12. Marriage Is Ordained of God

In reply to the chapter, “Another Angel Story”

Page 160, lines 16-26

The book gives Joseph F. Smith’s account of Joseph Smith being commanded by an angel with a drawn sword to implement the earlier plurality of wives revelation. Four pages of the talk are condensed into ten lines by the use of ellipses.

In the condensation the spirit of the message is lost. Is the passage quoted suggesting that Joseph Smith was eager to practice plural marriage? The book quotes, “It need scarcely be said that the Prophet found no one any more willing to lead out in this matter in righteousness, than he was himself . . . ” The next sentence in the Journal of Discourses that was eliminated says:

Many could see it—nearly all to whom he revealed it believed it and received the witness of the Holy Spirit that it was of God.

Now the book continues its part of the quote: “But none excelled, or even matched the courage of the Prophet himself.'” The omission could change the emphasis substantially. It needs to be recognized that Joseph F. Smith was not saying that Joseph was the most anxious to practice the doctrine, but that he had to be the example in order to inspire anyone else to actually practice it, even though other leaders too had received divine confirmation.

Page 160, lines 27-31

It was Joseph Smith’s story about an angel with a drawn sword that “convinced his followers to accept this ‘revelation’ when nothing else would. ”

The following facts point to a different interpretation.

1. Although the story appears to be true, there is no evidence that it was circulated in Nauvoo, since the earliest known account of the incident was related after Joseph Smith’s death.
2. The incident was for the purpose of providing a reluctant Joseph alone with an incentive to practice the doctrine.

Page 160, lines 32-33

“If the story [of the angel with the drawn sword] is true, then no one dare reject polygamy-“

The secondary accounts of this episode all refer to Joseph, not Church members, as being threatened with the sword if plural marriage were not introduced. See further comment about page 176, lines 3-4.

Page 160, line 34 to page 161, line 30

The book “reasons” that since the practice of plural marriage was evil, the angel with the sword must be satanic, and that since this angel and the Angel Moroni must come from the same source, then all of Mormonism is satanic.

All of the authors’ conclusions depend on the validity of their premise. Their premise, that God would never sanction plural marriage, is wrong, of course. (See comments in relation to page 150, lines 10-12 and page 157, lines 3-5 for earlier discussion of this fallacy.)

A God-authorized righteous polygamous family could have as much success in producing outstanding children as a righteous monogamous marriage could.

Over the past twenty-five years as I have taught LDS religion classes I have frequently asked my students how many come from a background where plurality of wives was practiced by one or more of their forefathers. Sometimes as many as half of the class raise their hands. These are among my best, sharpest and most faithful students. The Book of Mormon passage at such times comes into my mind, “If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [remain monogamous}” (Jacob 2:30).

The authors say LDS polygamy is from the devil. They do not attack Hebrew or Moslem polygamy. Why do they only criticize LDS plural marriages?

One must then respond as the authors do: “With polygamy. . . we have the record of many witnesses.” Hopefully the readers will not just listen to the “prosecution” witnesses, but see what the defense witnesses say.

Page 162, lines 3-6

“Joseph Smith produced numerous ‘revelations’ on this subject, but always in private and generally to convince some woman he coveted, whether single or named, that the Lord had given her to him.”

Why do the authors not document these “revelations”?

Previously the authors said they did not believe there were any earlier “revelations” than 1843.

Page 162, footnote

“A photograph of this letter was discovered . . . at the University of Utah library.”

In documenting Joseph Smith’s letter to Sarah Whitney, the book departs from its usual format of placing footnotes at the back of the book, and this time there is a conspicuous footnote at the bottom of the page. Obviously the authors want everyone to know about this plural marriage reference. See next item for content of letter.

Actually the letter has appeared in a few publications including that of Dean Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 538, published by Deseret Book Company, the Church publishing company.

Page 162, line 7 to page 163, line 3

“If [a woman] was convinced [of a revelation that she was to marry Joseph Smith and did so]. . . thereafter clandestine trysts were arranged; Sarah Ann Whitney is one example of many” (Ibid.).

One example is not many. And in the example the authors relate they themselves point out that Joseph Smith invited not only Sarah, whom Joseph Smith had married a month earlier, but also her mother and father to come at the same time. The authors however do not point out that the earlier marriage was performed by Newel K. Whitney, Sarah’s father, nor that the purpose of the appointment was to have the “fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads. ” Is this a “clandestine tryst”? The letter is a sincere declaration of Joseph Smith’s love for the Whitney family. Joseph Smith about a year later performed a marriage “for time only” (i.e„ for mortality only) between Sarah Ann Whitney and Joseph Kingsbury.

