympia] (Nov. 16, 2008)
#{{note|bashback2}}[http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2008/11/bash_back_bashes_lansing_churc.html Bash Back! bashes Lansing church] (Nov. 12, 2008)

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|mercnews.11-17}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11008595 Editorial: Vandalism, coercion are counterproductive to fight for gay marriage], ''The Mercury News'' (Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|governator1}}Michael Rothfeld and Tony Barboza, [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-protest10-2008nov10,0,4429002.story Schwarzenegger tells backers of gay marriage: Don't give up], ''Los Angeles Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-18T00:50:52Z

Pistas3: /* Myths */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...''

:''Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.''

:—''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', Nov. 5, 2008

=Overview=
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. {{ref|pew1}} This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse]). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle] (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

=The text of Proposition 8=
The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

:This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
:SECTION 1. Title
:This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
:SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
:''SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=The Family: A Proclamation to the World=
In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"{{ref|proclamation}}.

It reads in part:

:''We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.''

It also declares:

:''All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.''

=Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''In Re Marriage Cases,'' on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.{{ref|sosd1}}

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.{{ref|state1}}

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

:'''Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families'''

:''In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.''

:''The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.''

:''A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.''

:''We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote on Proposition 8?}}
Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no indication of how this support was to occur. As it turned out, the main ways that Church members supported the proposition were the following:

*Monetary donations
*Going door-to-door to poll voters
*Phoning voters to remind them to vote
*Sign-waving on street corners
*Hanging voting reminders on doors

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Those who chose not to participate were not pressured to do so. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

=The "No on 8" response=
The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
*Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is ''not recorded by the state''. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the ''Daily Kos'' linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. {{ref|thurston1}} This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. {{ref|ostler1}} Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release])

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

During the course of the campaign, a group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers.

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side.

=The vote=
{{Heading2|Voter demographics}}

*Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
*Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Mormons likely voted with the same affrimative ratio (84-16) as their peer group that attends church at least weekly. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Mormon vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout(10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportional amount of credit or blame in passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. The votes cast by Church members remain private, unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. Since the election, the Church has not asked, and will not ask, members how they chose to vote. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record.

Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
From the Internal Revenue Service:
:''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.''

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

:''Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

{{Heading2|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?}}
California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?}}
Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
One might also make the same argument for the amount of money spent by the "No on 8" supporters, which was actually higher than the amount spent by the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.” The Church does, however, fund a significant humanitarian effort through member donations. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.

{{Heading2|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?}}
Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice.

=Post-election events=
Upon passage of Proposition 8 by the California electorate, and despite the fact that LDS members constitute a small minority of those who voted in California, the Church came under attack for its role in encouraging its members to support the "Yes on 8" campaign. This produced a number of negative and positive effects.

{{Heading2|Threats from "No on 8" supporters}}
*"Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers"
*"While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
*"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
*""I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done" {{ref|wnd1}}

There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:

:''...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|Church response}}
The Church issued the following statement:

:''It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.''

:''Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.''

:''While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.''

:''Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
{{Heading2|Accusations of hatred and bigotry}}
The tactics of those who oppose the decision are to label LDS "haters" and "bigots." Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" is being applied to supporters of Prop 8:

:''The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd....When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.'' {{ref|ball1}}

The protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:
*'''Los Angeles Temple''' (Westwood, California). Protests held daily beginning November 6 through November 9, 2008.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron1}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*The Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Orange County was the target of one protest.

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}

*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}

{{Heading2|Terrorist tactics}}
On Thursday, November 13, 2008, envelopes containing white powder were received by the Church at two locations and by a facility of the Knights of Columbus. Both organizations were prominent supporters of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

*'''Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples.''' An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples, forcing their closure while Hazardous Material teams were called in to investigate. The powder turned out to be harmless. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.

{{Heading2|Hacking of Church related web site}}
*The web site which hosts ''Meridian Magazine'' was hacked. Content was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbian films," according to the site owner. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status}}
The organization "Californians Against Hate" made a rather fascinating plea to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the Church's alleged "undeclared" donations to the Prop 8 campaign. {{ref|calhate1}} First, they claimed that "[t]he Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign." Then, they proceeded to accuse the Church of not sufficiently hiding its involvement from the general public:

:"Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers."

:"...Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all."

:"All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public."

Critics can't have it both ways—either the Church was "highly secretive," or it was offering presentations that were "clearly designed to communicate with the public." The absurdity of this approach speaks for itself.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ AntiGayBlacklist.com]
*"Californians Against Hate" also created what they call a "Dishonor Roll," which lists donors, the amount they donated, place of business, addresses and phone numbers. It is notable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not appear on this list, with the largest single donor listed being the Knights of Columbus ($1,425,000).

* Alison Stateman, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). Boycott of restaurant called for when it is discovered that the owner donated $100 to "Yes on 8." Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*Boycott of LA radio station (K-Earth 101) called for when it was found out one of the on-air personalities donated to "Yes on 8."{{ref|kabc1}}

*Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”], Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)

*Boycott of an ice cream store in Sacramento (Catholic owned). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8}}
The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:

*A lesbian mother was forced to resign her position as President of the PTA at a Catholic school in Fresno, California after she publicly voiced her opposition to Prop. 8. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there have been no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents.

=Myths=
Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this expansive claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the move West, over polygamy, over the repeal of polygamy, over the priesthood ban, over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

{{Heading2|MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian}}
Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to classify them as non-Christian, however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers}}
NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign}}
Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron1}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormonism and politics/California Proposition 8

2008-11-18T00:50:06Z

Pistas3: /* Myths */

{{Heading1|Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8}}

:''We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information...''

:''Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.''

:—''The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'', Nov. 5, 2008

=Overview=
The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates. The proposition added a single line to the state constitution defining marriage as being between "a man and a woman." There are 29 states which currently have such a definition of marriage in their constitution. {{ref|pew1}} This article provides information about the Church's involvement with the passage of the Proposition and its aftermath. There have been more than 40 states that have put in place protections of marriage as being between a man and a woman. See [http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/ Heritage.org] and [http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3450 TraditionalValues.org] for details on legislations and constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

The campaign to support Proposition 8 placed members of the Church outside their comfort zone. Many vigorously supported the measure, while others felt conflicted between their desire to follow the Prophet's counsel and their desire not to become involved in an effort that might alienate them from friends and family members. Church critics—most notably ex-Mormons—took advantage of the effort to promote their agenda by leveraging Prop 8 to enhance their attacks on the Church, even going so far as to attempt to publicly identify and humiliate members who had donated to the campaign. The subsequent passage of the Proposition brought new challenges for members, as protests were organized, blacklists created, and even terrorist tactics employed, with the result being public humiliation and loss of business or employment for several Church members who chose to follow the Prophet's recommendation. (See: [http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-urges-respect-civility-in-public-discourse First Presidency Urges Respect, Civility in Public Discourse]). A good summary of post-election events by Seminary teacher Kevin Hamilton may be found in Orson Scott Card's article: [http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002 Heroes and victims in Prop. 8 struggle] (Nov. 13, 2008)

This article documents the events leading up to and resulting from the effort to pass California Proposition 8 as they relate to Latter-day Saints. We recognize that there was a broad coalition of supporters, of which Latter-day Saints were only a small part. However, given the disproportionate negative reaction to the Church after the passage of the proposition, it is prudent to clarify misperceptions and answer commonly asked question about Church members' involvement in this issue.

=The text of Proposition 8=
The following text is from the California Voter Guide for 2008:

:This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
:SECTION 1. Title
:This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
:SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
:''SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'' {{ref|calvoterguide}}

=The Family: A Proclamation to the World=
In an October broadcast from Salt Lake City to Church Members in California, Elder's Ballard and Cook of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles emphasized the Church's principled stand regarding Proposition 8 by referencing among other things a document titled "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"{{ref|proclamation}}.

It reads in part:

:''We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.''

It also declares:

:''All human beings - male and female - are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.''

=Church involvement in the "Yes on 8" effort=
{{Heading2|How did the Church become involved in the Proposition 8 campaign?}}

The California Supreme Court, in the case of ''In Re Marriage Cases,'' on May 15, 2008, overturned a 2000 California law that established marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, certain members of the California electorate had already been seeking an amendment to the California constitution that could not be overturned by judicial review.{{ref|sosd1}}

A ballot proposition was prepared by California residents opposed to gay marriage and disturbed by what they viewed as judicial activism. The measure needed 694,354 signatures to be placed on the ballot but 1,120,801 signatures were submitted. The measure, known as Proposition 8, was certified and placed on the ballot on June 2, 2008. The LDS church was not involved in placing Proposition 8 on the ballot.{{ref|state1}}

After Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot, the Church was approached in June 2008 in a letter sent by San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. This letter initiated the formation of a coalition of religions with the common goal of promoting passage of the proposition. {{ref|sfchron1}} The coalition included Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Latter-day Saints.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Church involvement in politics]]

{{Heading2|How were members informed?}}

Ecclesiastical leaders in California were sent a letter in the third week of June 2008, with instructions to read the letter to their congregations on June 29, 2008. (Only leaders in California received the letter.) The following is the text of the letter:

:'''Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families'''

:''In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.''

:''The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.''

:''A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause.''

