The temple is all about polygamy

  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:325b931a6254bb70aa7ae18f974ba52a' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>rutabaga Nov. 2014</p>\n<p>Shortly after the California Prop 8 debacle, someone made a simple comment to me. \"The temple is all about polygamy.\" That had never occurred to me before and I went \"Hmm.\"</p>\n<p>That simple comment started a two and a half year research project. I read everything I could find on mormon polygamy. Internet, pro-church authors and publishers, anti-mormon authors and everything in between. I was Sandra Tanners best customer for a while. Because I knew I would have to defend this position, my reading and notes were heavily weighted toward pro-church material.</p>\n<p>By reading between the lines of internet, pro and anti a narrative began to form. I eventually decided my friend was correct. The temple is all about polygamy.</p>\n<p>The day came when I had to defend myself to DW and my bishop. DW understands. Bishop does not, but I\'m not concerned about that.</p>\n<p>Before the polygamy essay, I was secure in my position. Although the essay doesn\'t directly address the relationship between the temple and Joseph Smiths shenanigans, its a start. That essay may come in the future.</p>\n<p>But for now, I can say with confidence to anyone who may ask, \"The temple is all about polygamy.\"</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Doubting Thomas<br />\nRe: I\'m staring to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>... but did Joseph create the the basic endowment we have today or was it Brigham Young?</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Heretic 2<br />\nRe: I\'m staring to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>Yes. You are right. Joseph Smith had the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed because it accused him of polygamy. Before he turned himself in to get the matter settled, he took off his temple garment and told his companions to take theirs off too. This is because the temple garments signified involvement in polygamy, and he did not want his enemies to be able to use this admission of guilt against him.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>rutabaga<br />\nRe: I\'m staring to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>Doubting Thomas. Joseph came up with the basics, Brigham refined it later after Joseph was killed.</p>\n<p>Heretic 2. You are correct. Temple garments were worn by active polygamists in Nauvoo.</p>\n<hr />\n2+2=4 nli<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.\n<p>That would be a concept that would be worth publicizing:</p>\n<p>In Mormonism,Garment-wearing fundamentally symbolizes polygamy.</p>\n<p>Rutabaga, have you posted anywhere about the evidence you found that \"the temple is all about polygamy\"? I haven\'t thought about it in exactly that way.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Adult of god nli<br />\nRe: I\'m staring to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>Now I understand this. Thanks!</p>\n<p>ExMoBandB<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>The temple was a way to perform secret marriages that were illegal. The bride was the only one who needed to believe she was really a \"wife.\" Well, her family, too, had to believe in the idea of a wife being property, and that JS had the power to take whatever property he wanted.</p>\n<p>I enjoyed the post that explained that Joseph didn\'t treat any of his other wives the way a wife should be treated.</p>\n<p>It surely does give a different tune to the Prop 8 chant of \"Marriage is one man and one woman.\" Kind of like, \"We ARE Christian. The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints.\" It is like protesting too much. The Proclamation on the Family was actually a back-door way of attacking gays. Nothing is what it seems, in a cult that is based on secrecy, evil, and lies.</p>\n<hr />\nTom Padley<br />\nRe: I\'m staring to feel a little bit vindicated.\n<p>Brigham Young formalized the endowment, but it has been modified several times.</p>\n<hr />\nrutabaga<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.\n<p>I wrote up a survey with the help of SusieQ#1 a few years ago. It badly needs to be updated.</p>\n<p>Polygamy was revealed in Nauvoo. Almost concurrently the endowmment was introduced by Joseph Smith and his Quorom of Annointed in the Red Brick Store. Members of the Quorom of Annointed had to practice polygamy or at least approve polygamy in concept. Those who didn\'t go along were weeded out. William Law and William Marks for instance.</p>\n<p>Of course not everyone going through the Nauvoo temple were polygamists. Its tedious reading, but the minutes of the Nauvoo temple show clearly that a man taking a woman not his number one wife through the veil would show up later in the minutes being sealed and 2nd annointing to that same woman.</p>\n<p>There are descriptions of Vilate Kimball placing the hand of a plural wife into Hebers hand for the sealing ceremony.