Page 163, lines 35-39

“They [Sarah Ann Whitney and Joseph Kingsbury] lived together for years as supposed husband and wife.”

It is not always clear which wives of Joseph Smith included connubial relationships and which ones were “sealed” for “eternity only.” Evidence gives July 27, 1842, as the date Sarah Ann Whitney was married to Joseph Smith and that on April 29, 1843, Joseph Smith sealed “for eternity” Joseph Kingsbury to his wife Caroline who had passed away. Joseph Smith at the same time performed a marriage for “time only” between Joseph Kingsbury and Sarah Ann Whitney. The source of the authors’ quote (H. Michael Marquardt, The Strange Marriages of Sarah AnnWhitney) does not give evidence that Sarah Ann Whitney and Kingsbury were living in adultery. The source even gives evidence that the marriage was legally recorded in Nauvoo. Perhaps Kingsbury considered it a “Pretended marriage,” as he wrote in his journal, because it was not for “Eternity” or because the marriage was never consummated. The evidence does not make this clear. However, whether Kingsbury and Sarah Ann Whitney were living together as husband and wife or not, there could not have been adultery in either case, because they were legally married. The source the authors quote does not even make it dear whether Joseph Smith and Sarah Ann Whitney ever lived together in a normal marital union.

Page 164, lines 18-22

” ‘Suppose Joseph [Smith] should come and say he wanted your wife, what would you say to that?’. . . if such a man of God should come to me and say, 1 want your gold or silver, or your wives, ‘ I should say, ‘Here they are. I wish I had more to give you. Take all I have got” ” (JD 2:14)

The authors, quoting from a speech by Jedediah M. Grant, leave out a whole page of material represented by ellipses. Some of these words are particularly significant: “Did the Lord actually want Abraham to kill Isaac? Did the Prophet Joseph want every man’s wife he asked for? He did not” (Ibid.).

Jedediah Grant did not believe Joseph Smith would demand other men’s wives except for the purpose of testing faith and obedience, anymore than God ever intended Isaac to be sacrificed by Abraham, but Jedediah Giant had so much trust in Joseph Smith that he used this hyperbole to show this.

Page 164, lines 27-28

“[Oliver] Cowdery had accused Joseph [Smith] of adultery. “

The reference to a thesis (Max H Parkin, “Conflict at Kirtland,” p. 166) actually says that in 1835 Joseph Smith confided “the precept of plurality of wives” to a few close associates including Oliver Cowdery. Later Oliver Cowdery did make an accusation of adultery against Joseph Smith. This same thesis also pointed out that Oliver Cowdery actually rushed into “polygamy” after Joseph Smith had told him to wait. It seems very probable that Oliver Cowdery’s accusations arose to justify his own adulterous actions. The book ignores these pertinent details.

Page 165, lines 8-9

“Joseph Smith brazenly lied” when to Oliver Cowdery and Warren Parrish he denied he was being adulterous.

If Joseph was acting on his own, yes, to deny adultery was a lie. But if Joseph was told by God to practice plurality of wives, as Latter-day Saints believe, he was not committing adultery and was not lying.

Page 165, lines 9 and 10

Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated because he dared to accuse “the Lord’s anointed.”

If Oliver Cowdery was being adulterous, in that he took an additional “wife” without being properly authorized and married under Priesthood authority, his behavior warranted excommunication. (George Q. Cannon [ed.]. Juvenile Instructor, XVI: 18 [September 15, 1881], p. 206). Again we see Joseph Smith kept the integrity of the Church. An excommunicated, angry Cowdery could expose the “seam” if it was a hoax. Would Oliver Cowdery have returned to the Church in 1850 and would he have reaffirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon if he really believed Joseph Smith was a fraud or adulterous?

Page 165, lines 26-29

“Joseph Smith had been engaging habitually in sexual intercourse . . . [with] 84 or more plural wives.” On page 167, lines 24-25 the authors change their claim to suggest “some” instead of “all” these wives.

The LDS Church and most historians recognize that Joseph Smith was living with a few of his wives, but not most of them. Some women were “sealed for eternity only” to Joseph Smith, either during his lifetime or after he died.