:''We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'' {{ref|ldsnews1}}

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how to vote on Proposition 8?}}
Church members were ''not'' told how to vote on Proposition 8. As stated in the letter, members were asked to “do all you can to support” the passage of Proposition 8. There was no indication of how this support was to occur. As it turned out, the main ways that Church members supported the proposition were the following:

*Monetary donations
*Going door-to-door to poll voters
*Phoning voters to remind them to vote
*Sign-waving on street corners
*Hanging voting reminders on doors

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

{{Heading2|Were Church members commanded to work for passage of Proposition 8?}}

There was no commandment for members to work on the campaign. Those who chose not to participate were not pressured to do so. Members were asked to support Proposition 8 ("We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment..."), but not commanded.

'''For more information:'''
*[[Authoritarianism and Church leaders]]

=The "No on 8" response=
The "No on 8" group campaign did not emphasize that California already has domestic partnership laws in place which grant same-sex couples the civil rights associated with marriage. (See [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5 California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5]) Instead, the Proposition 8 was portrayed as removing marriage rights.

{{Heading2|Attempts to identify and "dig up dirt" on LDS donors before the election}}
*Nadine Hansen, a lawyer residing in Cedar City, Utah, created a web site called "Mormonsfor8.com" prior to the election. Hansen urges visitors to her site to "help by helping us identify Mormon donors." Hansen apparently felt that singling out the LDS donors was necessary, since religious affiliation of the donors is ''not recorded by the state''. When questioned about the purpose of this site, Hansen responded, "Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee...You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.'" {{ref|sfgate.10-27}}

*Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention, initiated a campaign to identify and scrutinize the lives of the LDS donors. Atkins' blog in the ''Daily Kos'' linked to Hansen's web site and called for "No on 8" supporters to dig up dirt on LDS donors. Atkins asked readers to "use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to...shall we say...less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious." {{ref|beliefnet1}}

{{Heading2|The infamous "Mormon missionary home invasion" commercial}}
On October 31, 2008, an organization calling itself the "Campaign Courage Issues Committee" released an ad on YouTube depicting two "Mormon missionaries" entering the home of a lesbian couple. The "missionaries" proclaimed that they were there to "take away your rights." The "missionaries" proceeded to ransack their home, including their underwear drawer, until they located their marriage license. They then tore up the license and left the home, claiming that it was "too easy," and wondering what rights they could take away next.

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8] (YouTube Video)

The ad was actually aired on several television stations on election day.

{{Heading2|Accusations that "Yes on 8" ads were promoting lies}}
The advertising messages created for the "Yes on 8" campaign were based on case law and real-life situations. However, a rebuttal to an anonymously written "Yes on 8" document called "“Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails” was written by LDS lawyer Morris Thurston. {{ref|thurston1}} This document was used by "No on 8" supporters to show that even LDS realized that lies were being promoted. Thurston's points were contested by another LDS attorney, Blake Ostler. {{ref|ostler1}} Upon discovering that the "No on 8" campaign was making use of his comments, Thurston issued a press release which pointed out that "A press release dated October 19 from a public relations firm representing 'No on 8' is inaccurate and misleading," and that he was "erroneously cited as having 'debunked' new California Prop 8 ads." (See [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/national/California/2008/10/21/LATU558 LDS Lawyer's Commentary Mischaracterized in 'No on 8' Press Release])

Ads and mailers produced by "Yes on 8" showed children's books promoting same-sex marriage that have been sent home with young students. One young girl tells her mother that she learned in school that "I learned how a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!"

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

During the course of the campaign, a group of school children were taken on a field trip to their gay teacher's wedding in San Francisco. {{ref|sfgate.10-11}} The "Yes on 8" supporters incorporated a photo of this headline into subsequent mailers.

=Where did the money come from?=

Opponents of Proposition 8 have criticized the Church for donations to the "Yes on 8" campaign. Records filed with the State of California indicate that the Church did not make any contributions with the exception of an "in kind" contribution (non monetary) for travel expenses for a single general authority. All other LDS-related money was contributed by Church members individually, not by the Church.

The amounts contributed to both sides were very high. It is reasonable for critics to question why their greater contributions to defeat Proposition 8 didn't carry the vote as they expected, but to imply that the participation of Latter-day Saint citizens—most of whom were California residents—was improper is inappropriate. Such an accusation is an exercise in empowering a straw man of their own creation.

<table border="1" align="center">
<tr>
<td> </td>
<td align="center">'''In-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Out-of-State Donations'''</td>
<td align="center">'''Total Donations'''</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''For Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$25,388,955</td>
<td align="center">$10,733,582</td>
<td align="center">$36,122,538</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Against Proposition 8'''</td>
<td align="center">$26,464,589</td>
<td align="center">$11,968,285</td>
<td align="center">$38,432,873</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>'''Totals'''</td>
<td align="center">$51,853,544</td>
<td align="center">$22,701,867</td>
<td align="center">$74,555,411</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4" align="center">Source: [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory Tracking the money], ''Los Angeles Times''</td>
</tr>
</table>

Note that out-of-state contributions to the "No" side were over $1.2 million higher than the out-of-state contributions to the "Yes" side.

=The vote=
{{Heading2|Voter demographics}}

*Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
*Not all LDS voted in favor of Proposition 8. Active Mormons likely voted with the same affrimative ratio (84-16) as their peer group that attends church at least weekly. {{ref|cnnprop8exit}} Religion, in general, was a large factor. Self-identifying Catholics and Protestants both went around 65-35 for the amendment, with white evangelicals going 81-19.
*LDS voters represented less than 5% of the "Yes" vote. At most the Mormon vote only accounts for 58% of the victory margin using the current count on CNN. {{ref|cnnprop8count}} In other words, the Latter-day Saint vote was not enough to make a difference in the final Prop 8 election results.
*The large African-American turnout(10%) for Barack Obama appears to have facilitated the passage of the proposition.{{ref|ladailynews1}} Scaling exit poll numbers, the net African-American vote (70-30) accounts for 92% of the victory margin.
*The net Latino (18%) vote at 53-47 contributed to 25% of the victory margin.
*The generation gap also played a factor. Senior citizens (15%) supported the measure at 61-39 while voters under 30 (20%) opposed it 39-61.

While Mormons played a significant role in mobilizing like-minded voters, these trends show that public perception has assigned a disproportional amount of credit or blame in passing Proposition 8.

=Post-election questions after the passage of Proposition 8=
A number of questions have arisen since the passage of the proposition.

{{Heading2|Were Church members who were opposed to Proposition 8 disciplined?}}
The Church did not ask members how they would vote on the proposition. The votes cast by Church members remain private, unless they themselves chose to disclose this information. Since the election, the Church has not asked, and will not ask, members how they chose to vote. The Church does not apply discipline based upon a member’s voting record.

Elder L. Whitney Clayton was asked if "Latter-day Saints who publicly opposed Prop. 8 would be subject to some kind of church discipline," to which he responded, "those judgments are left up to local bishops and stake presidents and the particular circumstances involved." {{ref|deseretnews.clayton1}}

{{Heading2|Did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contribute money to the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
The Church as an institution made no direct monetary contributions to the "Yes on 8" campaign. All monetary donations came from individual Church members, who decided if and how much they would contribute.

{{Heading2|Did the Church violate it's tax-exempt status by participating in the "Yes on 8" campaign?}}
From the Internal Revenue Service:
:''Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office…Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office.''

The church did not participate in or intervene in any of the political campaigns for any of the candidates running in the 2008 election. The IRS does, however, permit a Church to take positions on issues:

:''Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.'' {{ref|irs1}}

{{Heading2|But what about the companies that the Church owns?}}
Companies that are owned by the Church, such as Bonneville Communications, are in business to make profit. These businesses pay their taxes just like any other business: They are not part of the tax-exempt portion of the Church.

{{Heading2|Were the contributions made by Church members tax deductible?}}
California members who chose to donate to the Prop 8 campaign were explicitly told that their donations would not be tax deductible. None of the funds donated to the campaign are allowed as deductions.

{{Heading2|Were Church members told how much to contribute to the effort?}}
Church headquarters did not pass down individual contribution goals to members. In some cases local Church leaders may have asked members to contribute a specific amount. Some goals were suggested to the general membership by their Stake President, such as “one dollar per day.” Some Stakes provided wards with goals that they were expected to meet.

{{Heading2|Did the Church invest more money in Proposition 8 than in all of its combined humanitarian efforts?}}
One might also make the same argument for the amount of money spent by the "No on 8" supporters, which was actually higher than the amount spent by the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not donate any money to “Yes on 8.” The Church does, however, fund a significant humanitarian effort through member donations. The amount contributed by the Church to humanitarian causes far outweighs anything members contributed toward the effort to pass Prop 8.

{{Heading2|Wouldn't the money that Church members contributed to the cause have been better spent on humanitarian needs?}}
Church members have always been encouraged to contribute to humanitarian causes. Since all contributions came from individual members, those that donated made the choice to support the “Yes on 8” campaign.

*Bishop H. David Burton, [http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html And Who Is My Neighbor?], April 2008 General Conference.

{{Heading2|How does the Church reconcile its opposition to same-sex marriage when it once supported plural marriage?}}
The same type of question was asked when, after supporting polygamy for years, the Church ceased its practice. The Church no longer practices polygamy, and should not be confused with splinter groups who continue the practice.

=Post-election events=
Upon passage of Proposition 8 by the California electorate, and despite the fact that LDS members constitute a small minority of those who voted in California, the Church came under attack for its role in encouraging its members to support the "Yes on 8" campaign. This produced a number of negative and positive effects.

{{Heading2|Threats from "No on 8" supporters}}
*"Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers"
*"While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
*"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."
*""I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done" {{ref|wnd1}}

There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:

:''...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists.'' {{ref|malcontent1}}

{{Heading2|Church response}}
The Church issued the following statement:

:''It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.''

