Goto Main Page

Find subjects by typing word or words below
To continue searching for same word click again

Introduction:

Questions that no Latter-Day Saints will honestly answer by yes or no

If you are a book collector I suggest that you take a close look at the books from which I quoted, for only one believe will survive and the rejected books will surely become collector's items.

Millions of good Church members do not grasp shocking controversies

In 1887, the U. S. Congress forced the Church to terminate the practice of plural marriage

.Abraham had 3 wives

President Wilford Woodruff gives the true reason for removing the practice of plural marriage

INTRODUCTION:

Any honest Latter-Day Saints must come to the conclusion that if today's Church leaders are God's chosen people to lead His children here on earth, Joseph Smith founder of The Church as well as the first seven prophets of the Church deceived the world when presenting DC 132 as the Lord's words.

Unexpected but well appreciated, after approximately sixteen years, on Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:05:38 -0400, I received a very pleasant e-mail letter from President Robert Gaudreau. Robert told me that he met one of my sisters at the Montreal Temple two days prior to writing that letter and thought about me as he saw her. In his letter Robert wished me a happy Easter, giving me an update concerning his children that I have not seen for approximately sixteen years also. After this e-mail a few other letters where exchanged and by May 9th, 2001, showing consideration and mutual respect, we where already talking about the very basic issues that may have initiated Robert's sudden concerns for me, (my website in which I question many of the new Church philosophies)

My religious background:

I was born, raised and lived as a Catholic for approximately twenty-five years. I was an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for seven years. I had discussions with the Baptist, the Pentecostal and other Reformed Christian Churches for approximately ten years. I have studied with the Jehovah Witnesses for approximately seven years. I believe in God, I believe that Jesus was the Christ promised to the Jews but I now take no part in any of the above or any other religious groups.

I am concerned with the teachings of many religions and I believe that based on good intentions, some of today's leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preach a gospel unrelated to the scriptures they are using. I believe in freedom of expression but also believe that false teachings should be exposed when expressed as true facts.

This work is not focusing on my beliefs, my personal opinion, or my own interpretation of the Scriptures used by this Church, but it is an analysis, an assessment of their own interpretation of the same scriptures put together by some of today's Church leaders.

If you read copies of my own letters addressed to Robert and President Hinckley, you will notice that at the beginning of the debate, though I denounced flagrant dishonesties among some modern-day Church leaders, yet I was advocating for the Church in general. Seven years of highly compelling indoctrination doesn't vanish from our mind like a breeze, and it took me a few years to realize how powerful was the influence they had on me.

Now as I put together all the information I accumulated during the last eight years, finally, I have a different view of that Church and today I can say that doing this work made me realize how easy it is for anyone of us to confuse idealism for reality, and forgery for the truth.

It is with mixed feelings that I present this work; I met and worked with many good people during that period of time and more than a few of them became very close friends. On one hand I feel that I must tell you about what I found to be extremely important inconsistencies in their theology, and on the other I know that I may hurt the feelings of some of my friends.

I understand that they where placed in a difficult situation when through the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, the U. S. Congress forced the Church to terminate the practice of plural marriage, but I can't fully understand the reasons that would motivate today's prophets to lie to the general public and to the Church on fundamental doctrines established by the seven first prophets, who as a matter of fact would have re-established in its fullness the original Church of Jesus the Christ in the 1830s,

For the last eight years, through e-mails, I asked hundreds of members to give clear answers to my questions, but I found that contradictions, fabricated supporting statements, overlooking important statements of their contemporary and ancient Church leaders and of the Bible, plain lies were normal replies to my questions.

Here I chose to show many registered letters addressed to President Hinckley himself and a one-year debate; an exchange of approximately two hundred e-mail letters between myself and a Church leader, President Robert Gaudreau.

I have high regards for Robert, for he, along with the missionaries converted me to the faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints many years ago. I became an active member for approximately seven years, but we lost track of each other a few years after I left the Church in 1980.

I want to show you that even if his answers where made of good inspiring references, Robert was unable to answer any of my questions by yes or no or by any type of short answer without approving what I said. Relying on his integrity, I asked him if he would tell the truth, if he would admit to my sister and to many other people that I know, his inability to answer my questions without approving what I said. Robert keenly rejected the idea and told me that he had already clearly answered all my questions, and that my sister had done all she could to bring me back in the right path.

As the Hamilton Ontario Stake President, Garry Rayner, and Bishop Nantais acted with their authority to deprive their members from accessing my website, by keeping them in ignorance of its existence and by dissuading those already informed from looking at it. Robert discouraged my sister and his entire congregation not only from reading it but also from talking to me on the pretext that they may not be strong enough in their faith to view or listen to such evil work. I could say with very little chance to be wrong, that after such warning from their leaders not one of the worthy members will attempt to read it, for that particular reason and also because they might not even want to know the truth for they can't bear in mind the possibility of loosing their mental refuge in the Church's sanctuary.