Scholars also feel that the total number of women sealed to Joseph Smith during his lifetime would not be eighty-four but only half that amount. The LDS Church has published a list of twenty-seven certain names.

Page 165, lines 30-32

“During this time, both the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants (to say nothing of the Bible and civil laws of the land) clearly condemned what Joseph was doing as adultery.”

See page 169, lines 29-30 for further comment. Actually the federal laws of the land did not prohibit polygamy at the time. Sparked by the LDS practice, the first laws passed by the United States against polygamy were enacted in the 1860s.

Page 165, last line

“The full story of Joseph Smith’s scandalous depravity cannot be told here.”

I suspect the authors are telling all they can extrapolate, since much of the book has room to repeat many of the same charges a multitude of times. The next several examples they give are from secondary sources at best and bitter anti-Mormon books often are given as their documentation.

Page 167, lines 2-9

“The comments of Ann Eliza Young, one of Brigham’s many wives, give further insight.”

There is no mention that this person was an angry divorced wife making a comfortable living giving anti-Mormon lectures around the country, which makes her testimony suspect. In the book quoted, Ann Eliza says little derogatory about her former husband, Brigham Young, who was alive and would have been able to defend himself. Yet she gives undocumented hearsay, accusing Joseph Smith who was dead and couldn’t defend himself. Ann Eliza is quoted as saying:

“He [Joseph Smith] taught them [married women] that all former marriages were null and void . . . The marriage covenants were not binding, because they were ratified only by Gentile laws, {which] the Lord did not recognize, consequently, all the women were free” (Ann Eliza Webb Young, Wife No. 19. pp. 70-71).

This undocumented charge by Ann Eliza Young is contrary to what Joseph Smith taught: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land” (D&C 58:21) and “[befriending] that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6). The twelfth Article of Faith of the LDS Church says, “We believe . . . in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

Page 167, line 34

“According to Jesus, there is no marriage relationship in heaven.”

This was discussed in relation to page 34, line 25.

Page 168, lines 1-25

“Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner . . . is of particular interest,” claims the book. (She became a wife to Joseph Smith and in 1905 gave a speech at Brigham Young University about her experiences.) The book quotes her as saying, “I asked him [Joseph Smith] if Emma knew about me and he said, ‘Emma thinks the world of you. ‘ I had been dreaming for a number of years that I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner . . . but when Joseph sent for me he told me all these things.”

In the part of the passage left out Mary also said, “I prayed to God to take [this feeling for Joseph Smith] away from me for I felt it was a sin.” She also said, “I was not sealed to him until I had a witness” and “an angel came to me.” These are certainly important omissions. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner prayed to the Lord and told him that she wouldn’t many Joseph Smith until she had a confirmation. Then an angel came to her telling her to marry Joseph Smith. The story is quite different than the one written in The God Makers.

The authors, using ellipses and forgetting ellipses, also completely left out important information about how the angel with the drawn sword had previously appeared to Joseph Smith without a sword and how the LDS prophet had pleaded with the angel that plurality of wives was contrary to his thinking. But the angel finally prevailed.

The book quotes from two anti-Mormon sources to verify its cut-up version of what Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner said. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?, p. 215 and Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp. 466-467.) It should be noted that both accounts differ and that both accounts also edited their source.

Page 168, lines 27-29, and page 169, lines 7-8

“No Mormon today has any excuse for being ignorant of the fact that in order to become a ‘God’ he must practice polygamy. “

This is not true. Brigham Young foresaw a time when plurality of wives could be done away with in the LDS Church (JD 11:268). And the Book of Mormon teaches monogamy is the general law. See comments about page 34, line 14 for earlier remarks.

Page 169, lines 6-7

“Polygamy will be the rule in the kingdom, when the Mormon church is expected to be in control of the world.”

This political conspiracy charge was discussed earlier in connection with page 10, lines 6-10 and lines 21-24.

The charge about mandatory plural marriage in a theoretical LDS political kingdom is unfounded, and not even historically accurate, since not all members of the LDS Church were ever required or permitted to practice plural marriage.

Page 169, lines 9-10

“Seven of. . . nine [LDS] Church presidents have lived in plural marriage.”

Today the figure is seven out of thirteen.

Page 169, lines 13-16

“Wilford Woodruff, fourth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who signed the 1890 Manifesto agreeing to cease the practice of polygamy, . . . perjured himself in court.”