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>rutabaga<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>Read the trilogy:</p>\n<p>Development of the Mormon Temple Ceremony by Anderson<br />\nJoseph Smiths Quorom of the Anointed by Anderson and Bergera<br />\nNauvoo Endowment Companies by Anderson and Bergera</p>\n<p>All by church approved Signature Books. These books will tell you all you need to know.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Professional Postmo</p>\n<p>Re: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.<br />\nSecrets of mom wrote about how her experience in the temple (and how it is about polygamy) was one of the major things that broke her shelf</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://secretsofmom.com/?p=2841\" title=\"http://secretsofmom.com/?p=2841\">http://secretsofmom.com/?p=2841</a></p>\n<hr />\n<p>Ex-cultmember<br />\nRe: I\'m staring to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>Joseph smith created it based on the Masonic ceremony (he became a Mason 3 weeks before introducing the endowment).</p>\n<p>Whatever Brigham Young changed was probably minor.</p>\n<hr />\npathfinder<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.\n<p>So did the garment come to be the same time polygamy was introduced?</p>\n<hr />\n2+2=4 nli<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.\n<p>That\'s a well written summary. Makes perfect sense. This was an especially good bit:</p>\n<p>\"Then I started closely examining my scriptures and it was painful to realize I had never made the connection before but celestial marriage=temple marriage=polygamy. The temple is about polygamy. The ceremony has changed significantly since the early days of the church. Originally the all of the ordinances, washing, anointing, endowment and sealing were done in one block, and it took 8 hours. Obviously the ordinances have since been broken up and many parts have been removed, since the current endowment session is roughly 2 hours. If you do your research and read transcripts of the earlier version, it actually makes a lot more sense, but not in a way that brings comfort. Many of the parts that clarify what is going on were taken out. Polygamy is the original reason that the temple weddings took place behind closed doors. These polygamous weddings/ sealings were illegal and they had to be kept secret from the public and sometimes the groom’s other wives.\"</p>\n<hr />\nrutabaga<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.<br />\nWell, okay, church tolerated.\n<hr />\n<p>rutabaga<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>The endowment was given to the members of the Quorom of the Annointed May 5, 1842.</p>\n<p>I\'ll have to look to be sure, but the garment was introduced with the endowment or very shortly after.</p>\n<p>If there were sealings before Emma, they were unofficial. Emma was one of the founding members of the Quorom of the Anointed.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>AmIDarkNow?<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>The penalties in the endowment were there in the beginning correct? This is how participants kept it secret. Posts in the ether should include just what a \"sealing\" entailed.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Texas Sue<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>Thanks for sharing! I never made this connection before! Your point is supported by the fact that Joseph didn\'t get sealed to Emma until May 28, 1843, which means she was the 25th woman sealed to him, not the first. The temple couldn\'t have been about eternal families, especially considering how many of their children were born during this time period. Need to research this!</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Texas Sue<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>So are you telling me that Elijah restored the sealing keys in 1836 just so they could do nothing with it until 1842? Does anyone know when the first sealing occurred? So if there were no sealings prior to this time and polygamy was illegal, then there is no other option than Joseph had affairs prior to 1842. Is that correct?</p>\n<hr />\n<p>rutabaga<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>LOL When I posted, I didn\'t expect to have to answer questions! All my info was fresh 4 years ago. Now I want to run home and look things up again.</p>\n<p>All of you have given some great responses. Maybe one of you can answer Texas Sue until I get my stuff together.</p>\n<p>Thanks!</p>\n<hr />\n<p>anagrammy<br />\nRe: I\'m staring to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>I understood that he stopped wearing them to avoid being identified as a polygamist by enemies who wanted to kill him.</p>\n<p>KW</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Texas Sue<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>Alright, it took some digging, but the first sealing of anyone to a spouse took place on January 7, 1846. This is 18 months after Joseph\'s death. Accordingly to FamilySearch.org, sealings did not occur before this date. Yet, LDS.org references all of Joseph\'s plural wives as being sealed to him. Is there anyone out there knowledgable enough to explain this discrepancy?