:''Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.''

:''While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.''

:''Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.'' {{ref|ldsnews2}}

===Negative effects===
{{Heading2|Accusations of hatred and bigotry}}
The tactics of those who oppose the decision are to label LDS "haters" and "bigots." Note how the following strategy of "Direct Emotional Modeling" is being applied to supporters of Prop 8:

:''The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd....When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel—and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective—if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.'' {{ref|ball1}}

The protests that have spread to temples across the country certainly qualify as achieving the "massive exposure upon which all else depends".

{{Heading2|Protests at LDS places of worship}}
A number of protests were held in front of LDS temples:
*'''Los Angeles Temple''' (Westwood, California). Protests held daily beginning November 6 through November 9, 2008.
*'''Newport Beach Temple''' (Newport Beach, California). Protest on November 16, 2008.{{ref|ocreg1}}
*'''Oakland Temple''' (Oakland, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sfchron1}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Salt Lake Temple''' (Salt Lake City, Utah). Protest on November 7, 2008.{{ref|sltrib1}}
*'''San Diego Temple''' (University City, California). Protests held on November 9, 2008{{ref|sosd2}}, XXX, and XXX.
*'''Seattle Temple''' (Seattle, Washington). Protest held on November 9, 2008).{{ref|seattle2}}
*'''Spokane Temple''' (Spokane, Washington). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|seattle1}}
*'''Manhattan Temple''' (New York City, New York). Protest held on November 12, 2008.{{ref|nyt2}}

Protests have also been held at regular meeting houses:
*'''Vallejo, California.''' Protesters attempt to disrupt worship services.{{ref|ther1}}

{{Heading2|Protests at other Christian places of worship}}
Protests were not limited to Latter-day Saint places of worship:
*The Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Orange County was the target of one protest.

{{Heading2|Vandalism of LDS Chapels by "No on 8" supporters}}

*'''Orangeville, California.''' Opponents of Prop 8 spray painted 'No on 8' on the meetinghouse.{{ref|calstate1}}{{ref|sacbee2}}
*'''Arapahoe County, Colorado.''' A Book of Mormon was burned on the doorstep of an LDS chapel outside Denver.{{ref|denver1}}
*'''Utah.''' As of November 14, there had been reports of vandalism at seven Utah meetinghouses, all being investigated by the FBI.{{ref|sacbee3}}
*'''Sacramento, California.''' Ten church buildings in the Sacramento area have been vandalized since the election (more than usually occurs in an entire year.{{ref|sacbee4}}

{{Heading2|Terrorist tactics}}
On Thursday, November 13, 2008, envelopes containing white powder were received by the Church at two locations and by a facility of the Knights of Columbus. Both organizations were prominent supporters of the "Yes on 8" campaign.

*'''Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples.''' An envelope containing white powder was sent to the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Temples, forcing their closure while Hazardous Material teams were called in to investigate. The powder turned out to be harmless. {{ref|whitepowder1}}
*'''Windsor Locks, Connecticut.''' An envelope containing a suspicious white powder was found at the Knights of Columbus printing plant. {{ref|whitepowder2}}

No group has claimed responsibility for the actions. The FBI continues to investigate the incidents.

{{Heading2|Hacking of Church related web site}}
*The web site which hosts ''Meridian Magazine'' was hacked. Content was replaced with "horrible, explicit lesbian films," according to the site owner. {{ref|deseretnews.11-13}}

{{Heading2|Threats to revoke the Church's tax-exempt status}}
The organization "Californians Against Hate" made a rather fascinating plea to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate the Church's alleged "undeclared" donations to the Prop 8 campaign. {{ref|calhate1}} First, they claimed that "[t]he Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign." Then, they proceeded to accuse the Church of not sufficiently hiding its involvement from the general public:

:"Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers."

:"...Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all."

:"All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public."

Critics can't have it both ways—either the Church was "highly secretive," or it was offering presentations that were "clearly designed to communicate with the public." The absurdity of this approach speaks for itself.

{{Heading2|Blacklists}}
Public records containing donor information are being used to create blacklists of individuals and businesses who supported Prop 8.

*[http://antigayblacklist.com/ AntiGayBlacklist.com]
*"Californians Against Hate" also created what they call a "Dishonor Roll," which lists donors, the amount they donated, place of business, addresses and phone numbers. It is notable that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not appear on this list, with the largest single donor listed being the Knights of Columbus ($1,425,000).

* Alison Stateman, [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?xid=rss-topstories What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"], ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008)

{{Heading2|Intimidation and forced resignation of donors by identifying their religious affiliation as LDS}}

*Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California). Boycott of restaurant called for when it is discovered that the owner donated $100 to "Yes on 8." Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|hunt1}}

*Boycott of LA radio station (K-Earth 101) called for when it was found out one of the on-air personalities donated to "Yes on 8."{{ref|kabc1}}

*Scott Eckern, Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.{{ref|sacbee1}}{{ref|nyt1}}{{ref|hitandrun1}} (Background info: Scott Eckern, [http://cfac.byu.edu/index.php?id=1421 “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”], Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)

*Boycott of an ice cream store in Sacramento (Catholic owned). {{ref|leatherbys1}}

*"Soft Boycott" of Bolthouse Farms dropped after the company was pressured into giving $100,000 to support gay political causes.{{ref|time1}}

{{Heading2|Forced resignation of gays or lesbians for their opposition to Prop 8}}
The backlash from Prop 8 has not only affected those who supported the measure:

*A lesbian mother was forced to resign her position as President of the PTA at a Catholic school in Fresno, California after she publicly voiced her opposition to Prop. 8. {{ref|mercnews1}}

===Positive effects===
{{Heading2|Expressions of support from our Christian brethren}}

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv72urCWJcU Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur] (YouTube Video)
*[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishops-decry-religious-bigotry-against-mormons Catholic Bishops Decry Religious Bigotry Against Mormons], LDS Newsroom, Nov. 11, 2008.
*[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6506835 Prop 8 Supporters speak out about the vote], KABC - Los Angeles, (Nov. 11, 2008)

{{Heading2|Expressions of support from political leaders}}

Through November 15, 2008, there have been no expressions of support from political leaders, no requests for civility, and no denouncing of the post-election activities of "No on 8" proponents.

=Myths=
Critics of the Church have taken advantage of the Proposition 8 backlash to promote their agenda. The following section addresses some of these claims.
{{Heading2|MYTH: Large numbers of people are resigning from the Church because of its support of Prop 8}}
No evidence has been offered for this claim. Throughout the history of the Church, some left the Church over new doctrines in Kirtland or Nauvoo, over strife in Missouri, over the move West, over polygamy, over the repeal of polygamy, over the priesthood ban, over the repeal of the priesthood ban, over the Church's position on the ERA, and now over Proposition 8. The Church continues to survive and thrive.

{{Heading2|MYTH: Mormons were motivated to do this merely as a vehicle to be considered more mainstream Christian}}
Latter-day Saints object when others attempt to classify them as non-Christian, however, this does not mean that Latter-day Saints are attempting to become "mainstream" Christians. We appreciate being invited to participate in the coalition by our Christian brothers, and did so willingly because we share many of the same family values, even if our theologies differ.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The church sent thousands of missionaries door to door in CA handing out fliers}}
NO missionaries were asked to participate in the distribution of flyers. Missionaries do not participate in political activities while on their mission.

{{Heading2|MYTH: The Church sent large numbers of out-of-state people in to assist with the "Yes-on-8" campaign}}
Support from the campaign was generated from within congregations in California under direction of the Protect Marriage coalition.{{ref|protectmarriage}} There were no "busloads" of out-of-state people brought in.

=Endnotes=
{{ExplicitLanguage}}
#{{note|pew1}}[http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=370 States With Voter-Approved Constitutional Bans on Same-Sex Marriage, 1998-2008 ], ''The Pew Forum'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calvoterguide}}[http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf California Voter Guide]
#{{note|proclamation}}[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1 The Family: A Proclamation to the World]

#{{note|sosd1}}Bill Ainsworth, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071112-9999-1n12gayright.html Groups Joust Over Gay Rights in California]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 12, 2007).
#{{note|state1}}Folmar, Kate (June 2, 2008). [http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/press-releases/2008/DB08-068.pdf Secretary of State Debra Bowen Certifies Eighth Measure for November 4, 2008, General Election] (PDF). ''California Secretary of State.''
#{{note|sfchron1}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL "Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8"], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008)

#{{note|ldsnews1}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage California and Same-Sex Marriage], LDS Newsroom

#{{note|sfgate.10-27}}Matthai Kuruvila, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/26/BAP113OIRD.DTL&tsp=1 Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 27, 2008)
#{{note|beliefnet1}}[http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2008/10/for-mormons-californias-prop-8.php For Mormons, California's Prop 8 Battle Turns Personal], ''beliefnet'' (Oct. 4, 2008)
#{{note|thurston1}}Morris Thurston, [http://www.hrc.org/documents/Responses_to_Six_Consequences_if_Prop_8_Fails.pdf A Commentary on the Document “Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”]
#{{note|ostler1}}Blake Ostler, [http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2008/10/prop-8-comment-they-would-not-print/569/ Prop 8 comment (that is now a Prop 8 post)] (Oct. 20, 2008)
#{{note|sfgate.10-11}}Jill Tucker, [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/10/MNFG13F1VG.DTL Class surprises lesbian teacher on wedding day], ''San Francisco Chronicle'' (Oct. 11, 2008)