The charge is not documented.

This is the first time the authors mention that the LDS Church did stop the practice. However, they fail to mention that President Woodruff affirmed this manifesto was based on a revelation.

Page 169, lines 22-24

The authors quote from Wilford Woodruff, “If we were to do away with polygamy . . . then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation.” The bock continues, “President Woodruff left no middle ground. Either go along with Joseph Smith’s polygamy or renounce Mormonism entirely.”

The above quotation comes from a speech given in 1869, nineteen years before Wilford Woodruff became president of the Church during the height of the LDS plural marriage era. President Woodruff added that the Saints could not give up this practice because it was based on revelation.

Reading the passage in total and in context we see that the authors’ interpretation is incorrect. Elder Woodruff in fact was correctly saying that the Mormons were persecuted long before they practiced plural marriage, and that if they were to satisfy their persecutors they must give up their doctrines one by one, starting with plural marriage, “and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarian, and do as the world does, then all would be right. ” He added, “We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up his kingdom . . . and we are going to do it.” In this there is no hint nor intent of what the authors construe the passage to mean.

Page 169, lines 29-30

The book again says God did not approve of polygamy in the Bible.

If the authors mean that God always disapproved of his prophets and leaders having more than one wife, then the statement is not true. God both approved of biblical polygamy and disapproved of it. God is offended when those who practice monogamy commit adultery and he is offended when polygamists commit the same sin. David, who had numerous wives given him of God (2 Sam. 12:8) and was highly favored of God, was severely condemned by God when he committed adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam., chapters 11-12). See also comments in relation to page 160, line 34.

Page 169, lines 30-33

” [Joseph Smith took wives] in brazen disobedience to the Book of Mormon and Section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants.”

The Book of Mormon does say the general rule is monogamy, but that under certain circumstances the Lord will require a plurality of wives.

The original Section 101 (never claimed as a revelation but approved as a statement of belief) did state that monogamy was the practice of the Church at that time. The section was not written by Joseph Smith and was voted upon by members in his absence. Perhaps the section was intended to prevent members from getting involved with plural marriage until such a time as the practice would be authorized by the Lord Church-wide. When that became the fact, the current Section 132 replaced the old Section 101.

Page 169, lines 35-37

“Joseph had already taken plural wives before he checked it out with ‘the Lord.’ “

The book does not say here anything about a plural marriage revelation in 1829 or 1831, which it in fact mentioned in a quotation on page 150, lines 10-12. Verse 52 of Section 132, which the authors maintain is the earliest “revelation” on plural marriage, states that the Lord had given Joseph Smith other wives previously.

Page 169, last two lines

“Even Mormon leaders have admitted that by all laws he [Joseph Smith] was a wanton adulterer.”

(Is this as opposed to a non-wanton adulterer?) There is no documentation for this statement. Laws against “fornication” and “adultery” were on the books then as they are now, but seldom enforced. And polygamy was interpreted by community standards as adultery. The authors are insistent that Joseph Smith’s practices were “adulterous” without saying much at all about the common adulterous practices running rampant in our society in the 1840s and even more so now. The book says little about the evil of adultery generally, but is constantly outraged that “Joseph Smith’s adultery” was a crime against humanity.

If Joseph Smith was guilty of even a portion of the charges made and was not commanded by God to have other wives, then he was an adulterer. Joseph Smith was certainly aware of the wrath of God when one takes wives not authorized by the Lord as taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:23-24). The marriage revelation itself speaks of David’s punishment for murder and for marrying the murdered man’s wife (Bathsheba) which was not authorized by the Lord (D&C 132:38-39).

Based on a lifetime of study of his total life, I am convinced Joseph Smith was commanded of God to take plural wives. Knowing the doctrines he restored, and feeling and seeing the results of the gospel of Jesus Christ as he taught it, in numerous lives including my own, I cannot accept that this was all channeled through a wicked man. Joseph Smith was approved of God and a mighty prophet.

Page 170, lines 1-3

“What kind of mentality would cause anyone, much less a ‘Prophet,’ to ask God, in view of all the scriptures against it, whether He approved adultery?”

Joseph Smith did not ask God if adultery was all right. As D&C 132:1 makes clear, he asked God to clarify the biblically sanctioned practice of plurality of wives. When sanctioned by God plurality of wives is not the same as adultery. Why did the authors not mention the sources that bring out how reluctant Joseph was to enter into this practice, how he resisted the idea, how he initially refused?