I am concerned about the consequences of such power if placed in wrong hands. Today's members would follow a Adolf Hitler or a Bin Laden at the direction of the Church without asking a single question on the pretext that their leaders where chosen by the Lord himself and He would destroy any such people that would by error access to the direction of the Church.

If the Lord through Joseph Smith established this Church as they claim, imagine what He and Joseph Smith would say today about the modern prophet's disagreement with the original faith.

I wonder what may drive us human beings to overlook undeniable facts and even lie sometimes to defend our convictions despite if they are of religious or political sources. I remember doing exactly that myself when trying to convert people to the Mormon faith.

I believe that Robert is a clever man, and many times foolishly answered my questions simply to defend today's ridiculous concept that opposite teachings can be made into one accord, and also to avoid lying to me instead of approving what I said all along. Because he is a public preacher that through my sister, will try to convert other members of my family and friends, and because I feel that his method is unfair, I have chosen to expose his inability to answer my questions without lying to me or approving what I say.

QUESTIONS:

Here are a few of my questions that no Latter-Day Saints will honestly answer by yes or no without either contradicting modern or conventional Church philosophy

All this controversy occurred after the U. S. Congress forced the Church to terminate the practice of plural marriage in 1890. Perhaps by fear of government retaliation, some of the subsequent Church leaders steered the Church into incoherent teachings. They used a few controversial words of Jacob (from the Book of Mormon) to support their new perception.


Jacob 2:30,
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Did not the Lord previously, raise up a seed unto Himself through Abraham? According to Jacob the Lord did not at that particular time, have seed risen unto Him; was the Lord's promise made to Abraham revoked before Jacob's time?

Why today's Church leaders present Brigham Young, as been married to only two wives, Miriam Works, and after Miriam's death he married Mary Ann Angell in 1834, (one wife at a time), when older Church Records shows that he had 55 wives and 56 children in plural marriage during his life?

Do you know that D & C 132:1-28, and D&C 132:7, 29-66 is not telling us that Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation, and that in our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman as Elder Bruce R. McConkie said when trying to back up Jacob's contradicting teachings?

Because President Hinckley was a Church member all his life it is impossible that he did not know what every other Church member knew about the personality of God, revealed and made very clear by Joseph Smith. He is also aware of what his predecessor President Spencer W. Kimball, with whom Gordon B. Hinckley worked in the Church for many years said on that matter. When asked: Was God once a man, Hinckley said: I don't know... I wouldn't say that... I don't know that we teach it...?

Do you know that D&C 63:64 does not instruct us not to speak publicly of personal revelations as Elder Oaks said when trying to back up Hinckley's new theory? ?

Do you realize that the Lord would have been lying to one or the other when telling Jacob that plurality of wives and concubines is an abomination, and after that statement tell Joseph Smith that it is not an abomination, but it is the law of his eternal unchangeable holy priesthood established before the world was? Please, yes or no?

Referring to: Matt. 19: 9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery..." President Gaudreau told me:

"IT IS (CLEAR) from this passage that from Moses to Jesus-Christ it was the law that anyone had to divorce from his wife (or put her away or repudiate her) before he could marry another women. So it seems QUITE (CLEAR) that they could have but one wife. If they could have many... why repudiate one before they could marry another one...To marry another women after having divorced from the first wife without a good reason was considered by Jesus as comitting adultery... which is an abomination."

My answer to him was:
Now I would like to tell you what I grasp from this verse. I believe that Matt. 19:9 tells us that Whosoever, Whomever, Anyone that puts away, repudiates or rejects his wife, with the exception of, except if, she has committed fornication, and would marry another, commits adultery...
OR:
Anyone that would reject his wife, except if she has committed fornication (of course), and would marry another would commit adultery….?

In other words; anyone that would not put away, repudiate or reject his wife BUT WOULD (KEEP) HIS WIFE, except if she has committed fornication (of course), and would marry another would not commit adultery….

Robert, do you still believe that this verse IS (CLEAR) TO YOU, and that this verse is telling us that from Moses to Jesus-Christ it was the law that anyone had to divorce his wife before he could marry another women? Please, yes or no?

Click here to see D & C 132:

COLLECTOR'S ITEMS:

From direct contradictions to pure lies, today's Church leaders have used them all to adjust their new perception to the former seven Church prophet's declarations. But, who can blend into one, two conflicting theories? And what will they do with the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and many others that they bluntly discredit? If you are a book collector I suggest that you take a close look at the books from which I quoted, for only one belief will survive and the rejected books will surely become collector items.

From November 27, 1997 to this day I sent more then twenty registered letters to Gordon B. Hinckley President, Prophet, Seer & Revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to inform him of my concerns, but up to this day not one of my letters was acknowledged by him or by anyone from the First Presidency or by any other ranking Church members.