</p>\n<p>SusieQ#1<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.<br />\nIt came as a shock to me that I had married into plurality of wives. I did not know that before I went to the temple as a convert of a year. It occurred to me that many of you (married in the temple) didn\'t realize it either.</p>\n<p>I have pointed out many times in several of my posts over the years, that The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage - only performed in the LDS temples is plurality of wives.<br />\nTherefore, that section alone designates the temples for polygamous marriage. And that was how it was done, originally when they took additional wives, even though it was always illegal.<br />\nIt has been confirmed that the temple garment (from neck to ankle to wrist) was created for The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage aka spiritual wifery, polygamy and polygamy, plurality of wives.</p>\n<p>For those who don\'t have their D&amp;C handy... :-)<br />\nD&amp;C 132</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132\" title=\"https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132\">https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132</a></p>\n<p>Just reading the overview of the section sets it straight:</p>\n<p>Section 132<br />\nRevelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.</p>\n<p>The LDS Church has purposely avoided making this connection, in my view. I don\'t think the marriage preparation classes explain it either. I found this Eternal Marriage Student Manual: <a href=\"https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual?lang=eng\" title=\"https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual?lang=eng\">https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual?lang=eng</a> (Perusing the index, I didn\'t notice any reference to D^C 132 - but I didn\'t read the whole manual.)</p>\n<p>We know that plurality of wives is practiced many places in the US and the world. Those that follow Mormonism, and do not follow the laws of the land, practice it as a religious principle much the same as practiced in the original church.<br />\nWe see others that have chosen it outside the LDS Church teachings or have left those teachings. Those are blatantly obvious as they have TV shows.<br />\nThe fear of arrest and prosecution has apparently died down.</p>\n<p>RE: Texas Sue<br />\nIf I remember correctly,the first sealings were done in secret in the temple shortly after D&amp;C 132 was given. I think there are references to dates, etc. in Tod Compton\'s book \"In Sacred Loneliness the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. (I have the book, but it\'s out of my reach right now.)</p>\n<p>Comments here re: Compton\'s book</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/In-Sacred-Loneliness-Plural-Joseph/dp/156085085X\" title=\"http://www.amazon.com/In-Sacred-Loneliness-Plural-Joseph/dp/156085085X\">http://www.amazon.com/In-Sacred-Loneliness-Plural-Joseph/dp/156085085X</a></p>\n<hr />\n<p>2+2=4 nli<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.<br />\nThanks, Susie</p>\n<p>So, I am curious, when members go through the endowment, or the temple marriage, the modern versions, are there still remnants of references to the \"plurality\"? Or have references been erased from the actual ceremonies?</p>\n<hr />\n<p>scmormon<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.</p>\n<p>This is the Institute student manual. <a href=\"https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng\" title=\"https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marriage-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng\">https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section...</a></p>\n<p>Read in hear that Hyrum told Joe that if he would write this section that he (Hyrum) would take it to Emma and convince her of it. Section 132 wasn\'t placed in the D&amp;C until 1876.</p>\n<hr />\nSusieQ#1<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.<br />\nscmormon Wrote:<br />\n-------------------------------------------------------<br />\n&gt; This is the Institute student manual.<br />\n&gt; <a href=\"https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-\" title=\"https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-\">https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-</a><br />\n&gt; student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marria<br />\n&gt; ge-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng<br />\n&gt;<br />\n&gt; Read in hear that Hyrum told Joe that if he would<br />\n&gt; write this section that he (Hyrum) would take it<br />\n&gt; to Emma and convince her of it. Section 132 wasn\'t<br />\n&gt; placed in the D&amp;C until 1876.\n<p>Thanks for posting the other manual.