Argument: CJCLDS must be consistent. Yet, this doctrine was abolished.

Reason for fallacy: Church never rejected "plural marriage" doctrine, but instead declared that it would currently not be practiced. The reason that the CJCLDS president gave was that the church would be destroyed by other US citizens if it continued.

Argument: CJCLDS believes it has the right to be protected by God from complete destruction from "unrighteous dominion" when the church is righteous. The church should have been protected.

Reason for fallacy: The church at that time might not have met the "righteous" criteria. In fact, the personal journals of many plural wives show examples of a subculture which had developed. It was tabue not to be married. Marriage was considered absolutely essential and was a higher priority than any emotional concern of those involved. Many of these woman were obviously not in love with the shared husbands to them. This may have been an overwhelming misuse of marriage and could have disqualified the CJCLDS from divine protection, especially concerning the right to practice this doctrine. Logically speaking, the history of CJCLDS policy on this doctrine may indeed be consistent.