On page 168, lines 1-25 the authors edit out the Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner claim that Joseph Smith pleaded with the angel more than once, arguing against the practice, before the angel came with the drawn sword telling Joseph he must begin practicing it. If lust was Joseph Smith’s motivation as the book claims, why would he go through all the turmoil, abuse, suffering, arrests, and imprisonment that he did? He could have easily satisfied his passions the way many others do—by illicit sex relations and not a statement of religious principle that was bound to provoke opposition and persecution.

Page 170, lines 14-16

“It is just as perverse [for investigators of the LDS Church] to ask for divine endorsement of obvious contradiction and falsehood [the Book of Mormon] as it is to ask God whether adultery is all right. “

There are at least four points wrong with that conclusion:

1. It is based on a false premise—that Joseph Smith was an adulterer (see comments about page 170, lines 1-3).
2. It assumes Joseph Smith was eager to practice living with more than one woman (see page 170, lines 1-3 for examination of this notion).
3. The statement assumes the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. In reality the Book of Mormon testifies that the Bible is true, clarifies several vague scriptural teachings and supplements biblical passages.
4. If the Book of Mormon is false as the book claims, shouldn’t praying about it reveal its falseness? Are the authors trying to intimidate readers of the Book of Mormon to persuade them not to pray about it, because those who sincerely study it, ponder and pray about it get positive answers? Do the authors really believe God is so helpless or insensitive that he would allow Satan to answer prayers that are addressed to God? See next item for further comment.

Page 170, line 18-21

Those who pray to God for a spiritual confirmation to verify the divine call of Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon will, if that’s what they want, just as surely get it—and from the same source [the devil].

The book’s claim that Satan wants mortals to become Mormons is not only untrue, it is not even rational. It isn’t logical to think Satan wants people to be Latter-day Saints, in view of the fact that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon testify literally hundreds of times that Jesus (Satan’s adversary) is the Christ. See comments about previous point and page 112, lines 34-37, for earlier discussion. By making such a charge the authors are undercutting their own belief in God’s ability to answer prayer.

Page 170, lines 22-29

The “prophet . . . wanted wealth, power and sex.”

If Joseph Smith’s motive was wealth he certainly discovered early that would not be his lot in life. The sex issue was discussed with page 170, lines 1-3. Joseph Smith did achieve power, which he taught must be used with restraint and in righteousness (D&C 121:36-37). An in-depth study of Joseph Smith’s life reveals a man of great virtue.

Page 170, lines 32-34

The authors quote as follows: “[Joseph Smith] used to state to his intended victims, as he did to me, ‘god does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.’ ”

This anti-Mormon source has been used several times in The God Makers: it is “Dr. Wyl’s Mormon Portraits, 1886 pp. 61-62.” There is no first name of the author given, nor the fact that it was published by the Salt Lake Tribune, which at that time was a bitter anti-LDS publication. Dr. Wyl was a reporter for a Berlin, Germany, newspaper and his book had the endorsement of W. S. Godbe, who had been excommunicated from the LDS Church and who started the movement known in Utah history as the Godbeites. Mormon Portraits was The God Makers of its day.

Page 171, lines 2-4

“Although the majority of the Mormon women were not happy with the new ‘revelation’ (some . . . committed suicide in despair), many of the men, especially the leaders, embraced it enthusiastically.”

No documentation is presented for these allegations. There were undoubtedly problems in these kinds of families as there are in monogamous marriages. There were some unhappy wives under this system. There are also numerous accounts of much love and many beautiful relationships in this type of marriage. Most complaints appear to have come from the men. If lust was the motive for the men, as the book suggests, this could have been satisfied without the responsibility and problems of trying to keep several families supported and functioning and potential jealousies controlled.

Speeches by Church leaders such as Brigham Young bring this out:

The man that enters into this order by the prompting of passion, and not with a view to honour God and carry out his purposes, the curse of God will rest upon him, and that which he seems to have will be taken from him and given to those that act according to principle. Remember it (JD 9:37).

Page 171, line 9 to page 172, line 13

These lines repeat for approximately the tenth time that plural marriage is essential to Mormonism’s highest reward.

See comments about page 34, line 14 for the earlier denial of this assertion.

Page 171, lines 29-31

“Many [Church leaders] admitted later in court that they had lied when making this pledge [not to continue polygamy] and had secretly continued to live in polygamy and even to ‘seal’ plural marriges in the Temple.”