#{{note|cnnprop8exit}}CNN exit poll, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, 2,240 Respondents] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|cnnprop8count}}CNN Election Center 2008, [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 California Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage, Full Results] (last accessed Nov. 17, 2008)
#{{note|ladailynews1}}Tony Castro, [http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10910908 Black, Latino voters helped Prop. 8 pass], ''LA Daily News'' (Nov. 5, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnews.clayton1}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=1 LDS official lauds work for California's Prop. 8], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 16, 2008)

#{{note|irs1}}[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations], Internal Revenue Service

#{{note|wnd1}}[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban], ''WorldNet Daily'' (Nov. 5, 2008)
#{{note|malcontent1}}[http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1797 When The Bullied Become The Bullies], ''The Malcontent''

#{{note|ldsnews2}}[http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-statement-on-proposition-8-protest Church Issues Statement on Proposition 8 Protest]

#{{note|ball1}}[http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm Putting strategies to work: the homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media]

#{{note|ocreg1}}Mark Eades, "[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/church-beach-passage-2230532-clayton-fichter Gay marriage proponents protest in front of Mormon church]," <i>OC Register</i> (Nov. 16, 2008).
#{{note|sfchron1}}John Wildermuth and Demian Bulwa, "[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/BAM51419AN.DTL At least 400 protest outside Mormon Church, thousands more in Sacramento]," ''The San Francisco Chronicle'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|sltrib1}}Peggy Fletcher Stack and Jessica Ravitz, "[http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10929992?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltr Thousands in Salt Lake City protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage]," ''Salt Lake Tribune'' (Nov. 9, 2008).
#{{note|sosd2}}Brooke Williams, "[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081110-9999-1m10protest.html Prop. 8 protesters target Mormon temple ]," ''San Diego Union Tribune'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle2}}Janet Tu, "[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html Mormon church targeted for Prop. 8 support]," ''The Seattle Times'' (Nov. 10, 2008).
#{{note|seattle1}}"[http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=9341141 Protestors target Mormon Church after Prop 8 failure]," KXLY TV (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|nyt2}}Colin Moynihan, "[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/at-mormon-temple-thousands-protest-prop-8/ At Mormon Temple, a Protest Over Prop 8]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|ther1}}Lanz Christian Banes, "[http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_11003849 Gay rights activists picket in front of Mormon church]," <i>Times Herald</i> (Nov. 17, 2008).

#{{note|calstate1}}Derek Fleming, "[http://media.www.statehornet.com/media/storage/paper1146/news/2008/11/12/News/no.On.8.Supporters.Target.Mormon.Church-3537408.shtml 'No on 8' supporters target Mormon church]," ''The State Hornet,'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee2}}Chelsea Phue, "[http://www.sacbee.com/295/story/1382472.html Mormon church in Orangevale vandalized in wake of Prop. 8 vote]," ''The Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|denver1}}Kieran Nicholson, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10964515 Book of Mormon burned on doorstep of Arapahoe LDS church]," ''Denver Post'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee3}}Jennifer Garza, "[http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1399018.html Feds investigate vandalism at Mormon sites]," ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|sacbee4}}Jennifer Garza, [http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1399732.html Are attacks on Mormon sites hate crimes?], ''Sacramento Bee'' (Nov. 15, 2008).

#{{note|whitepowder1}}[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAaSEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2 White powder sent to Mormon temples in Utah, LA], Associated Press (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|whitepowder2}}[http://www.wfsb.com/news/17973995/detail.html White Powder Found In Printing Plant], WSFB.com (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|deseretnew.11-13}}Carrie A. Moore, [http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705262907,00.html Owner says Prop 8 opponents hacked into LDS site], ''Deseret News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|calhate1}}[http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/2008/11/sworn-complaint-filed-against-mormon.html Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPCC and 2 State Attorneys General] (Nov. 13, 2008)

#{{note|hunt1}}Lisa Derrick, "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-derrick/el-coyote-boycott-mormon_b_143605.html El Coyote Boycott? Mormon Manager's Faith Overrides "Love" For Customers]," ''The Huffington Post'' (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|kabc1}}Charles Granda, "[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=6502661 Prop. 8 protestors boycott businesses]," KABC TV (Nov. 13, 2008).
#{{note|nyt1}}Jesse McKinley, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/theater/13thea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Theater Director Resigns Amid Gay-Rights Ire]," ''New York Times'' (Nov. 12, 2008).
#{{note|hitandrun1}}[http://reason.com/blog/show/130073.html Mormon Outed by Campaign Finance Laws] (blog) (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|sacbee1}}[http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/12/10/eckern_statement.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf Scott Eckern Releases Statement and Announces Resignation as Artistic Director for California Musical Theatre], November 12, 2008.
#{{note|leatherbys1}}[http://www.redcounty.com/placercountyca/2008/11/tolerance-on-display---targeti/ Tolerance on Display - Targeting Leatherby's Family Creamery] (blog) (Nov. 14, 2008).
#{{note|time1}}Alison Stateman, "[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?iid=tsmodule What Happens If You're on the Gay "Enemies List"]," ''Time'' (Nov. 15, 2008).
#{{note|mercnews1}}[http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10978629 Lesbian mom asked to quit PTA over Prop. 8], ''San Jose Mercury News'' (Nov. 13, 2008)
#{{note|protectmarriage}}[http://www.protectmarriage.com/ Protectmarriage.com].

=Further reading=

==FAIR wiki articles==
{{PoliticsWiki}}


==Videos==
'''Yes on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l61Pd5_jHQw Yes on 8 TV Ad: Truth]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM Yes on 8 TV Ad: Everything To Do With Schools]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened]

'''No on 8 ads'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE "Home Invasion": Vote NO on Prop 8]

'''Press conferences'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU8uuPhQog0 Prop 8 Proponents Speak Out Against Attacks] (Press conference held Nov. 14, 2008)

==External links==
'''Proposition 8 related'''
*Paul Bishop, [http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html In the Face of Hatred], ''Meridian Magazine'', November 12, 2008.
'''Church involvement in politics'''
*{{Ensign1|author=Gordon B. Hinckley|article=Why We Do Some of the Things We Do|date=November 1999|start=52}}{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
*{{BYUS | author=Hugh Nibley | article=[http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/15.1Nibley.pdf Beyond Politics]|vol=15|num=1|date=1974|start=1|end=21}}

{{Suggestions}}

Mormon urban legends or folklore

2008-10-20T18:26:42Z

Pistas3: /* Boyd K. Packer: Supposed transcript from 12 October 2008 talk */

{{draft}}

Frequently Latter-day Saints receive email messages with faith-promoting stories that are difficult or impossible to verify. This article includes examples of these "urban legends."

==Sami Hanna on the Book of Mormon==
*See main article: [[Sami Hanna on the Book of Mormon]]

==Frank Graham and LDS hurricane relief==

<font size="+1">Claim</font>

The following email began circulating in late September 2005, following the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina:

:I was watching Good Morning America this morning and they spoke with Rev. Frank Graham (son of Billy Graham), who is currently in Houston. He spoke of the desperation and devastation that is the "new" way of life in and around New Orleans, but he also had a different message for the country.

:He told the media that there are many churches in the Houston area, indeed, all around America that have reached out to help the victims, but he said that the members of The LDS church are truly amazing.

:He stated (that)..."those people are truly a charity driven people. In the scriptures, charity is defined as the pure love of Christ." He went on to remark how the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have adopted individuals and families in the Astrodome and are helping them to find missing members of their families. They are keeping touch with their designated person or family on a daily basis, making sure the children are enrolled in and can get to school, taking them to Wal-mart and other retailers to purchase clothing and other necessities, and are taking people to job fairs and interviews to assist them in gaining employment. He stated that he has never seen such a love for complete strangers. This has even brought inactive members, according to Graham, "...out of their homes and back to the church because they want to help and they know that the church will be there, organizing and moving to assist those who have nothing, to remember that they truly are something."

:He ended with a personal opinion that anyone in the Houston area who is an evacuee from New Orleans, who says they haven't been "taken care of" or "seen after", has only themselves to blame for refusing the assistance of the amazing LDS population who are volunteering without so much as asking for anything in return for their efforts."

<font size="+1">Response</font>

A Lexis-Nexis check of the Reverend Graham's comments on ''Good Morning America'' shows that he made no such comments.

Additionally, FAIR contacted the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and received the following email from Jeremy Blume, their media spokesperson, on 28 September 2005:

:I've received this same email from several people. There are many inaccuracies in it. Thank you for your desire to research the truth. We appreciate your offer to help let people know that it isn't accurate.

:It is true that Franklin Graham was on ''Good Morning America'' and he praised Christians and followers of Jesus Christ for their response to the hurricane, but he never mentioned any denominations, specific churches, organizations, or groups. Whoever wrote this is adding a lot to his interview.

:Thanks for checking with us. I hope this helps.

FAIR received a second email on 3 October 2005 from Rosemary S. Moore, Administrative Services Correspondent:

:Thank you for contacting us regarding Franklin Graham's appearance on "Good Morning America." We have received correspondence like yours from several people. There are many inaccurate rumors circulating about this particular interview, and we appreciate your desire to know the truth about it.

:It is true that Franklin Graham was on "Good Morning America" on September 16, 2005 and that he praised Christians and followers of Jesus Christ for their response to the hurricane. However, he never mentioned any denominations, specific churches, organizations, or groups.

:We appreciate your checking with us regarding the authenticity of these rumors.

