Gospel Topics Chapter 9 Bringhurst Part 3

You hear a knock on the door and open it to find two friendly representatives from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormon Church.

So what will you say? Will you send them away without a Christian witness, or will you engage them in a meaningful and Christ-honoring conversation? If you desire the latter, may we suggest the book, Answering Mormon's Questions, by Mormonism Research Ministries Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson. Answering Mormon's Questions is available wherever you find quality Christian books. Viewpoint on Mormonism, the program that examines the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from a biblical perspective. Viewpoint on Mormonism is sponsored by Mormonism Research Ministry. Since 1979, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism. Welcome to this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism.

I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry, and with me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. Plural marriage, chapter 9 in the book, the LDS Gospel Topics series, a scholarly engagement. Chapter 9 is titled Plural Marriage After 1890, and it's written by a man named Newell G. Bringhurst, and he's talking about the essay that was titled The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage. And for those of you who have not been with us this entire week, on this subject, The Manifesto was a document that was signed in 1890 by fourth president of the LDS church, a man by the name of Wilford Woodruff. And in that manifesto, it basically promised the United States government that the church was not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice.

So in this essay, what Mr. Bringhurst is going to do is he's going to offer his praises for what the essay has to say. And Eric, you and I probably would share some of those praises, because certainly this is delving into subject matter that the church has in the past been pretty reluctant to admit. Because what they're going to be admitting is that there was a lot of deception going on. They were promising the government one thing, but really behind the scenes, something else was taking place. And we're going to talk about some of that today.

When he says that there is much to praise, I don't know if I would go that far, though, because I think much of the reason for why they put together the Gospel Topics essays is damage control. This information is on the internet. People are talking about it. And they're trying their best to take as much information as they can, but share what they want people to hear and to be able to, I think, I'm going to use the word spin. I mean, they're going to spin the information in a way like they are with polygamy, making it sound like this was an OK thing at the time.

And we don't practice today, but we used to do it. And somehow it's OK. Mr. Bringhurst writes, Now, see, I would probably struggle with that statement from the essay. Because the reason why the beginning of plural marriage in the church was a process is because Joseph Smith has to lie about it. You can't talk about polygamy in the LDS church without also bringing up the subject of deception and prevarication. Smith couldn't just blurt it out because he actually tested the waters by sharing this with some people that were close to him. And many of them were repulsed by the idea, even one of his own brothers.

So naturally, it couldn't have just come out all of a sudden. For one, he has the approval of the church itself that he needs to meet, which would be difficult. And he would also have to somehow circumvent the laws of the land that did not allow for the practice of plural marriage.

Mr. Bringhurst goes on to say, Well, I can understand that dilemma that many members probably faced, and I think it's absolutely true. The members were told that plural marriage was a commandment from God. Now, imagine you're a Latter-day Saint. You have Brigham Young, John Taylor, the second and third president, telling you that this is a divine commandment. God is saying for us as a people that we need to engage in plural marriage. Brigham Young went so far to say that if you didn't do it, you would be damned. He said that the only way you could become a god or even the son of God is if you entered into polygamy. So you have two prophets. I'm just pointing to two, Brigham Young and John Taylor.

And now you've got the fourth president telling you just the opposite. Yet you've been led to believe that these are men of God who speak on behalf of God. You can understand why you're facing a conundrum here. And you might ask, well, why is it that a Latter-day Saint would put up with that? Why wouldn't they just stop and reason through this saying, look, either these men are acting out of their own impulses, coming up with their own ideas, or my God can't seem to make up his mind whether or not we should or should not practice plural marriage.

I think the answer to that is relatively simple. And the reason why it's simple is because Latter-day Saints during this time period, and I would say even today, are told that you're not supposed to question their leaders. You have Heber C. Kimball, who was a member of the first presidency under Brigham Young, who taught on November 8, 1857, and you can find this in the Journal of Discourses, volume 6, page 32. He said, and when you are taking a position, if you do not know that you are right, do not take it. I mean independently, but if you were told by your leader to do a thing, do it.