On October 23, 1998, I received a voice message from bishop Nantais concerning my letters to President Hinckley. I was completely shocked to hear that bishop Nantais was instructed by the first Presidency to tell me that they would not answer any of my letters because I am an excommunicated member. He said that I am turning to fight against the Church, and that my letters are simply going to the garbage (at Salt Lake's point). He said that I am probably turning the hearts of those other people and these particular things will be up on my head as condemnation. When I returned his call he told me that the information that I am pumping out doesn,t do any good, and that I am trying to justify my decision of the past. He told me that I am wrong in my statements, that I am not obedient to the seers and revelators of the Lord, that I am fighting against the First Presidency, that I am going against the order of the priesthood government in the Church. But when I asked him to show me one of my wrong statements, he could not relate to one particular phrase.

When I asked him if the first presidency were indeed throwing my letters in the garbage he said: "Yes, o yes, I mean, Real! They have said it for fifty or sixty years, don't write to the first Presidency! They will return them to the stake presidency, (who in this case was President Rayner), he is handling it, you are not a member of the Church, you are out of harmony, you have lost the Holy Ghost…". I said should I call President Rayner? He said: "No, don't waste your breath, he is not keeping the letters."

In 1997, President Gordon B. Hinckley and the First Presidency of the Church (the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,) published a manual entitled: "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young", in which they have altered the teachings of Joseph Smith, and of the seven first prophets of the Church. They present Brigham Young, as been married to only one wife at the time, when older church records show that he had 55 wives in plural marriage. Why where President Gordon B. Hinckley and the First Presidency of the Church not telling the truth?

Elder Oaks said: "Visions do happen. Voices are heard from beyond the veil. I know this. But these experiences are exceptional. And those who have these great and exceptional experiences rarely speak of them publicly because we are instructed not to do so (see D&C 63:64) and because we understand that the channels of revelation will be closed if we show these things before the world." But in all the books use by the Church we won't find any references supporting Oaks's declarations and D&C 63: 64 do not instruct us not to speak publicly of these experiences mentioned above.

Here is a quote from Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Pg.578 PLURAL MARRIAGE "Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C. 132:7, 29-66.)"
Except for a few words of Jacob that I question in this work, there is no other references (In none of the books used by the Church), where we may find that Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife. And (D. & C. 132:1-28.) - (D. & C. 132:7, 29-66.) disputes McConkie's statement.

Every Church members learned that throughout history it was the Lord's custom to periodically permit and forbid plural marriage, and it would have simply pleased the Lord to authorize plural marriages in the 1830s and outlawed it in the 1890s.

Based on (D&C), section 56: 4-7, members have been instructed by today's Church leaders that through the mouth of His living prophets the Lord may command and revoke any laws as He sees fit.

They also have been misinformed on the Bible's words concerning that matter. "Otten & Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants", Vol.2, Pg.356, "2. The principle and practice of plural marriage" says that anyone who accepts the Bible as a depository of revealed truth acknowledges that, on occasion, the Lord has sanctioned plural marriage. At various times in certain dispensations, the Lord has commanded that this principle should be put into practice. (See D&C 132:34-39; Bible, Genesis 25:1-6; Genesis chaps. 29 & 30; II Samuel 12:7-8) and on other occasions, He has forbidden this practice.

Among many others, this is an incorrect interpretation of D&C 132:34-39; Genesis 25:1-6; Genesis chaps, 29 & 30; II Samuel 12:7-8. Nothing in the above quotes suggests that on occasion, the Lord has at various times in certain dispensations forbidden the practice of plural marriage. For those who don't have easy access to the above quotes, you may see by yourself that they don't. Others, please simply skip it.

D.&C. 132: 34-39
34: God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to be his wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35: Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

36: Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shal not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

37: Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded,,,,,

38: David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39: David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

40: I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things. Ask what ye will, and it shall be given unto you according to my word.

Genesis 25:1-6;
1, Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2, And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3, And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4, And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5, And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
6, But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

It is unnecessary to include the 35th and 43rd verses of Genesis chapters. 29 & 30, for they as well don't in anyways suggest that on other occasions, the Lord has forbidden this practice.

As for II Samuel 12:7-8, the Lord reprimanded King David for killing Uriah for the unique purpose of obtaining Uriah's wife for himself. So the Lord rose up evil against David in his own house, and took his wives and gave them to his neighbor (verse 11). "Otten & Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants", Vol.2, Pg.356," is misleading the readers when saying that II Samuel 12:7-8 sugest that, on occasion, the Lord has commanded that this principle should be put into practice and on other occasions, He has forbidden this practice of plural marriage. How could the Lord have forbidden the practice of plural wives and concubines in those verses when the Lord's action simply increased the number of wives of David's neighbor?

8, And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9, Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10, Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Doing this work led me into a serious investigation of what could have lead me also to accept as true such contradictions for a period of seven years. During that time, being a Church member myself, having read the same Scripture hundreds if not thousands of times, I understood them the same way eleven million members do today. Was it that I was so eager to seek after a true Church of God here on this earth that after being convinced that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the true Church of God, I didn't want to see any error in their philosophies? Or was it persuasion from their part? Or was it a mixed of both? Or was it something else? What I know for sure now is that many of us are vulnerable to the words of anyone selling eternal life concepts.