==Boyd K. Packer: Supposed transcript from 12 October 2008 talk==

<font size="+1">Claim</font>

A common e-mail circulated by some members claims to be a transcript of remarks given by President Packer in the Forest Bend Ward in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 12 October 2008. Reportedly, Pres. Packer is quoted as saying that a catastrophic event was looming in the immediate future and that we must get used to making do with what we have or doing without. He is also quoted as saying the world was too dangerous for us to let our children play outside alone.

<font size="+1">Response</font>

A FAIR member contacted Church Public Affairs, and received the following response (the words are the FAIR member's, not the Church's):

:I was told that while President Packer did indeed speak at the meeting cited, no transcript was made and that the one circulating was done after the talk was given and should not be considered to be authoritative. The following statement was given to me on the matter:

::The following First Presidency letter explains the Church’s position on these types of e-mails. The letter was issued on May 13, 2004 and to all Church units and LDS Church leaders. Its subject was:

:::'''Statements Attributed to Church Leaders'''
:::''From time to time statements are circulated among members which are inaccurately attributed to the leaders of the Church. Many such statements distort current Church teachings and are often based on rumors and innuendos. They are never transmitted officially, but by word of mouth, e-mail, or other informal means.

:::''We '''encourage members of the Church to never teach or pass on such statements''' without verifying that they are from approved Church sources, such as official statements, communications, and publications. Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Authority Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at regional and stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only. [emphasis added by FAIR]

:::''True spiritual growth is based on studying the scriptures, the teachings of the Brethren, and Church publications.''

: President Packer's secretary indicated further that President Packer's message for the world is in last week's [i.e., October 2008] General Conference. If members of the Church want to know what message he would have us hear, we need to listen to that talk, and throw this account of his talk away. President Packer's office cautioned that the talk given on 12 October represented President Packer's personal views, and should not be considered to be doctrine or a statement of the Church's views.

<font size="+1">Conclusion</font>

President Packer give did give a talk on the date cited. No approved transcript exists, and it is contrary to the counsel of the Church to circulate or rely on such unofficial accounts, which often distort or misunderstand (even if unintentionally) the intent of the speaker.

When prophets and apostles wish to communicate important information for the spiritual or temporal well-being of members, they will do so via official channels to the entire Church, not in small meetings from which we must rely on unverified accounts to receive their message.

==Boyd K. Packer: Youth were generals in the war in heaven==

<font size="+1">Claim</font>

One persistent rumor has Elder Packer claiming that today's youth were "generals" during the pre-mortal "war in heaven."

<font size="+1">Response</font>

In April 2001, President Packer released the following statement:

:We continue to receive reports of the distribution of a quote attributed to me which begins, 'The youth of the Church today were generals in the war in heaven,' and ends with the statement that when they return to heaven 'all in attendance will bow in your presence.'
:I did not make that statement. I do not believe that statement.
:The statement, on occasion, has been attributed to others of the First Presidency and the Twelve. None of the Brethren made that statement.

*"Pres. Packer refutes quote," ''LDS Church News,'' 28 April 2001. {{link|url=http://www.desnews.com/cn/view/1,1721,175001236,00.html}}
*"Youth were Generals in the War in Heaven," ''shields-research.org''. {{link|url=http://www.shields-research.org/Hoaxes/LDSWorld_Internet_Hoaxes_and_Mormon_Urban_Legends.htm#general}}

===Those who lived in President Hinckley's time will be bowed to===

<font size="+1">Claim</font>

Boyd K. Packer and other Church leaders are quoted in a persistent chain email as having said to a group of LDS youth:

:You were in the War in Heaven and one day when you are in the spirit world you will be enthralled with those who you are associated with. You will ask someone in which time period he lived in and you might hear, "I was with Moses when he parted the Red Sea," or "I helped build the pyramids," or "I fought with Captain Moroni." And as you are standing there in amazement, someone will turn to you and ask, "Which prophet time did you live in?" And when you say "Gordon B. Hinckley," a hush will fall over every hall, every corridor in heaven and all in attendance will bow at your presence. You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous. Are you still? Remember who you are!

<font size="+1">Response</font>

This claim is false, and has been repeatedly disavowed by the Church. A letter of 25 February 2008 reads:

:A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and [someone will] ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence.”

: '''This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine.''' At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement.

:Stake presidents and bishops should see that it is not used in Church talks, classes, bulletins, or newsletters. Priesthood leaders should correct anyone who attempts to perpetuate its use by any means, in accordance with “Statements Attributed to Church Leaders,” ''Church Handbook of Instructions'', Book 1 (2006), 173. [Emphasis present in original]

: - Office of the First President, Notice, "Subject: False Statement," (25 February 2008). [http://pool.fairmormon.org/wiki/images/d/d6/25_February_2008_FP_Letter.pdf Click here] to see the original letter.

==Prophecy of a Catholic priest==

<font size="+1">Claim</font>

A persistent rumor claims that Lutus Gratus, a Catholic priest, wrote the following in 1739 in his book ''Hope of Zion'', which was purportedly discovered in the library in Bayd, Switzerland:

:The old, true Gospel and its truths thereat are lost. False doctrine prevail in all churches on the face of the earth today. All we can do is exhort the people to be just, fear God, shun evil, and pray. Prayer and purity may cause an angel to visit a deep distressed soul, but I will tell you—God will have spoken within a hundred years. He will restore the old Church again. I see a little band of people led by a prophet and persecuted, burnt out and murdered. But in a valley that lies on the shore of a great lake, they will build a city and make a beautiful land, have a temple of magnificent splendor and also possess the old priesthood with teachers, deacons, etc. From every nation shall the true believers be gathered by speedy messengers, and then shall the almighty God speak to the disobedient nation, with thunder, lightning and destructions such as man has never known."

<font size="+1">Response</font>

This "prophecy" first appeared in LDS periodicals in both English and German in 1893, in a story by a returned missionary named Jacob Spori. One of the first to question the authenticity of the document was Rulon S. Wells of the First Council of Seventy, who unsuccessfully attempted to locate the book and its contents in Basel a few years after the story surfaced. Other leaders and missionaries also were unable to verify the statement.

Elder Wells wrote an article called "A Fraudulent Prophecy Exposed" which was published in the January, 1908 ''Improvement Era''. A detailed historical analysis of the false prophecy was published in ''BYU Studies'' in 1985.

*{{BYUS|author=Paul B. Pixton|article='Play it Again, Sam': The Remarkable 'Prophecy' of Samuel Lutz, Alias Christophilus Gratianus, Reconsidered|vol=25|num=3|date=Summer 1985|start=27|end=46}}{{link|url=http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=21961&CISOSHOW=7292}}

==Paul Allen's editorial on the "Mormons"==

<font size="+1">Claim</font>

Paul Allen — co-founder of Microsoft and owner of the Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trail Blazers — wrote a letter praising Mormons that was published in a Santa Clarita, California newspaper.

(One example of this widely-circulated letter can be read in [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/browse_thread/thread/f4e5c2a957ae2c7a/6631682409ddecbd?lnk=strnum=1&hl=en#6631682409ddecbd this Usenet post].)

<font size="+1">Response</font>

A FAIR volunteer contacted ''[http://www.the-signal.com/ The Signal]'', Santa Clarita Valley's newspaper, and inquired about this. The general manager of the paper confirmed that a letter to the editor from a Paul Allen was published in the newspaper on 24 November 2000, and about a year after that someone started circulating it on the web without authorization or permission from ''The Signal.'' The version that has been circulating on the Internet appears to be a correct copy, other than the incorrect date listing of 25 April 2002 or 2003. The letter to the editor is not on ''The Signal's'' web site because they don't put letters online.

The letter-writer is not ''the'' Paul Allen of Microsoft and professional sports team fame. ''That'' Mr. Allen resides on Mercer Island, Washington, over one thousand miles north of Santa Clarita, California.

*Tim Whyte (General Manager, ''The Signal''), "Have Faith: Letter Was Really Published"], 26 May 2002.{{link|url=http://www.the-signal.com/Archive/ViewStory.asp?StoryID=9133}}
*"Enough Is Enough," Snopes.com Urban Legends Reference Pages.{{link|url=http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/paulallen.asp}}

==Brigham Young's Hearse Was Used in Disneyland==

<font size="+1">Claim</font>

A rumor has been spread that the hearse displayed in front of
Disneyland's Haunted Mansion was the hearse used in Brigham Young's funeral.

<font size="+1">Response</font>

There is no truth to the rumor.
In fact, no hearse was used at Brigham Young's funeral.

*Snopes.com discussion of the Disneyland hearse. {{link|url=http://www.snopes.com/disney/parks/hearse.htm}}

==Conclusion==

Never take faith-promoting stories circulated in chain email messages at face value. Check the sources carefully.

:“I would earnestly urge that no such idle gossip be spread abroad without making certain as to whether or not it is true....As I say, it never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are in broadcasting these sensational stories, or dreams, or visions, some alleged to have been given to Church leaders, past or present, supposedly from some person's private diary, without first verifying the report with proper Church authorities.” - Harold B. Lee {{ref|lee1}}

As early Church historian and member of the Seventy B.H. Roberts noted:

:I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based upon worthless testimony.{{ref|madsen1}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|lee1}} {{Ensign1|author=Harold B. Lee|article=Admonitions for the Priesthood of God|date=January 1973|start=105}} {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f3b0438d9b76b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1}}
#{{note|madsen1}} B.H. Roberts, original letter in Church Archives; see ''Deseret Evening News'' (26 June 1926); cited by Truman G. Madsen, ''Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980), 363. {{GL1|url=http://gospelink.com/library/doc?doc_id=266269}}

==Further reading==


===External links===
*LDS Hoaxes, Myths, and "Faith Promoting Rumors" at SHIELDS.{{link|url=http://www.shields-research.org/Hoaxes/Hoaxes.htm}}
* Snopes (general site for urban legends and email hoaxes){{link|url=http://www.snopes.com}}

Mormonism and the internet/Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons

2008-06-25T04:48:54Z

Pistas3: /* Response */

{{question}}

==Question==

A friend tells me that no one can ascertain what Mormons ''really'' believe because "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons" often disagree on fundamental issues. What is this "divided Church" he's talking about?