</p>\n<p>And yes, even the threat to Emma in D&amp;C 132 did not do anything to get Emma to accept plural marriage. And we do know she adamantly denied Joseph had any other wives. She was his only wife, and she was correct, of course, as the sealings were not legal anyhow! :-) I always thought she got the last laugh!</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19?lang=eng\" title=\"https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19?lang=eng\">https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19?lang=eng</a></p>\n<p>54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.</p>\n<p>55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.</p>\n<p>56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.</p>\n<p>This becomes even more calculating when we realize that Joseph Smith Jr. was talking to himself as if the Lord was speaking to him and to Emma. :-) Again it is confirmed that the ONLY reason for the temple is to practice polygamy ! Joseph Smith Jr even comes up with the biggie: The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage which is plurality of wives.<br />\nThere is no other reason for D&amp;C 132 but to establish the plurality of marriage covenant and threaten Emma!!</p>\n<hr />\n<p>SusieQ#1<br />\nRe: I\'m starting to feel a little bit vindicated.<br />\n2+2=4 nli Wrote:<br />\n-------------------------------------------------------<br />\n&gt; Thanks, Susie<br />\n&gt;<br />\n&gt; So, I am curious, when members go through the<br />\n&gt; endowment, or the temple marriage, the modern<br />\n&gt; versions, are there still remnants of references<br />\n&gt; to the \"plurality\"? Or have references been erased<br />\n&gt; from the actual ceremonies?</p>\n<p>This is from a longer post on the subject.<br />\nNotice how many times The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage comes up in the actual sealing ceremony.<br />\nThe marriage sealing comes after the other covenants are made either on the same day or before.</p>\n<p>Some references:<br />\nRecommend questions - two interviews to be allowed into any temple<br />\n<a href=\"http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templequestions.htm\" title=\"http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templequestions.htm\">http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templequestions.htm</a></p>\n<p>Review of covenants made in the temple<br />\n<a href=\"http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templecovenants.htm\" title=\"http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templecovenants.htm\">http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templecovenants.htm</a></p>\n<p>....From a longer prior post:<br />\nMarried in the temple, to each other, are you sure? Where\'s the love?</p>\n<p>After passing two interviews to get the temple recommend-- (see Temple Recommend Questions here: <a href=\"http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/recommend.shtml\" title=\"http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/recommend.shtml\">http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/recommend.shtml</a>,) either on the day of the marriage, or earlier, and going through the Endowment Ceremony: Washing and Anointing ceremony where the Holy Garment of the Priesthood (notice ladies, you wear the same garment of the Holy Priesthood!), is placed on you and covenanting to obey:<br />\nThe Law of Obedience<br />\nThe Law of Sacrifice<br />\nThe Law of the Gospel<br />\nThe Law of Chastity<br />\nThe Law of Consecration --which is:(I am only including this particular one on this post as it has it directly applies to the marriage covenant.)</p>\n<p>A couple will now come to the altar. We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received.</p>\n<p>It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.</p>\n<p>All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square.<br />\nYou and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.</p>\n<p>Each of you bow your head and say \"yes.\"</p>\n<p>Then and only then may you be sealed in the marriage ceremony.<br />\nHere is the ceremony.<br />\nSometimes, the officiator will allow an exchange of rings at the end of the ceremony, and a kiss.<br />\n(I don\'t know the current policy on this practice. Maybe someone else does.)</p>\n<p>Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.</p>\n<p>Marriage Couple:<br />\nJoins hands in the \"Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail.\"This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist. No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.</p>\n<p>Officiator: Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?</p>\n<p>Groom: Yes.</p>\n<p>Officiator: Sister ______ do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?</p>\n<p>Bride: Yes.</p>\n<p>Officiator:<br />\nBy virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.</p>\n<p>All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen</p>\n<p>\"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org\"</p>\n', created = 1495640719, expire = 1495727119, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:325b931a6254bb70aa7ae18f974ba52a' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 112.