Millions of good Church members do not grasp shocking controversies:

Based on the following teachings of the 6th President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith:
"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for it is false… Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself, he cannot do it. When that PRINCIPLE WAS REVEALED to the Prophet Joseph Smith,... HE DID NOT FALTER, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected.... " IF THEN THIS PRINCIPAL WAS OF SUCH GREAT IMPORTANCE that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction,... IT IS USELESS to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, OR THAT A MAN WITH ONLY ONE WIFE CAN OBTAIN AS GREAT A REWARD, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one,... I UNDERSTAND THE LAW of celestial marriage to mean that EVERY MAN in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, SHALL BE DAMMED, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, AND I TESTIFY IN THE NAME OF JESUS that it does mean that." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, pp. 28-31)

And because the seven first Presidents of the Church, Joseph Smith included had similar views on plural marriage, as I did with hundreds of other Church members before him, I asked Robert why for example, would the most quoted and most popular modern writer of the Church, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in many occasions bluntly contradicted the original teachings. In one occasion Elder McConkie said: "Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation."

Because he dedicated his life to a cause he must have believed in, I have much respect for Elder McConkie who completed a mission for the Church in the eastern United States from 1934 to 1936. In 1946, at the age of thirty-one, he left a legal career when called to serve as a member of the First Council of the Seventy. Previously he had served four years during World War II as a U.S. Army security and intelligence officer. From 1961 to 1964 he was president of the Southern Australian Mission. A student of the scriptures from his youth, Elder McConkie became an energetic and insightful writer and was the author of several challenging books on gospel-related subjects. Elder McConkie had battled cancer for over sixteen months. After surgery in January 1984, doctors told him he had only a short time to live. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles from 1972, died April 19, 1985, at his home.

Though I respect very much the fact that he may have dedicated his life to the Church and done many good deeds for many people, however, some of Elder McConkie's writings contradict Joseph Smith's.

In the same manner hundreds of other Church members in the past reacted to my questions, President Robert Gaudreau could not accept that Elder Bruce R. McConkie may have been contradicting the teachings of the seven first prophets of the Church.

Not only D.&C. 132: 29-66 don't support McConkie's theory but certainly challenges it. It predicates, it proclaims the law of plural marriages and concubines, as been the eternal and unchangeable law of the priesthood of God, established before our world was. According to D.&C.: 132, the law of plural wives and concubines was in force from the beginning of the creation to the time of Joseph Smith.

In D. & C. 49: 15_17, Joseph Smith did not suggest that a man should have only one wife at a time, unless by revelation the Lord commands plurality of wives in the new and everlasting covenant, as Elder McConkie understood but simply declare that whoever prohibit or interdict to marry is not ordained of God, because marriage is ordained of God unto man, verse 16: "Wherefore, it is lawful,(it is legal) that a man have one wife". And for what Joseph said in DC. 132, one wife should be a minimum not a maximum.

According to Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, was given to him as an answer subsequent to his long investigation to know and understand wherein the Lord, justified His servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, as pertaining to the principle and doctrine of having many wives and concubines. (Verses 1-2).
D.&C.: 132 is the eternal law of the priesthood of God regarding plural marriage; this law was ordained by Christ and His Father before the world was, and like requested for any other covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, etc., to be valid for all eternity plural marriage should be sealed by that new and everlasting covenant, by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity.

Only one can be right, is it Joseph Smith or Jacob? It is inconceivable that a perfect God will command His people, to do an abomination on a regular basis. And its obvious that the Lord will not contradict himself, He would not tell Jacob that plurality of wives is an abomination and then tell Joseph Smith that it is not an abomination except in cases like the case of Uriah and his wife (for David), and for the forbidden women of Solomon.

Joseph Smith, Jun., was born December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont. During his early life he moved with his family to Manchester, in western New York. It was while he was living near Manchester in the spring of 1820, when he was fourteen years of age, that he experienced his first vision, in which God, the Eternal Father, and his Son Jesus Christ would have visited him in person. Joseph would have been told in this vision that the true Church of Jesus Christ that had been established in New Testament times, and which had administered the fullness of the gospel, was no longer on the earth. Other divine manifestations followed in which he would have been taught by many angels; according to Joseph, it was shown to him that God had a special work for him to do on the earth, and that through him the Church of Jesus Christ would be restored to the earth.

In the course of time Joseph Smith would have been enabled by divine assistance to translate and publish the Book of Mormon. Again according to Joseph, in the meantime he and Oliver Cowdery were ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood by John the Baptist in May 1829 (D&C 13), and soon thereafter they were also ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood by the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John (D&C 27: 12). Other ordinations followed in which priesthood keys were conferred upon them by Moses, Elijah, Elias, and many ancient prophets (D&C 110; 128: 18, 21). These ordinations would have been, in fact, a restoration of divine authority to man on the earth. On April 6, 1830, under heavenly direction, the Prophet Joseph Smith organized the Church, and thus the true Church of Jesus Christ would be once again operative as an institution among men, with authority to teach the gospel and administer the ordinances of salvation. (See Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1: 1-75; D&C 20.)