This again is not documented. It took time for the message of this momentous change to be applied churchwide, and there were some violations in that marriages to additional wives were not totally ended immediately. The Church also began to discipline those who would not fall in line, including the release of two apostles.

To Latter-day Saints, the termination of. plural marriage usually meant no more new marriages performed of this type. To outsiders and the federal government, it often meant breaking up every existing family. After years of strife, the U.S. government relented and agreed that plural marriage would die out on its own, if left alone, if no new “polygamous” marriages were performed. The U.S. officials began to realize that to break up thousands of families and force them into a situation without fathers or providers would create more social and welfare problems than they were trying to “solve.”

The book does not treat the problem of what it meant to the participants to stop plural marriage, but merely accuses those Latter-day Saints of being liars who in good faith continued to live in the family relationship.

Page 171, lines 32-38

“In 1904, however, plural marriages were finally dissolved by the church and polygamy was equated with fornication and adultery. “

The book is confused as to the facts. Existing polygamous marriages were not ever dissolved by the LDS Church. (See comments about page 171, lines 29-31.) In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith issued the “Little Manifesto” that reemphasized the 1890 Manifesto and stopped new marriages in foreign countries, like Mexico. Marriages to additional wives in the United States had been against LDS policy since 1890.

Page 172, lines 19-22

“Since when did real servants of God bow to godless government edicts and compromise their faith for expediency’s sake or to save their own skins?”

Most LDS observers do not feel that the stopping of plural marriage occurred for the sake of expediency. If expediency were the only factor, the Church would have stopped the practice many years earlier. When Wilford Woodruff was asked why the Church had not stopped it before the persecution became so intense, he replied, “We waited for the Lord to direct.” The book does not acknowledge that Church President -Wilford Woodruff claimed it was a revelation—that the purposes of the Lord for requiring this practice were fulfilled.

Even if expediency indeed was part of the reason for abandonment of plural marriage or if the Lord is expedient at times, why does that disprove revelation? In the days of the prophet Samuel, while the children of Israel lived under judges, they wanted a king for reasons of expediency, and God, who preferred his people to be governed by judges instead of kings, allowed them to have a king, even personally choosing Saul. The children of Israel were still God’s people, although they now operated under a different law with his permission.

The Christian Crusades failed in their purpose, but Christianity continued.

See page 153, lines 9-10 for Peter’s and Abraham’s acts of expediency. The cause they represented remained true and so did they.

Page 172, lines 21-25

“Why was Joseph Smith’s ‘unexcelled’ courage so great in practicing polygamy in secret, but so pitifully weak when it came to proclaiming it to the world—so much so that he made repeated public denials that he even believed in this most holy doctrine.”

There are several things wrong with this statement:

1. To suggest Joseph Smith lacked courage is contrary to his entire life of restoring ideas considered in his day to be bold and innovative by friends and enemies alike. One likely reason that Joseph Smith did not announce publicly the practice of plural marriage was that the Lord did not yet want it announced to the world.
2. For other reasons for “denials,” see comments about page 150, line 26.
3. The incident of Joseph rebuking the guards while imprisoned in Missouri is evidence that he was not timid in speaking out (see History of the Church 3:208, footnote).

Page 172, line 26

“Why did [Joseph Smith’s] successors . . . [bow] to the United States government?”

This was previously discussed in connection with page 172, lines 19-22.

Page 172, lines 27-28

“[Why does the LDS Church make] the cornerstone of their faith a crime {plural marriage] punishable with imprisonment and excommunication?”

1. LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ, not plural marriage, is the “cornerstone” of the faith (Eph. 2:20).
2. It was the U.S. government, not the LDS Church, that made plurality of wives punishable by jail sentences.
3. This statement contradicts earlier charges that Latter-day Saints didn’t have courage to live the commandment.
4. Historically Christians and other religious groups had to practice their beliefs in defiance of civil law.
5. Latter-day Saints felt the law against plural marriage was unconstitutional. Arresting and imprisoning those who openly take additional wives and seldom arresting or imprisoning real adulterers in society is an uneven administration of justice.
6. The authors are correct in saying the LDS Church today excommunicates those practicing plural marriage, since the Lord stopped the practice in the Church.