rutabaga Nov. 2014

Shortly after the California Prop 8 debacle, someone made a simple comment to me. "The temple is all about polygamy." That had never occurred to me before and I went "Hmm."

That simple comment started a two and a half year research project. I read everything I could find on mormon polygamy. Internet, pro-church authors and publishers, anti-mormon authors and everything in between. I was Sandra Tanners best customer for a while. Because I knew I would have to defend this position, my reading and notes were heavily weighted toward pro-church material.

By reading between the lines of internet, pro and anti a narrative began to form. I eventually decided my friend was correct. The temple is all about polygamy.

The day came when I had to defend myself to DW and my bishop. DW understands. Bishop does not, but I'm not concerned about that.

Before the polygamy essay, I was secure in my position. Although the essay doesn't directly address the relationship between the temple and Joseph Smiths shenanigans, its a start. That essay may come in the future.

But for now, I can say with confidence to anyone who may ask, "The temple is all about polygamy."


Doubting Thomas
Re: I'm staring to feel a little bit vindicated.

... but did Joseph create the the basic endowment we have today or was it Brigham Young?


Heretic 2
Re: I'm staring to feel a little bit vindicated.

Yes. You are right. Joseph Smith had the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed because it accused him of polygamy. Before he turned himself in to get the matter settled, he took off his temple garment and told his companions to take theirs off too. This is because the temple garments signified involvement in polygamy, and he did not want his enemies to be able to use this admission of guilt against him.


rutabaga
Re: I'm staring to feel a little bit vindicated.

Doubting Thomas. Joseph came up with the basics, Brigham refined it later after Joseph was killed.

Heretic 2. You are correct. Temple garments were worn by active polygamists in Nauvoo.


2+2=4 nli
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

That would be a concept that would be worth publicizing:

In Mormonism,Garment-wearing fundamentally symbolizes polygamy.

Rutabaga, have you posted anywhere about the evidence you found that "the temple is all about polygamy"? I haven't thought about it in exactly that way.


Adult of god nli
Re: I'm staring to feel a little bit vindicated.

Now I understand this. Thanks!

ExMoBandB
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

The temple was a way to perform secret marriages that were illegal. The bride was the only one who needed to believe she was really a "wife." Well, her family, too, had to believe in the idea of a wife being property, and that JS had the power to take whatever property he wanted.

I enjoyed the post that explained that Joseph didn't treat any of his other wives the way a wife should be treated.

It surely does give a different tune to the Prop 8 chant of "Marriage is one man and one woman." Kind of like, "We ARE Christian. The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints." It is like protesting too much. The Proclamation on the Family was actually a back-door way of attacking gays. Nothing is what it seems, in a cult that is based on secrecy, evil, and lies.


Tom Padley
Re: I'm staring to feel a little bit vindicated.

Brigham Young formalized the endowment, but it has been modified several times.


rutabaga
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

I wrote up a survey with the help of SusieQ#1 a few years ago. It badly needs to be updated.

Polygamy was revealed in Nauvoo. Almost concurrently the endowmment was introduced by Joseph Smith and his Quorom of Annointed in the Red Brick Store. Members of the Quorom of Annointed had to practice polygamy or at least approve polygamy in concept. Those who didn't go along were weeded out. William Law and William Marks for instance.

Of course not everyone going through the Nauvoo temple were polygamists. Its tedious reading, but the minutes of the Nauvoo temple show clearly that a man taking a woman not his number one wife through the veil would show up later in the minutes being sealed and 2nd annointing to that same woman.

There are descriptions of Vilate Kimball placing the hand of a plural wife into Hebers hand for the sealing ceremony.


rutabaga
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

Read the trilogy:

Development of the Mormon Temple Ceremony by Anderson
Joseph Smiths Quorom of the Anointed by Anderson and Bergera
Nauvoo Endowment Companies by Anderson and Bergera

All by church approved Signature Books. These books will tell you all you need to know.


Professional Postmo

Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.
Secrets of mom wrote about how her experience in the temple (and how it is about polygamy) was one of the major things that broke her shelf

http://secretsofmom.com/?p=2841


Ex-cultmember
Re: I'm staring to feel a little bit vindicated.