==Response==

This specific terminology was introduced by a critic of Mormonism, Jason Gallentine, who identifies himself as "Dr. Shades."

His argument began with a survey he posted on an Internet message board.{{ref|drshades1}} Mr. Gallentine later presented his theory at the 2004 Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City. It is clear from his comments — and from his lack of rigorous survey methodology — that he started with a polemical argument and conducted his research to fit his predetermined conclusions.

Many of the issues that Mr. Gallentine thought showed a difference between "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons" are not fundamental to Mormon belief. For example, his questions about [[Global or local Flood|the extent of Noah's flood]] and [[Archaeology and the Hill Cumorah|the location of the Hill Cumorah]] are topics of debate among believing Latter-day Saints, and are not matters on which anyone bases their testimony of the restored gospel.

Another issue Mr. Gallentine ignored is that these differences in perspective existed long before the Internet allowed Latter-day Saints to discuss various views, and will continue long afterwards. There are members of the LDS faith who could be classified as "Internet Mormons" (using "Dr. Shades'" schema) who never used the Internet — including those who died long before the Internet was invented. There are also very active LDS members on the Internet who are best classified as "Chapel Mormons."

LDS belief is more of a broad spectrum, not two isolated positions. Most Latter-day Saints do not sit exactly at the opposite points "Shades" proposes; they are somewhere in-between. This being the case, there isn't some kind of tension that exists between two groups which are clearly delineated — rather, they blend into each other. Only if you ''start with a need to separate Mormons into groups for polemical purposes'' does such a system make any kind of sense at all.

Most FAIR volunteers would be classified by Mr. Gallentine's survey as "Internet Mormons", and yet they still attend church every Sunday, participate in regular callings, and have disagreements among themselves on the finer points of LDS belief. And yet this alleged conflict has no significant impact on the Church or their participation in it.

When people complain about not being able to determine what Mormons (collectively) believe, the real issue they miss is that the Church does not tell its members what to believe. There is a lot of room for divergent views, and the Church thrives on the idea that its members are a vital part of the search for truth. The questions in the temple recommend interview have very little to do with doctrine and very much to do with actions. Ultimately Church leaders are trying to determine if members are dedicated followers of Jesus Christ.

Anti-Mormon critics want to label various views as being somehow heretical and not reflective of most Latter-day Saints. They do this so they can dismiss arguments that defend the gospel from their attacks.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|drshades1}}"Dr. Shades", "Internet Mormons vs. Chapel Mormons: The research project", ''Zion's Lighthouse Message Board'' ("ZLMB"), 8 June 2004. {{link|url=http://p094.ezboard.com/fpacumenispagesfrm71.showMessageRange?topicID=50.topic&start=1&stop=25}}

==Further reading==

===FAIR wiki articles===
{{CultureAttitudeWiki}}

===FAIR web site===
{{CultureAttitudeFAIR}}
===External links===
* {{FR-12-2-19}} 
{{CultureAttitudeLinks}}
===Printed material===
{{CultureAttitudePrint}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-26T06:35:08Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives. When we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat equitably plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15-17}}.) Why does He not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He instruct the Israelites on how to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s|2|Samuel|12|8}}, {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}});
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God ({{s|1|Kings|11|3-4}});
#not take excessive numbers of wives (see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar ({{s||Genesis|16|3}}), Keturah ({{s||Genesis|25|1}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, '"...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.'" (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's unrelenting hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with superficiality. It would probably be helpful to allow the early Saints to speak for themselves. B.H. Roberts, an influential leader explained:

:''The Saints did not accept into their faith and practice the plural-wife system with the idea that it increased the comfort, or added to the ease of anyone. From the first it was known to involve sacrifice, to make a large demand upon the faith, patience, hope and charity of all who should attempt to carry out its requirements. Its introduction was not a call to ease or pleasure, but to religious duty; it was not an invitation to self-indulgence, but to itself-conquest; its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men.''
::—<small>{{TWL1|start=557}}</small>

Even neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will:

:''Dear Cousin . . . As you are aware by my former letter to you that I am a firm believer in and do sustain the principle of plural marriage—the celestial law or higher order of marriage, which not only unites husbands and wives for time but for all eternity, which last clause is the crowning point for all. I will explain more fully, if possible, my reason for so doing, and being a firm believer in the Bible, I will take that as my guide. I find by searching its pages where God said to Abraham the father of the faithful, (in whose bosom all good Christians are praying to repose) “I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Now this we understand is the promise pertaining to Christ the Redeemer, who should come and be crucified to atone for the sins of the world, that as many as would hearken to his word, might be brought back into the presence of God; also in Galatians, “Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made,” and He saith not unto seeds as of many, but as of one, and of thy seed which is Jesus Christ, and all who read the Bible know that Abraham had more than one wife. Again, I find the same promise made of Christ that he should come through the seed of Jacob; a man having four wives, and of these plural wives came the twelve patriarchs, whose names John the revelator tells us are to be written on the twelve gates of the holy city, even the new Jerusalem. In Kings I read that David was a man after God’s own heart, and through his loins a chosen seed should be raised up even Jesus Christ the Redeemer. The Apostle Paul in his day tells the people how the Lord said, I have found the son of Jesse a man after mine own heart which shall fulfill all my will, of this man’s seed hath God, according to promise, raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus. Isaiah confirms the same by telling us, in that day there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand as an ensign for the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek and his rest shall be glorious. Now I learn from the Bible that Jesse, the father of David, was the son of Ruth the plural wife of Boaz and that David his son had many wives, yet in nothing did he displease the Lord only in the case of Uriah and his wife. In Revelations it says one of the Elders said unto me “weep not behold the lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book and loose the seven seals thereof. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end; the first and the last. Again he says “I am the root and the offspring of David the bright and morning star, which makes it very plain to my understanding that God had great respect for those who believed and practised plural marriage, and indeed preferred that lineage for his holy son Jesus to come through, and as he is the root of David, who was a man after God’s own heart, it becomes a most positive proof to me that Jesus Christ, is the chief corner stone and author of this principle; therefore understanding and believing the Bible as I do, reason and my own conscience forces me not only to adopt the principle of plural marriage in my faith, but I must practise the same. I also read in John, Chapter 8, where our blessed Savior says, “if ye were Abraham’s children you would do the works of Abraham.” In Luke, he says, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves cast out. But this is not all, as I have previously told you by letter. God has commanded us through Joseph Smith, our martyred prophet, that we must obey this law, as did his ancient servants and handmaidens that we may become one with him, or where He dwells we cannot come. For us as a people to ignore or set aside this principle would be to incur the displeasure of an offended God.''
::<small>—Nancy Arete Clark, "Letter on Plural Marriage", ''Woman’s Exponent'' (Salt Lake City: 15 Aug. 1882).</small>

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

The video now slanders Joseph Smith through the tactic of "guilt by association," because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by Southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a textbook example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers to judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the 19th century. From a 21st century perspective the reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under 21st century law for example, older men marrying younger women could be found guilty of statutory rape.

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late 19th century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge 19th century members by 21st century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding Observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

:''If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

:''But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
::<small>—{{WE|author=Helen Mar Kimball|date=1 December 1881|start=97|end=99|vol=10|num=13}}</small>

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T21:05:10Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's unrelenting hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality. It is shameful that its producers will not allow the early Saints to speak for themselves. B.H. Roberts, an influencial leader explained:

:''The Saints did not accept into their faith and practice the plural-wife system with the idea that it increased the comfort, or added to the ease of anyone. From the first it was known to involve sacrifice, to make a large demand upon the faith, patience, hope and charity of all who should attempt to carry out its requirements. Its introduction was not a call to ease or pleasure, but to religious duty; it was not an invitation to self-indulgence, but to itself-conquest; its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men.''
::—<small>B.H. Roberts, ''The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology'' (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1991), 557.</small>

Even neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

The video now slanders Joseph Smith through the tactic of "guilt by association," because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a textbook example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

:''If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

:''But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
::<small>—{{WE1|author=Helen Mar Kimball|date=1 December 1881|start=?}}</small>

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T21:01:54Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's unrelenting hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality. It is shameful that they will not allow the early Saints to speak for themselves. B.H. Roberts, an influencial leader explained:

“The Saints did not accept into their faith and practice the plural-wife system with the idea that it increased the comfort, or added to the ease of anyone. From the first it was known to involve sacrifice, to make a large demand upon the faith, patience, hope and charity of all who should attempt to carry out its requirements. Its introduction was not a call to ease or pleasure, but to religious duty; it was not an invitation to self-indulgence, but to itself-conquest; its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men.”

B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology. (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1991), p.557.

