Mormon text leaves a maze of confusion
Published 9:08 am Monday, June 30, 2008
The raid at the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints polygamist compound in Texas has drawn national attention in recent weeks. In fact there are several similar Mormon fundamentalist sects scattered throughout the western U.S. The reason for these polygamist splinter groups today is due to followers of the Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, taking his revelation seriously: live polygamy or be damned.
When Smith introduced his doctrine of eternal marriage, it was directly tied to plural marriage. Verse 1 of the Mormon scriptures, Doctrine and Convenants (i.e.: D&C), Section 132, reads that the revelation was in answer to his inquiry regarding some Old Testament Bible characters having “many wives and concubines.” Verse 4 goes on to state, “I will reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant and if ye abide not in that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” One can see the pressure the fundamentalists are under here. The importance of polygamy to early Mormon leaders is also seen in the extensive number of marriages they undertook. Joseph Smith had at least 34 wives, Brigham Young over 50.
Quite revealing, however, is the fact that Mormonism’s own Book of Mormon denounces plural wives as “abominable” in Jacob 2:23-24. In every edition of the D&C from 1835 to 1876, Section 101:4 denounced polygamy also. At this time Section 132 condoning it was inserted. Since there was an obvious conflict, the “anti-polygamy” section was quietly removed.
In 1890, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints President Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto that ended the official LDS practice of polygamy. The LDS church, however, hasn’t abandoned the doctrine of polygamy as a righteous principle, only its current earthly practice. Because Section 132 has not been expunged and continues to be published as doctrine, many will continue to submit to it. The recent intervention in Texas only continues the legacy in this maze of confusion.
B. Kent Larson
Stewartville