None of your business, whether it is right or wrong. In that same sermon, he went on to say, Brother Brigham is my leader, he is my prophet, my seer, my revelator, and whatever he says, that is for me to do, and it is not for me to question him one word, nor to question God a minute. Do you not see? So this is the mindset a lot of Latter-day Saints follow. So to see this contradiction needs to be set aside and just do what you're told, and this hasn't changed. This is still pretty much the teaching of the LDS Church today. Let me give you a quote from Apostle M. Russell Ballard in a conference message printed in the Ensign Magazine, November 1999, page 64. However, in the Lord's church, there is no such thing as a loyal opposition. One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God's prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed. Let me give you another citation from a church manual.

This comes from 2000. The Latter-day Saint woman, basic manual for women, part B, page 106, it says, They should never criticize priesthood leaders or say unkind things about them. Criticizing our leaders endangers our own salvation. So you might say that the average member saw it basically as a threat to question what they're being told.

You just do it. Now at the bottom of page 235, the author of this chapter, Newell G. Bringer, says, Rank and file Latter-day Saints, the essay concedes, accepted the manifesto with various degrees of reservation. Many were not ready for plural marriage to come to an end, and it further admits that the 1890 manifesto did not prohibit individual church members, quote, from continuing to practice or perform plural marriage as a matter of religious conscience. If these leaders were aware of this going on and did nothing about it, aren't they kind of encouraging it? Are they allowing them to continue the practice and performing plural marriages?

I would say of course they are. The next paragraph reads, Also refreshing is the essay's frank acknowledgement of so-called post-manifesto polygamous marriages. Facilitating such marriages was that the manifesto, quote, said nothing about the laws of other nations, end quote. Thus, church leaders continued to perform marriages in Mexico and Canada, two nations where Latter-day Saints had established settlements prior to 1890. The essay states, quote, Latter-day Saint couples who live far away from temples were permitted to be sealed in marriages outside them. For a time, post-manifesto plural marriages required the approval of a member of the First Presidency.

There is no definitive evidence, however, that the decisions were made by the First Presidency as a whole, dot, dot, dot, end quote. Well, let's talk about that because the manifesto of 1890 said specifically, as I just read it earlier, we are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice. But yet, this essay seems to admit, for a time, post-manifesto plural marriages required the approval of a member of the First Presidency.

Well, if a member of the First Presidency can give approval, doesn't that tend to sound like they're still teaching plural marriage, and they're allowing some to enter into its practice? If you go to the footnote, footnote number 38, at the end of this statement, there are several different citations of works that you would not be able to find very easily. But this is what it says at the end, it's referring to Joseph F. Smith, and he was the sixth president of the church. This is what it says, President Joseph F. Smith later affirmed that he, President Woodruff, the fourth president, and President Snow, the fifth president, as presidents of the church, quote, have not given authority to anyone to perform or enter into plural marriages since the manifesto, end quote. And that comes from the Francis M. Lyman journal dated December 14, 1905. Doesn't that sound like a bit of a contradiction? Especially when we look at the very next sentence on page 236. This is what Newell G. Bringhurst writes, the essay also broaches Joseph F. Smith's ambiguous, contradictory behavior. After becoming church president in 1901, Smith allowed a small number of new plural marriages during the early years of his administration. But yet you just read a footnote where Joseph F. Smith seems to deny this.

So what is a Latter-day Saint supposed to believe about this? Now again, how many of them are reading these footnotes in the essay, especially now that the church has made it more difficult to see them? You have to actually click on it, a window pops out, you see the note, and then when you go on, it disappears. If you try to print the essay out, you don't get any of these footnotes or endnotes. None of them show up. The numbers are there after a sentence, but it doesn't tell you what that number is trying to tell you. Even though the church is trying to be a little bit more transparent, they are making it difficult for you to see through that transparency. We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint on Mormonism.