Even neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

The video now slanders Joseph Smith through the tactic of "guilt by association," because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a textbook example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

:''If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

:''But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
::<small>—{{WE1|author=Helen Mar Kimball|date=1 December 1881|start=?}}</small>

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T20:52:07Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's unrelenting hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality. It is shameful that they will not allow the early Saints to speak for themselves. B.H. Roberts, an influencial leader explained:

“The Saints did not accept into their faith and practice the plural-wife system with the idea that it increased the comfort, or added to the ease of anyone. From the first it was known to involve sacrifice, to make a large demand upon the faith, patience, hope and charity of all who should attempt to carry out its requirements. Its introduction was not a call to ease or pleasure, but to religious duty; it was not an invitation to self-indulgence, but to itself-conquest; its purpose was not earth-happiness, but earth-life discipline, undertaken in the interest of special advantages for succeeding generations of men.”

B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The Way, The Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology. (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 1991), p.557.

Even neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

:''If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

:''But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
::<small>—{{WE1|author=Helen Mar Kimball|date=1 December 1881|start=?}}</small>

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T20:45:24Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

:''If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

:''But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
::<small>—{{WE1|author=Helen Mar Kimball|date=1 December 1881|start=?}}</small>

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T20:44:38Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey regardless of how difficult it was for them to comply.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Whitney, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, had the following reaction to such unChristian and uncharitable behavior:

Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

:''If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

:''But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
::<small>—{{WE1|author=Helen Mar Kimball|date=1 December 1881|start=?}}</small>

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Call to Leaders

2007-03-24T20:27:06Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Call to LDS Leaders}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">This portion of the video calls for LDS leaders to stop the supposed deception of Mormonism.

"You’d be the hero of all time to the LDS people if you finally admitted Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Beloved you know that. That Mormonism is not true. The Book of Mormon is not true. Joseph Smith is not true. Joseph Smith deceived you and deceived your people. Don’t go on with this deception. So we pray of you, Mormon leaders, have the courage to admit that you’re wrong." (Floyd McElveen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This charges that leaders actually know that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that the Book of Mormon is false, and that LDS leaders simply need to ''admit'' the deception and take the steps necessary to lead Mormons out of the Church. Who granted the critics insight into the minds, beliefs, hearts, and souls of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ?

Critics should recall the admonition of Jesus:

: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.({{s||Matthew|7|1-2}})

The poisonous accusation that LDS leaders actually know that the Mormonism is false has become fashionable in some anti-Mormon circles. This claim is designed to add credibility to the anti-Mormon accusation that the LDS Church is not only wrong, but deceptive.

The fact is, however, that LDS leaders give of their time (a tremendous amount of time) and talents, because they love Christ, they love God's children, and they believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. Many LDS leaders give up lucrative professions and sacrifice time they could be spending in retirement or with family, to dedicate themselves to the Restored Gospel. They really believe in the teachings of the Church and they labor continuously leading people to Christ and the fulness of the Gospel as found the latter-day church that Christ restored.

Brigham Young, like many Church leaders, repeatedly taught that no member should rely on their leader's convictions— each member must seek a spiritual witness:

:''The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.''
::<small>—{{JD1|start=100|vol=6|author=Brigham Young|date=29 November 1857}}</small>
'''To read more''':

* "The Living Christ: Testimony of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,163-1-10-1,FF.html}}
* [[Search for the Truth DVD:Call to Leaders:Individual witness|More quotes by Church leaders]]
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Call to Leaders

2007-03-24T20:26:10Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Call to LDS Leaders}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">This portion of the video calls for LDS leaders to stop the supposed deception of Mormonism.

"You’d be the hero of all time to the LDS people if you finally admitted Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Beloved you know that. That Mormonism is not true. The Book of Mormon is not true. Joseph Smith is not true. Joseph Smith deceived you and deceived your people. Don’t go on with this deception. So we pray of you, Mormon leaders, have the courage to admit that you’re wrong." (Floyd McElveen)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This charges that leaders actually know that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that the Book of Mormon is false, and that LDS leaders simply need to ''admit'' the deception and take the steps necessary to lead Mormons out of the Church. Who granted the critics insight into the minds, beliefs, hearts, and souls of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ?

Critics should recall the admonition of Jesus:

: Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.({{s||Matthew|7|1-2}})

The implication that LDS leaders actually know that the Mormonism is false has become fashionable in some anti-Mormon circles. This claim is designed to add credibility to the anti-Mormon accusation that the LDS Church is not only wrong, but deceptive.

The fact is, however, that LDS leaders give of their time (a tremendous amount of time) and talents, because they love Christ, they love God's children, and they believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. Many LDS leaders give up lucrative professions and sacrifice time they could be spending in retirement or with family, to dedicate themselves to the Restored Gospel. They really believe in the teachings of the Church and they labor continuously leading people to Christ and the fulness of the Gospel as found the latter-day church that Christ restored.

Brigham Young, like many Church leaders, repeatedly taught that no member should rely on their leader's convictions— each member must seek a spiritual witness:

:''The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.''
::<small>—{{JD1|start=100|vol=6|author=Brigham Young|date=29 November 1857}}</small>
'''To read more''':

* "The Living Christ: Testimony of the Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,163-1-10-1,FF.html}}
* [[Search for the Truth DVD:Call to Leaders:Individual witness|More quotes by Church leaders]]
|-
|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T20:17:23Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. Helen Mar Whitney, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, had the following reaction to such unChristian and uncharitable behavior:

Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of those men and women who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

"If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 1 December 1881

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T20:14:59Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the ideal confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic.

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. Nor do the film producers mention the women who accepted and defended the principle as God's will despite initial reservations.

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early Saints public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Helen Mar Kimball, Zina D. Young, Martha Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men and women (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any human let alone any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of many who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

"If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 1 December 1881

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T20:03:46Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of many who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

"If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 1 December 1881

The video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing rather than carnal motives.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:58:59Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

It is beyond dispute that the Saints considered plural marriage to be a command from God. Even so, it was only practiced by a minority. Thus, it is troubling that a video claiming to search for the truth <i>removes</i> the portions of a quote making it clear that Brigham allows for faithful members who are polygamists in faith only.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of many who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

"If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 1 December 1881

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:52:36Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife of Joseph Smith, expresses the sentiments of many who suffered the censure of others who so freely judged them:

"If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites."
Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 1 December 1881

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:48:41Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey. Helen Mar Kimball, a plural wife, expresses the sentiments of many who suffered the censure of others:

"If those not of our faith, who visit our cities, came with a determination to lay aside their prejudices, to learn the facts concerning us, or our religion, nothing would give more pleasure than to tell it them; but too many who have come here, after being treated with every politeness and escorted to seats in our tabernacle which are reserved for the stranger, sit there, under the very altar of the Lord's Supper, in the hearing of Saints who assemble to worship God, and spit out their venom, or make ridicule of everything that we hold sacred."
Helen Mar Kimball, Woman's Exponent 1 December 1881

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites.

But the most despicable characters are the overly righteous souls, who are filled with such holy horror at the mention of "Mormon" polygamy, and are the ones whom we look upon with suspicion, and set them down as among the most corrupt of hypocrites.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:43:50Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that Law did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:38:43Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that McLellin did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Plural marriage as practiced by 19th century Latter-day Saints is an uncomfortable topic for many because it is easier to revile it than to understand it. Understanding plural marriage requires the compilation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:34:49Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose in mind.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

If the producers are indeed searching for the truth, they are obligated to disclose McLellin's hostility towards Joseph Smith and the Saints.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that McLellin did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. More surprising is their refusal to acknowledge the righteousness of Old Testament Patriarchs who obviously participated in polygamy without divine censure.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:29:09Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that McLellin did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards rather than the standards of the society they lived in to ensure that they will be found wanting.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. More surprising is their refusal to acknowledge the righteousness of Old Testament Patriarchs who obviously participated in polygamy without divine censure.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:24:52Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. But the video leaves out important details. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church. Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage. The producers have created another dilemma for themselves, however, because he steadfastly maintained the truth of the Book of Mormon up to his death. If the producers accept Whitmer as an important witness, their search for truth again obligates them to disclose his witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness.

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. It should be no surprise that McLellin vilified the Saints since he took part in mob violence and theft against them:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Again, if the producers are engaged in a search for truth, they are obligated to disclose that McLellin did not dispute the validity of the Restoration despite the dilemma this creates for them.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. More surprising is their refusal to acknowledge the righteousness of Old Testament Patriarchs who obviously participated in polygamy without divine censure.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:06:53Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is disappointing that the Christian DVD producers think that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates with the same purpose.

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But the video presumes that the practice is by definition immoral in all times and circumstances. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. More surprising is their refusal to acknowledge the righteousness of Old Testament Patriarchs who obviously participated in polygamy without divine censure.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T19:01:14Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer. More surprising is their refusal to acknowledge the righteousness of Old Testament Patriarchs who obviously participated in polygamy without divine censure.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:56:56Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:55:49Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:53:54Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing not the carnal motives that the film producers are so quick to accuse so many of having.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Many credible historians and scholars are attempting to do this but the film producers do not use them. They have relied on accusations and innuendo designed to shock the viewer rather than inform the viewer.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:41:13Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage and Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, their ''search for truth'' obligates them to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it.

The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:39:46Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers accept Emma as an important witness, they are obligated to include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it.

The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:37:01Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Do the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

:''Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"''

Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

:''Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."''

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it."

The critics ought to let ''all'' of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers believe Emma is an important witness, why do they not include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life, ''despite'' her struggles with plural marriage?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it.

The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:33:53Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the standard instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video omits the outcome of this legal proceeding. The appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty and no trial was held. The video obviously wants the viewer to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

This is one more "historical document" which the video hides from its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified ''for Joseph'' as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims.

In fact, Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Would the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

:''Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"''

Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

:''Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."''

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it."