Several of the earlier sections involve matters regarding the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon (see Sections 3, 5, 10, 17, 19). Some later sections reflect the work of the Prophet Joseph Smith in making an inspired translation of the Bible, during which many of the great doctrinal sections were received (see, for example, Sections 37, 45, 73, 76, 77, 86, 91, and 132, each of which has some direct relationship to the Bible translation).

In the revelations the doctrines of the gospel are set forth with explanations about such fundamental matters as the nature of the Godhead, the origin of man, the reality of Satan, the purpose of mortality, the necessity for obedience, the need for repentance, the workings of the Holy Spirit, the ordinances and performances that pertain to salvation, the destiny of the earth, the future conditions of man after the resurrection and the judgment, the eternity of the marriage relationship, and the eternal nature of the family and much more.

A number of the revelations were published in Zion (Independence), Missouri, in 1833, under the title "A Book of Commandments for the Government of the Church of Christ". Concerning this publication the elders of the Church gave solemn testimony that the Lord had borne record to their souls that these revelations were true. As the Lord continued to communicate with his servants, an enlarged compilation was published two years later in Kirtland, Ohio, with the title "Doctrine and Covenants" of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

But D.&C. don't reveal that plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation as McConkie informed the Church, and in all their writings, Nephi and his people never mentioned that they were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet could have gained every eternal blessing that the Lord ever offered to any of His people as McConkie said. Nowhere in D.&C. 132:1-28, or in D.&C. 132: 29-66 we will come across declarations that could lead us to believe that in our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie inform the Church.

In 1887, the U. S. Congress forced the Church, to terminate the practice of plural marriage:

All that confusion emerged after some leaders became confused by two conflicting responsibilities after 1890. On one hand they had to teach members to obey a new legislative law established by the US government and on the other they felt obligated to obey the Lord's words in D & C 132. And they found Jacob 2: 26-30, the one and only prophet that from all the Scripture used by the Church may have, (in four lines only), brought the ultimate solution to their problem.

In 1887, the U. S. Congress forced the Church, to terminate the practice of plural marriage, and in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff presented the manifesto, which forced the Church members to comply with the new law imposed by the U. S. Congress. Soon after, perhaps by fear of government retaliation, a small number of the succeeding leaders of the Church lead the Church into ambiguous teachings, that created confusion among the members to the point that today, it is almost impossible to find a Church member that will openly talk about it.

"The Manifesto" of 1890 was a proclamation by President Wilford Woodruff that declared that under the inspiration of God, the Church had discontinued plural marriage. It ended a decade of persecution and hardship in which Latter-day Saints stubbornly resisted what they saw as unconstitutional federal attempts to restrain polygamy. While today's Church members often refer to the Manifesto as a simple revelation that resulted from the goodwill of God, the declaration was actually a press release that followed the unbearable situation produced by the application of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.

The United States government has constitutional power to enact laws governing territories, and under that authority Congress enacted the Morrill Act (1862), making bigamy in a territory a crime punishable by a fine and five years in prison. The statute was upheld in Reynolds v. United States (1879), although the defendant argued that the law violated the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

The U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act in February 1887. This statute disincorporated the Mormon Church and seized its property with the exception of buildings used exclusively for worship and even threatened seizure of its temples. (Edmunds-Tucker also tied up several minor loopholes from the Edmunds act). The church sponsored many business ventures during this time period. Most of its property where business, so this new law was a deadly blow to the church. On May 19, 1890, the Supreme Court upheld the Edmund-Tucker Act in a lawsuit aptly named "The Late Corporation of the Mormon Church v. United States." It became clear that plural marriage was leading toward the economic and political destruction of the Church.

About 1,300 LDS men who had practiced plural marriage were jailed by federal officers pursuant to the Edmunds Act (1882) and many women were found "in contempt of court" and jailed in the Utah penitentiary in 1885, for refusing to testify against their husbands.

Few Mormons were prosecuted for bigamy because the government had difficulty obtaining testimony about plural wedding ceremonies. Rather, they were charged with bigamous cohabitation, a misdemeanor created by the Edmunds Act (1882). Proving cohabitation was easy enough, and over 1,300 Latter-day Saints were jailed as "cohabs" in the 1880s.

Women had lost their right to vote under provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 and would not regain it until ratification of the new state constitution in the fall of 1895.)

Following the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, the Church found it difficult to operate as a viable institution and after the new U. S. Congress law the Church terminated the practice of plural marriage. Soon after, some Church leaders led the members to believe that plurality of wives ended not through the new law imposed by the U. S. Congress but through the good will of God, whom can revoke any laws as he pleases.