Page 172, lines 25-35

“If polygamy is indeed the very heart of the ‘restored gospel of Jesus Christ,’ the key to salvation, then this good news of exaltation through polygamy ought to be preached to the whole world at all cost.”

That polygamy is not the heart of Mormonism was explained in connection with page 172, lines 27-28. Again the book ignores that according to LDS doctrine, salvation may come to the whole world through the grace of Christ. One does not have to be a Christian nor a member of the LDS Church, let alone practice plural marriage, to gain salvation. LDS doctrine states that a person may enter the highest (celestial) heaven without marriage, but exaltation within that kingdom does require marriage, though not plural marriage.

Page 172, last line to page 173, line 17

“Millions of Christians have died for their faith down through the centuries— from the Roman coliseums to the gas chambers of Hitler’s Germany and the gulags of Russia and China—and are still suffering imprisonment and death for their Lord and His gospel. “

It was actually alleged “Christians” who killed millions of Jews in Hitler’s gas chambers. It was actually “Christians” who tortured and put to death Jews and fellow Christians under the Inquisition. It was alleged “Christians” who caused much brutality and death during the Crusades.

Wrong as their suffering and death was, many who have died under dictatorships were not faithful Christian martyrs at all, but really victims of circumstances, as in Germany, Russia and China. Many of those who have died in Russia were not Christians; hardly any of the millions put to death in China were Christians. These “martyrs” were Buddhists, Confucianists and Taoists, or “pagans” according to the book. Many Moslems have died for their cause, such as those in Afghanistan.

Yes, there have been many faithful Christian martyrs, and they are rightly honored, but “millions” is probably an exaggeration. There have not been large numbers of Christian martyrs for the past three hundred years or so.

Page 173, lines 4-6

“There were and are almost no Mormons among these millions of faithful martyrs.”

On the matter of “these millions,” see my previous comment.

Since the LDS Church was not established during the periods of extreme persecution of Christians, this statement by the authors is not relevant. Even today Latter-day Saints are only about .1 percent of the world’s population.

Actually, per capita, Latter-day Saints have had their share of martyrs. Although exact numbers are not available, dozens of Latter-day Saints lost their lives during the Missouri and Illinois persecutions, not to mention the many hundreds who died of exposure to the elements crossing the plains and mountains while fleeing to the Salt Lake Valley. Is this “almost no Mormons”? And did they not die, as other Christian martyrs before them did, as members of a persecuted minority for remaining true to their faith in Jesus Christ and His gospel as their consciences dictated?

Page 173, lines 7-9

“Mormons today complain that they are being persecuted whenever someone disagrees with them and tries to reasonably point out the fallacies in what they believe.”

Where are the statistics, documentation and reasonable pointings-out?

Page 173, lines 13-14

“Christians died for their faith all these centuries, but present day Mormons won’t stand up” for their faith.

Joseph Smith and many others have died for their beliefs, and Mormons were persecuted for over fifty years for practicing plural marriage, a good many going to prison for it, yet that is not enough to convince the authors. (See also next item.)

Page 173, lines 14-17

“Mormons won’t stand up openly for what they believe because it would mean they might have to go to prison as polygamists. “

The practice of plural marriage is correct only when God commands it. Now that plural marriage is not authorized and Church members believe it should not be practiced, why should any of them defend it? Do the authors seriously believe it shows lack of courage not to defend something one does not practice in one’s religion or even believe is essential to exaltation?

Page 173, line 19 to page 174, line 20

“Mormons claim that Joseph Smith did indeed go to prison for his beliefs, and that he died a martyr. It would be stretching the facts beyond credibility to maintain that claim.”

After making the importance of being a martyr such a big issue, the book must try to prove that Joseph Smith died without the courage of his convictions. (See page 172, lines 21-25.) In doing this the authors give a wrong account of the facts surrounding the death of Joseph Smith.

Page 176, lines 3-4

“Nor would an angel of God force anyone into the secret practice of polygamy at the point of a sword. “

Where is there evidence that an angel would not do this? The authors earlier refer approvingly to the cherubim (angels) and flaming sword incident in Genesis, which is not too far different from the accounts relating to Joseph Smith’s drawn-sword experience. The Lord also used drastic measures (the big fish incident) to get Jonah to do what he was supposed to do (Jonah 1:17). An angel with a drawn sword caused Balaam and his ass to change their course in the Bible (Num. 22:31). For a Bible believer especially to claim to know what angels would and would not do is presumptuous.