The critics ought to let ''all'' of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers believe Emma is an important witness, why do they not include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life, ''despite'' her struggles with plural marriage?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it.

The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}

Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

2007-03-24T18:29:45Z

Pistas3:

{{DVDHeadingBox|Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy}}

{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px"
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:85%;border:1px solid #cedff2;background-color:#f5faff;vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff"
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Is Plural Marriage "Unbiblical"?</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Pastor Gallatin's reading of the scripture is incomplete. Only four chapters later, the Lord gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children. (See {{s||Deuteronomy|21|15}}.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden?

What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say?

:Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... ({{s||Deuteronomy|17|15,17}})

So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they:
#not multiply wives ''to themselves'' (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}, {{s||DC|132|38-39}}.)
#that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God.
#not taking an excessive numbers of wives (analogous to hording too many horses in v. 16; see {{s||Jacob|2|24}}).

David and Solomon are excellent examples of violating one or more of these Biblical principles, as described below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
* Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" ''Deseret News'' (12–14 August 1874) [debate].
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and and his involvement in the death of her husband, Uriah. (See {{s|2|Samuel|11|1-27}}.) Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king:

:And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
:And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
:Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
:Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. ({{s|2|Samuel|12|7-10}})

Nathan here tells David that the ''Lord'' "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth.

But, David ''then'' sinned and did evil ''in the matter of Uriah.'' If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Solomon's problem is described:

:But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
:Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....
:Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
:And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. ({{s|1|Kings|11|1-2,7-8}})

Solomon's wives turned his heart away from God, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Certainly—examples include:

* Abraham married Hagar({{s||Genesis|16|3}}) and other unnamed concubines ({{s||Genesis|25|6}}).
* Jacob ({{s||Genesis|29|21-30}}, {{s||Genesis|30|3-4}}, {{s||Genesis|30|9}}).
* Abijah had fourteen wives ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|21}}) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|8-12}}) and prospered in battle because of the Lord's blessing ({{s|2|Chronicles|13|16-18}}).
* Jehoiada, priest under King Joash "took for him two wives" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|3}}). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" ({{s|2|Chronicles|24|16}}).

If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not condemned or corrected for legitimate plural marriages, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_not_Biblical|Polygamy not Biblical?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: {{s|1|Timothy|3|2}}; {{s|1|Timothy|3|12}}; {{s||Titus|1|6}})."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

There would be no reason to limit church leaders to <i>one</i> wife if polygamy was not found within the early church. Jews of that period allowed polygamy and this was undoubtedly brought with them as they converted to Christianity ({{link|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/scrolls/life.html}}). Latter-day Saints agree that the "standard" instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see {{s||Jacob|2|30}}).

Multiple early Christian writers also understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Early Christians on plural marriage]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting Joseph Smith's Early History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. There are numerous "historical documents" testifying that Joseph performed healings on multiple occasions.

Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, {{s||Matthew|9|34}}, {{s||Matthew|12|13-14}}, {{s||Matthew|12|24}}, {{s||Mark|3|5-6}}, {{s||Luke|5|17-26}}, {{s||Luke|6|7}}, {{s||Luke|14|3-4}}, {{s||John|7|32}}, {{s||John|9|13|34}}, {{s||John|11|44-50}}, {{s||John|12|17-19}}).

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
* [[Joseph Smith healings and miracles]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors ({{S||JS-H|1|28}}). However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Personal_failings_of_Joseph_Smith|Personal failings of Joseph Smith]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Joseph found guilty?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video carefully avoids describing the outcome of this legal proceeding. The video apparently wants the listener to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. (And, even a false conviction is no stain on a man's character—even Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.)

But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome.

In fact, the appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty, and no trial was held.

This is one more "historical document" from which the video wants to protect its viewers.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Was Josiah Stowell deceived?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified ''for Joseph'' as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims.

In fact, Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death.

Would the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See {{s||Acts|23|6}}.)

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_1826_glasslooking_trial|History of 1826 court appearance]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805).

She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters.

|-

! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith's Practice of Plural Marriage</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet.

:''Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'"''

Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

:''Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."''

Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma:

:''I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting.''

Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it."

The critics ought to let ''all'' of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

:''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''

If the video's producers believe Emma is an important witness, why do they not include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life, ''despite'' her struggles with plural marriage?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Emma_Smith_and_polygamy|Emma Smith and polygamy]] (follow link for citations)

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven?

That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. There is more to the story, however, than is presented inthe DVD. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony:

:''The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true.''
::<small> —{{JD1|vol=22|author=George Q. Cannon|title=NEED TITLE|date=18 September 1881|start=251}}</small>

Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates.

Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about David Whitmer's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture.

Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it:

:''I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly.''
::<small>—"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," ''Deseret News'' (24 March 1858).</small>

There is no doubt that Whitmer disagreed with Joseph about plural marriage.

Despite this, he continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God to the end of his long life. Would he have continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was true if he had any doubt about his witness of the angel, his view of the plates, and having heard the voice of God commanding him to bear record? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive ''because'' of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will not get this information from critics of the LDS Church.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Book_of_Mormon_witnesses:Recant|David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William McLellin's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith:

:''While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.''
::<small>— {{LDSBioEncy |vol=1|start=82| end=83}}</small>

McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints:

:''He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property.''
::<small>—{{HR| vol=5|start=38|end=39 }}</small>

McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that

:''he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires.''
::<small>—{{HC1|vol=3|start=91}}</small>

The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What do we know about William Law's witness?</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one:

:''It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices.''
::<small>— {{BYUS1|author=Lyndon W. Cook|article=William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter|vol=22|num=1|date=Fall 1982|start=56| }}{{link|url=https://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=7&ProdID=2008}}</small>

Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph ''was'' a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God?

William helped publish the ''Nauvoo Expositor'', which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a
*''"blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape"'' and
*''"a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."''
::<small>—Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)</small>

'''To read more:'''
* [[Nauvoo Expositor]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Distorting LDS Doctrine</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage."</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. ({{s||DC|132||}}, ''History of the Church'' 5:xxix–xxx, 501–07.)

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes ''marriage'', since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance:

:''The gospel is the ''everlasting'' covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is ''new'' to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the ''new and everlasting covenant''. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. ({{s||DC|22||}}, {{s||DC|132|6-7}}.) Thus celestial marriage is "''a'' new and an everlasting covenant" ({{s||DC|132|4}}) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage....''
::<small>—{{MD|start=529|end=530}}</small>

The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not ''plural marriage'', but ''eternal'' or ''celestial'' marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them.

However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:

:''Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. ({{s||DC|132|1-28}}.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church.'' ({{s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.)
::<small>—{{MD1|start=578}}</small>

The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)"</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by <font color="red">red italics</font>):

:''<font color="red">We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, '''''you will be polygamists at least in your faith''''', or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man '''''that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy''''', will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.</font> ''The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.'' <font color="red">Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.''</font>
::<small>—{{JoD11|start=268|end=269|date=19 August 1866|title=Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City|author=Brigham Young}} {{ea}}</small>

Brigham Young made several points:
* the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
* to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage ''in practice'', but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
* it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
* if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.

Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.

If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation?

Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation|Is plural marriage required for exaltation?]]
* [[Brigham_Young_in_JD_11%2C_page_269|Brigham Young in JD 11:269]]

|-
! <h1 style="margin:25px 0px 0px 0px;font-size:200%;font-weight:normal;text-align:center;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Guilt By Association and Further Distortion of History</h1>

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound-bite superficiality.

What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church.

Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it?

Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

:''Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.''
::<small>—Bernard Shaw, ''The Future of Political Science in America'' (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933).</small>

Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime."

The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?

Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:

:''Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it.''
::<small>—B. Carmon Hardy, ''Solemn Covenant'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 9.</small>

One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.

But, the producers of ''Search for the Truth'' have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_because_of_lustful_motives|Lustful motives?]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on ''America's Most Wanted,'' he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." [''Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.''] - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.{{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2bcd39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD}}

Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior.

Christians ought to realize the dangers of such tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as:
* the Crusades
* the persecution and murder of Jews
* the persecution, torture, and murder of "heretics" or "witches" by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli
* justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War
* acts of political terrorism

Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned?

'''To read more:'''
* [[Polygamy_and_the_modern_Church|"Fundamentalist" splinter groups]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) </h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards.

The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape."

The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework.

The age of consent under English common law was ''ten''. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to ''seven.''{{link|url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm}}

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Joseph_Smith's_marriages_to_young_women|Marriages to young women]]: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church.

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do.

The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Plural marriage spiritual manifestations]]

|-
! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives. - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon)</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey.

And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful ''husbands'' of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses.

The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work.

Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millennium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship."

Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to be with Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God ({{s||DC|76|57}}, {{s||DC|107|3-4}}, {{s||Alma|13|1-9}}).

The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the ''entire family'' was confident of being together in the eternities, not only with each other, but with their dear friend and prophet Joseph Smith.

Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millennium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ.

'''To read more:'''
* [http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf Sealing to married women? (PDF file)]
* [http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai228.html Further resources]

|-

! <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#cedff2;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #a3b0bf;text-align:left;color:#000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Concluding observations</h2>
|-
| style="color:#000"|

Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it.

The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth.

The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and interested readers are encouraged to follow the links provided below for a more in-depth view of polygamy.

'''To read more:'''
* [[Template:PolygamyPortal|Plural marriage wiki resources]]
* {{tg|url=http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html|topic=Plural marriage resources}}
* [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format]

|}


{{DVDRightColumn}}
|}
{{DoYouHaveQuestions}}