Abraham had 3 wives:

A faithful friend of God and father of the Hebrew nation; Abraham had 3 wives - Sarah, Hagar and Keturah. "Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an Egyptian handmaid, whose name was Hagar." Genesis 16:1

"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife." Genesis 16:3

"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah." Genesis 25:1

Did not the Lord already command His servants to have many wives and concubines? Did He not already rise up a seed for himself by the means of Abraham's and his descendant's and their many wives and concubine's seeds? Seeds that were to continue as long as they were in the world; and out of the world, and as innumerable as the stars. DC. 132.

The book of Abraham as restored by Joseph Smith autobiographically recounts Abraham's early life, explaining why he was singled out as the main recipient of divine promises for the blessing of mankind. Not only had he been foreordained in premortal life (Abr. 3:23; cf. Apocalypse of Abraham 22:1-5) but as a young man in Ur he opposed idolatry and human sacrifice.

After marrying Sarah and learning of his lineal right to the patriarchal order of the priesthood as disclosed in the "records of the fathers" (Abr. 1:2-4, 26, 31; 2:2; Jubilees 12:27; cf. D&C 107:40-57), Abraham traveled to Haran, where he apparently received his ordination (Abr. 2:9-11; WJS, pp. 245, 303). He also saw the Lord, who gave him remarkable promises: Abraham would be blessed above measure; his posterity would carry the gospel to all nations; and all who received it would bear his name, be accounted his posterity, and bless him as their father (Abr. 2:6-11; cf. Gen. 12:1-3). Accompanied by their converts, Abraham and Sarah proceeded to Canaan (Abr. 2:15; Genesis Rabbah 39:14). Famine soon forced them to Egypt, but not before God commanded Abraham to ask Sarah to pose as his sister (Abr. 2:22-25; Genesis Apocryphon 19:14-21), and then showed him a vision of the cosmos and creation so that he could teach these things to the Egyptians (Abr. 3- 5; cf. Sefer Yetsirah).

DC 132:30
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins--from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph--which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

DC 132:37
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob (from the Bible) did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

When and where in the Bible or in the Book of Mormon or in any other books used by the Church do we find that the Lord has revoked His promise to Abraham concerning raising up a seed for himself by the means of Abraham and his descendant's many wives and concubines, as McConkie and other modern prophets teach? There is no Scriptures supporting this idea.

Brigham Young, the second spiritual leader and President of the Church and the governor of the State of Utah when it was admitted to the United States made this statement on August 19, 1866: "THE ONLY MEN who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, page 269)

On another occasion President Brigham Young warned the members: "NOW IF ANY OF YOU WILL DENY the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I PROMISE THAT YOU WILL BE DAMMED. . . " (Deseret News, November 14, 1855.

After firmly declaring that he find no contradictions in the teachings mentioned above, like most of today's Church members President Robert Gaudreau bluntly supports Elder Bruce R. McConkie's teachings over the teachings of Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith's and Brigham Young's mentioned above.

I fully understand and endorse the fact that Church members should obey the law of the land until plural marriage and concubines become legal practice in the America (if it ever happenes) but fidelity to the teachings of Joseph Smith is a must for the Church if they believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. I understand that they may find themselves in a very strange situation but completely repudiate the doctrine of polygamy as they are today is to deny Joseph Smith's integrity. I hope they are not contemplating to removing the revelation (DC: 132) from the Doctrine and Covenants because it would be admitting that Joseph Smith was a deceiver, and that the church was founded on fraud.

They may believe that vigorously defending Joseph Smith's teachings would probably encourage Church members to enter into the practice, which would bring disgrace upon the church. I understand that they maybe in a very strange situation for on the one hand, they must teach the members to obey the law of the land, but on the other, they must protect the teachings of Joseph Smith. Altering or overlooking the teachings of Joseph Smith is certainly not the solution if they wish to maintain Joseph Smith's credibility. According to me, deliberately attempting to mask the first seven presidents of the church that practiced polygamy is an absolute unnecessary reaction. I believe that if they were informed, if members knew the truth about what really happened to the practice of plural marriage, Church members would abide by the US government's law.

If, as they proclaim, the leaders of the Church believe Joseph Smith was one of the great prophets of God, how after reading DC. 132, could they say that they don't understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage? How can they believe that the law of plural marriage was given to Joseph Smith as a means of trying and refining the people via the persecution that followed?

John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, Pg.393
"We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage. Some have suggested that it was a means of trying and refining the people through the persecution that followed".

Instead of supporting Joseph Smith, they led the members to believe that Joseph made a shameful mistake when establishing the law of plurality of wives. Don't they believe that the Lord himself gave Joseph the law of His Holy Priesthood as himself and His Father ordained it before the world was? In verse 29, Joseph said that Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, including his many wives and concubines by revelation and commandment. Speaking to Joseph the Lord said: Verse 32 accordingly, go and do the works of Abraham; enter into my law (receive many wives and concubines!) and you shall be saved. 33 But if you enter not into my law, (if you do not take many wives and concubines), you cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, Pg.87 said: "As the gospel is a principle that emanates from God, like its author, it is "the same yesterday, today, and for ever -- "eternal and unchangeable."