Joseph smith created it based on the Masonic ceremony (he became a Mason 3 weeks before introducing the endowment).

Whatever Brigham Young changed was probably minor.


pathfinder
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

So did the garment come to be the same time polygamy was introduced?


2+2=4 nli
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

That's a well written summary. Makes perfect sense. This was an especially good bit:

"Then I started closely examining my scriptures and it was painful to realize I had never made the connection before but celestial marriage=temple marriage=polygamy. The temple is about polygamy. The ceremony has changed significantly since the early days of the church. Originally the all of the ordinances, washing, anointing, endowment and sealing were done in one block, and it took 8 hours. Obviously the ordinances have since been broken up and many parts have been removed, since the current endowment session is roughly 2 hours. If you do your research and read transcripts of the earlier version, it actually makes a lot more sense, but not in a way that brings comfort. Many of the parts that clarify what is going on were taken out. Polygamy is the original reason that the temple weddings took place behind closed doors. These polygamous weddings/ sealings were illegal and they had to be kept secret from the public and sometimes the groom’s other wives."


rutabaga
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.
Well, okay, church tolerated.

rutabaga
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

The endowment was given to the members of the Quorom of the Annointed May 5, 1842.

I'll have to look to be sure, but the garment was introduced with the endowment or very shortly after.

If there were sealings before Emma, they were unofficial. Emma was one of the founding members of the Quorom of the Anointed.


AmIDarkNow?
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

The penalties in the endowment were there in the beginning correct? This is how participants kept it secret. Posts in the ether should include just what a "sealing" entailed.


Texas Sue
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

Thanks for sharing! I never made this connection before! Your point is supported by the fact that Joseph didn't get sealed to Emma until May 28, 1843, which means she was the 25th woman sealed to him, not the first. The temple couldn't have been about eternal families, especially considering how many of their children were born during this time period. Need to research this!


Texas Sue
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

So are you telling me that Elijah restored the sealing keys in 1836 just so they could do nothing with it until 1842? Does anyone know when the first sealing occurred? So if there were no sealings prior to this time and polygamy was illegal, then there is no other option than Joseph had affairs prior to 1842. Is that correct?


rutabaga
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

LOL When I posted, I didn't expect to have to answer questions! All my info was fresh 4 years ago. Now I want to run home and look things up again.

All of you have given some great responses. Maybe one of you can answer Texas Sue until I get my stuff together.

Thanks!


anagrammy
Re: I'm staring to feel a little bit vindicated.

I understood that he stopped wearing them to avoid being identified as a polygamist by enemies who wanted to kill him.

KW


Texas Sue
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

Alright, it took some digging, but the first sealing of anyone to a spouse took place on January 7, 1846. This is 18 months after Joseph's death. Accordingly to FamilySearch.org, sealings did not occur before this date. Yet, LDS.org references all of Joseph's plural wives as being sealed to him. Is there anyone out there knowledgable enough to explain this discrepancy?

SusieQ#1
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.
It came as a shock to me that I had married into plurality of wives. I did not know that before I went to the temple as a convert of a year. It occurred to me that many of you (married in the temple) didn't realize it either.

I have pointed out many times in several of my posts over the years, that The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage - only performed in the LDS temples is plurality of wives.
Therefore, that section alone designates the temples for polygamous marriage. And that was how it was done, originally when they took additional wives, even though it was always illegal.
It has been confirmed that the temple garment (from neck to ankle to wrist) was created for The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage aka spiritual wifery, polygamy and polygamy, plurality of wives.

For those who don't have their D&C handy... :-)
D&C 132

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132

Just reading the overview of the section sets it straight:

Section 132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.

The LDS Church has purposely avoided making this connection, in my view. I don't think the marriage preparation classes explain it either. I found this Eternal Marriage Student Manual: https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual?lang=eng (Perusing the index, I didn't notice any reference to D^C 132 - but I didn't read the whole manual.)

