The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-11-15

the time of the death of Joseph the
martyr, by Joseph himself, as well as
by others Of the leading men Of the
church. Investigate the following cita,
tions: Joseph the martyr calls it a
false and corrupt doctrine (Times and
Smith considered it false doctrine
| Chimes and Seasons, volume 5, page
47G. John Taylor condemns it and
calls it an iniquity (Times and Sea
sons, volume 8, page $3.50. and de,
nounced it in France in 1850, saying
that none, but corrupt and depraved
heart could have contrived it lOrson
Pratt g works, page s, in back Of book.
Elder E. NJ. Webb emphatically de-
, nounced it in 1S45 (Times and Seasons,
volume 6, page S94), considering it a
crime. p. P. Pratt considered it a fool
lsh doctrine, stating that all the church
books were opposed to it, and that such
true L. D. S. (Millenial Star, volume 3,
page 74), and in later years says that
| it is as foreign from the real princi.
Piles of the church as the devil is from
God, and that those practicing same
should be disfellowshipped (Millenial
Star, volume 6, pages 22-23). Wilford
Woodruff indorses Pratt IS statement in
Smith denies polygamy, saying Joseph
Smith never taught it (Millenial Star,
volume 12, page 29). Orson Pratt ad
monished the brethren to keep them
selves pure by not entering into cove"
nant with more than one female, say.
ing that those that did otherwise could
be cut of from the church lMillenlal
was also condemned before Joseph
Smith S death in Times and Seasons,
volume 5, page 7l5 (Millenial Star,
volume 4, page IA; volume 16, page
$50; Times and Seasons, volume 4, page
l43; volume 8, page 939; Millenial Star,
volume 8, page 105; volume 8, page
1857. Does it not seem strange, in the
face of such a multitude of denuncia-
tons, of which he was not ignorant,
that Joseph Smith remained absolutely
silent in regard to the purported reVe-
lation on plural marriage, failing. to
support the principle involved when
such an expression from him was SO
, much called for If he had received
knowledge Of its being such q grand
principle Of exaltation9 Should not the
fact that he at this time fell in line
emphatically denouncing polygamy. be
sufficient proof to all those who believe
him not TO have been a moral coward,
that he never received any such a
communication whatever?
54. Because the 4lst verse teaches
! by Inference that the practice of po-
lyandry is conditionally acceptable to
God. This is in contrast with verse
! 5S, which commands Emma to cleave
| unto Joseph and none else. AS the
word Of God tells us that it is not
good for man to live alone, possibly the
! Lord desired to be merciful unto the
old bachelors, who would otherwise
| have been forced TO remain such under
| polyeamous covenant alone. If,
| through polygamy, we become celestial
| ly exalted. where would polyandry Ca
doctrine directly opposed to polygamy)
locate us? 49,,
! is never but one on the earth at one
time holding the keys and powers to
seal in this covenant while verse SO
saws: "David received his wives ana
coucubines by the hand of Nathan and
others of the prophets, who had the
| KEYS of this power" II is argued that
other prophets could have exercised
this power in David IS case after Ma
tban's death; but First Kings, fourth
chapter, shows that Nathan visited Da-
vid when David was upon his death
David IS death; possibly other wives
were sealed 10 him after his death, as
they must have been to Joseph Smith
! if he had any wives sealed to him 9th,
er than Emma.
56. Because it justified Jacob in
| having wives, WDllo tne scriptures
show that his only true covenant wife
was Rachael. Leah having been fraud.
ulent!y imposed upon him by Laban. IL
is as inconsistent to believe that the
Lord sanctioned this procedure as it is
to believe that he approves Of decep"
ton. Leah and Rachael were sisters.
According to Leviticus 1916, Jacob.
or any one else, is positively prohibited
| in the taking OF two sisters to wife.
| The Book Of Mormon, in condemning
concubinage (Jacob 2:6), condemns ia
cob for taking Bilhah aud Zilpah, who
were nothing bat concubines to him
| Genesis 35;22). The case Of Jacob is
somewhat parallel with that of Abra'
ham in showing the disapproval of 20.
! lygamy, as the children Of Rachael, the
! only covenant wife of Jacob, were rec
| ognized and blessed of the Lord, even
as was Isaac, the sou of Abraham S
legitimate wife, Sarah. Why was the
line of recognition on the Lord S part
so distinctly drawn between the chill
dren of Sarah and Rachael, the true
wives of Abraham and Jacob, and the
children of Hagar, Leah, Zilpah and
Bilbah, their illegitimate companions,
if the Lord approved of ono the same
as the other2
81 Because it brands Joseph the
martyr n criminal; In other words, as
having lived in crime, for polygamy
is SO called in the Book Of Mormon