To revoke, to cancel and to restore an eternal and unchangeable law is a paradox. If the law of the priesthood that governs the practice of plural marriage as stated in D&C 132, could be revoked it would not be the same yesterday, today, and forever. If it could be restored, it was not there yesterday and might not be there tomorrow and forever, consequently would not be eternal and unchangeable.

During the seven years I was an active member of the Church, I never heard anyone giving the actual reason why the Lord revoked the law of plural wives. The Church teaches that it ended through a revelation from the Lord, that the Lord brought an end to this program, that the Lord officially outlawed polygamy. They lead the members to believe that God ended plural marriage because it simply pleased Him. Although according to some leaders plural marriage would have been an abomination before the Lord, they teach that from Adam to this day, at various times in certain dispensations, the Lord permitted plurality of wives otherwise it was prohibited. No wonder the members are confused, no wonder they will not openly talk about it.

President Wilford Woodruff gives the true reason for removing the practice of plural marriage:

President Wilford Woodruff said that he revoked the law of plural wives under God's inspiration. He saw by the inspiration of Almighty God what would have happened to the Church if he did not put an end to plural marriage. He knew that something had to be done to ward off the affliction that he saw approaching. He said that he might have let happen what God showed him by revelation and vision. He might have lived in the flesh and permitted these things to happen; he might have let the temples go in the hands of the enemies; let every temple and all Church property be confiscated by the government. Let the people - prophets and apostles be put in jail, and the wives and children scattered to the four winds of heaven, if Almighty God had not commanded him to do what he did, but President Woodruff was clear, the Lord was not pleased to terminate the practice of plural marriage.

After the abolition of plural marriage, the confiscated properties of the Church were restored. Utah became a state of the Union. The growth of the Church increased.

Why can't they say the truth, why can't they say that (under the inspiration of God), after foreseeing the destruction of the Church President Woodruff put an end to plural marriage? Why can't they say that President Woodruff could not let every temple and all Church property be confiscated by the government, let the people - prophets and apostles be put in jail, and the wives and children scattered to the four winds of heaven. Here are the exact words of Wilford Woodruff:

The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, Pg.217
FROM THE SERMON BY PRESIDENT WILFORD
WOODRUFF AT THE FOURTH SESSION OF
DEDICATION SERVICES OF THE SALT LAKE TEMPLE APRIL, 1893:

"I feel disposed to say something with regard to the Manifesto. To begin with, I will say this work was like a mountain upon me. I saw by the inspiration of Almighty God what lay before this people, and I knew that something had to be done to ward off the blow that I saw impending. But I should have let come to pass what God showed me by revelation and vision; I should have lived in the flesh and permitted these things to come to pass; I should have let this temple go into the hands of our enemies; I should have let every temple be confiscated by the hands of the wicked; I should have permitted all Church property to have been confiscated by our enemies; I should have seen these people -- prophets and apostles -- driven by our enemies, and our wives and children scattered to the four winds of heaven. I should have seen all this had not Almighty God commanded me to do what I did."

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I [President Wilford Woodruff] hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."

In the course of a sermon immediately following the proclaiming of the manifesto, President Woodruff said regarding the action taken: "I have done my duty, and the nation of which we form a part must be responsible for that which has been done in relation to that principle"

Excerpts from Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter. The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles, and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for...any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. ...I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write... I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Antipolygamy legislation also put pressure on the Church by threatening members' civil rights and Church property rights. The Edmunds Act barred persons living in polygamy from jury service, public office, and voting. The Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) disincorporated both the Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund on the ground that they fostered polygamy. Furthermore, it authorized seizure of Church real estate not directly used for religious purposes, and acquired in excess of a $50,000 limitation imposed by the Morrill Act. In the Idaho Territory a test oath adopted in 1885 was used to ban all Mormons (and former Mormons) from voting because of the Church's position on polygamy.

Congress passed a final federal antibigamy provision in 1892, which excluded polygamists from immigration into the United States. This exclusion remains part of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Code. Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona incorporated antibigamy provisions into their turn-of-the-century state constitutions as required by Congress for admission to the Union. Idaho's Constitution not only outlaws bigamy but also bars polygamists and persons "celestially married" from public office and voting. However, that was interpreted in Budge v. Toncray by the Idaho court not to include monogamous Mormons married in an LDS temple.

Federal and state governments have prosecuted other polygamists under a variety of general statutes. Federal officials have filed cases against polygamists charging unlawful use of the mail service to proselytize for polygamy and alleging that moving plural wives across state boundaries violates laws against interstate kidnapping and interstate transportation of women for immoral purposes. Polygamists have also had legal troubles with state laws about adoption, inheritance, and government employment. Changing social attitudes about unconventional personal relationships may undermine the use of legislation in this way. For example, in 1988 an Arizona court held that it was illegal to deny a law enforcement security bond to an admitted polygamist merely because of his marital status.