We know that plurality of wives is practiced many places in the US and the world. Those that follow Mormonism, and do not follow the laws of the land, practice it as a religious principle much the same as practiced in the original church.
We see others that have chosen it outside the LDS Church teachings or have left those teachings. Those are blatantly obvious as they have TV shows.
The fear of arrest and prosecution has apparently died down.

RE: Texas Sue
If I remember correctly,the first sealings were done in secret in the temple shortly after D&C 132 was given. I think there are references to dates, etc. in Tod Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. (I have the book, but it's out of my reach right now.)

Comments here re: Compton's book

http://www.amazon.com/In-Sacred-Loneliness-Plural-Joseph/dp/156085085X


2+2=4 nli
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.
Thanks, Susie

So, I am curious, when members go through the endowment, or the temple marriage, the modern versions, are there still remnants of references to the "plurality"? Or have references been erased from the actual ceremonies?


scmormon
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.

This is the Institute student manual. https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section...

Read in hear that Hyrum told Joe that if he would write this section that he (Hyrum) would take it to Emma and convince her of it. Section 132 wasn't placed in the D&C until 1876.


SusieQ#1
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.
scmormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the Institute student manual.
> https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-
> student-manual/sections-132-138/section-132-marria
> ge-an-eternal-covenant?lang=eng
>
> Read in hear that Hyrum told Joe that if he would
> write this section that he (Hyrum) would take it
> to Emma and convince her of it. Section 132 wasn't
> placed in the D&C until 1876.

Thanks for posting the other manual.

And yes, even the threat to Emma in D&C 132 did not do anything to get Emma to accept plural marriage. And we do know she adamantly denied Joseph had any other wives. She was his only wife, and she was correct, of course, as the sealings were not legal anyhow! :-) I always thought she got the last laugh!

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19?lang=eng

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.

This becomes even more calculating when we realize that Joseph Smith Jr. was talking to himself as if the Lord was speaking to him and to Emma. :-) Again it is confirmed that the ONLY reason for the temple is to practice polygamy ! Joseph Smith Jr even comes up with the biggie: The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage which is plurality of wives.
There is no other reason for D&C 132 but to establish the plurality of marriage covenant and threaten Emma!!


SusieQ#1
Re: I'm starting to feel a little bit vindicated.
2+2=4 nli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks, Susie
>
> So, I am curious, when members go through the
> endowment, or the temple marriage, the modern
> versions, are there still remnants of references
> to the "plurality"? Or have references been erased
> from the actual ceremonies?

This is from a longer post on the subject.
Notice how many times The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage comes up in the actual sealing ceremony.
The marriage sealing comes after the other covenants are made either on the same day or before.

Some references:
Recommend questions - two interviews to be allowed into any temple
http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templequestions.htm

Review of covenants made in the temple
http://lds4u.com/lesson5/templecovenants.htm

....From a longer prior post:
Married in the temple, to each other, are you sure? Where's the love?

After passing two interviews to get the temple recommend-- (see Temple Recommend Questions here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/recommend.shtml,) either on the day of the marriage, or earlier, and going through the Endowment Ceremony: Washing and Anointing ceremony where the Holy Garment of the Priesthood (notice ladies, you wear the same garment of the Holy Priesthood!), is placed on you and covenanting to obey:
The Law of Obedience
The Law of Sacrifice
The Law of the Gospel
The Law of Chastity
The Law of Consecration --which is:(I am only including this particular one on this post as it has it directly applies to the marriage covenant.)

A couple will now come to the altar. We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received.

It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square.
You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Each of you bow your head and say "yes."

Then and only then may you be sealed in the marriage ceremony.
Here is the ceremony.
Sometimes, the officiator will allow an exchange of rings at the end of the ceremony, and a kiss.
(I don't know the current policy on this practice. Maybe someone else does.)

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.

Marriage Couple:
Joins hands in the "Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail."This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist. No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.

Officiator: Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Groom: Yes.

Officiator: Sister ______ do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Bride: Yes.

Officiator:
By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen

"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org"