Who wrote the Manifesto? When asked about it at the witness stand, a secretary in the First Presidency's office, George Reynolds, testified in 1904, "I assisted to write it," in collaboration with Charles W. Penrose and John R. Winder who "transcribed the notes and changed the language slightly to adapt it for publication." Moving far beyond that statement, John W. Woolley told his polygamist followers in the 1920s that "Judge Zane [a non- Mormon] had as much to do with it [the Manifesto] as President Wilford Woodruff except to sign it," and Lorin C. Woolley told Mormon Fundamentalists that President Wilford Woodruff was not the author of the Manifesto but that it was actually written by Charles W. Penrose, Frank J. Cannon, and "John H. White, the butcher," revised by non-Mormon federal officials, and that President Woodruff merely signed it. Moreover, Woolley and his Fundamentalist followers have accused George Q. Cannon of pressuring Presidents Taylor and Woodruff to write a manifesto abandoning plural marriage, and at least one Fundamentalist called him "The Great Mormon Judas."

Personally I never found any declarations made by President Woodruff that would state that he himself had written or even dictated all the words of the Manifesto. The following words of President Woodruff speaks clear and loud: "I have done my duty, AND THE NATION OF WHICH WE FORM A PART, (MUST) be responsible for that which has been done in relation to this principle" (i.e., plural marriage).

Not once in the Bible, in the Old Testament or the New Testament, the Lord revoked the law of plural wives and concubines given to the old prophets. Paul said that a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior etc. Some believe that in that verse Paul instructed Timothy that a bishop must have only one wife, but if Paul wanted to say the word only he would have said it, but did not. Paul said: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife. The same for verse 12, instead of saying: Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, Paul would have said: Let the deacons be the husbands of only one wife. And also in Titus 1:6. Anything else is pure speculation.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave one of the best statements supporting the unchangeable eternal laws of the priesthood of God, when he said that no one should believe that an eternal and unchangeable God saves one soul on one set of standards and save another soul in some other standards. The Promised Messiah, Pg.286 - Pg.287

When interviewed by Larry King on his position concerning what should be done now, today, to the principle of plural marriage (that according to the Church), was established by the Lord Himself true His Prophet Joseph Smith, Hinckley spoke vaguely. When asked by King if he condemns it; dodging, he erroneously said yes, as a practice, or in other words: Yes I condemn it, when put into practice, because I think plurality of wives is not doctrinal. Did anyone yet condemned plural marriage when it was not put into practice?

Larry King: You condemn it.
Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Hinckley is absolutely right, the Church took the position of being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates etc. and obeying and sustaining the law of the land, but unless Henckley has already rejected Section 132 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, he is incorrectly interpreting the doctrinal part. See what D&C says concerning the eternal and unchangeable law of the priesthood on the doctrine of plural marriage:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood-if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

DEFINITIONS. Joseph Smith defined the priesthood as an everlasting principle, [which has] existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years….

As long as Hinckley will reject the basics teachings of the founders of what he believe to be the only true Church of God established by Christ Himself true His Prophet Joseph Smith, no wonder he will avoid questions like: "Do human become gods and was God the Father once a man?"

In the case of loosing their argument against Joseph Smith's declaration they could always blame The U. S. Congress for their actions. But remember that The U. S. Congress never forced the Church to deny the teachings of Joseph Smith but simply forced them to obey the law of the land concerning the practice of plural marriage.

I trust that many of the books from which I took quotes from will become collection items for it's now only a matter of time, and they will be altered or removed from the Church bookstores.

Because when answering my questions Robert spend much of his valuable time writing long letters full of inspiring but irrelevant materials and referring to the same irrelevant materials every time he kept repeating that he had already answered my questions, I asked that he give me shorter and clearer answers, even by a simple yes or no when it is possible.

Knowing the true is essential before handing over a large portion of our life as requested by that Church. The philosophy of "the truth" consists in some form of correspondence or association between proposition, belief, and so on. If I say that the earth revolves around the sun you may trust my words and never know for yourself if it is true or not or you may put together your own scientific research and prove it to be factual. If I say snow is white, unless you never saw snow you will trust my own words for it is obvious. I believe knowing the truth of one particular object establishes a feeling of self-assurance in our progression toward more knowledge.

Henry D. Moyle, Conference Report, April 1963, Pg.45
Whatever the population may be now or hereafter, truth will remain constant. To know the truth will make us free. Truth is eternal. We must seek truth at its source. Truth emanates from God....

Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1961, Pg.74
Third, we should help those who have been deceived or who are misinformed to find the truth. Unless each person who knows the truth will "stand up and speak up" it is difficult for the deceived or confused citizen to find his way back.

I believe that sooner or later the Church will openly reject many viewpoints of the founders, Joseph Smith and the first seven prophets that presented D&C 132, as the Lord's true words, and clearly recognize modern Church leaders or, they will agree with the seven first prophets and reject some of the modern philosophy, for only one theory will survive this dispute.

Free search engine submission and placement services!