This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Policy Is Different Than Principle – CES Letter says Brigham Young taught that polygamy is doctrinal. They take a snippet of quote and leave out important context. In red is the part CES Letter quotes. In blue important parts of context:
“I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith
, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character, and office, etc.” The man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son
, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.
“
Clearly, Brigham Young was concerned about Mormons disregarding the polygamy policy because it would cost them earthly rewards. He said “at least in your faith”–as in, only for the Saints of that time and their intent to follow the will of the Lord.
But doesn’t Brigham Young refer to a “doctrine of polygamy?” Yes, but what exactly does he say the doctrine of polygamy is?
“I wish to give my views with regard to that doctrine and practice which are so obnoxious to the outsiders…”
Brigham Young goes on to explain that the “doctrine” is about retaining virtue and chastity. The doctrine is not that everybody must have multiple wives. He gives is an incredibly interesting explanation, one which actually applies to modern America more than perhaps any time in the earth’s history–our party and hook-up culture. Brigham Young gives a complex explanation regarding both personal virtue and societal class stratification:
“There are many ladies, probably, here, who have lived long in the outside world, previous to coming to Utah, and who are not entirely unacquainted with the usages of society there. You know that it is customary to admit a certain class of gentlemen to private parties and entertainments where they are greeted cordially and welcome. They are esteemed as gentlemen of grace, education and polished manners; they are adept in all the little extras of most refined society. They are great lovers of the fair sex, and their gallantry, fine appearance, and gentlemanly bearing too readily win for them the deepest admiration of the fair ones who may chance to cross their path. Yet it is not unknown, in the circles they frequent, that they are vile and corrupt, with regard to chastity. Yes, it is known that those beautiful gentlemen are libertines, that they do not respect female virtue any more than they do their old clothes, which they have worn and cast off. Yet, they are greeted with the most profound respect and deference, their great crimes against female chastity are winked at, and they are still permitted to frequent the best society to lead astray, and decoy from the paths of virtue, the unsuspecting and unwary female. Take another view of this subject. Let anyone of the poor unfortunates, whom those unprincipled scoundrels have, by their hellish arts, seduced from the paths of virtue and honor, make her appearance in a select party where the ladies are fanning the vanity of those wicked men with their unmeaning and insincere adulations, and what would be the consequence? Instead of making the poor creature welcome, she would be spurned from their presence; unceremoniously cast out upon the cold world to be crushed down still deeper into the dark depths of crime and degradation, with none to reach forth a saving hand, or shed a tear of sympathy over the dreadful fate of the dishonored and lost one.
“If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.” -Brigham Young
This is one of the inconsistencies of the refined society of the age. The defiler of the innocent is the one who should be branded with infamy and cast out from respectable society, and shunned as a pest, or as a contagious disease is shunned. The doors of respectable families should be closed against him, and he should be frowned upon by all high-minded and virtuous persons. Wealth, influence and position should not screen him from their righteous indignation. His sin is one of the blackest in the calendar of crime, and he should be cast down from the high pinnacle of respectability and consideration, to find his place among the worst of felons. Every virtuous woman desires a husband to whom she can look for guidance and protection through this world. God has placed this desire in woman’s nature. It should be respected by the stronger sex. Any man who takes advantage of this, and humbles a daughter of Eve to rob her of her virtue, and cast her off dishonored and defiled, is her destroyer, and is responsible to God for the deed. If the refined Christian society of the nineteenth century will tolerate such a crime, God will not; but he will call the perpetrator to an account. He will be damned; in hell he will lift up his eyes, being in torment, until he has paid the uttermost farthing, and made a full atonement for his sins. It is this very class of men, though not all of them, who have set up such a howl against the doctrine of polygamy, which is so much despised and which was believed in and practiced by the ancients—by the very men who are held up to us as patterns of all the piety that was ever exhibited through man upon the face of the earth.”
Where in this “doctrine of polygamy” does Brigham Young say anything about plural wives? He doesn’t. In fact, he says: “If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.” This reflects the well-known Book of Mormon verse:
“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.”
Brigham Young made it crystal clear that the doctrine of plural marriage was a temporary policy and that the real issue at heart was personal virtue and societal development. The policy was appropriate for those times and circumstances, and not for today, though the doctrine behind it is more applicable today than ever.
Not The New And Everlasting Covenant – CES Letter claims, “the New and Everlasting Covenant of plural marriage was doctrinal and essential for exaltation.” But polygamy was never the “new and everlasting covenant” talked about in D&C 132. The doctrinal conditions behind the covenant of eternal sealings (v. 7) never included polygamy. A couple could be sealed for time and eternity (v. 19-20) but there is no requirement for them to be polygamous.
D&C 132 goes on to explain how polygamy could be practiced within the principle of eternal sealing, at that time. Joseph Smith and the prophets of the time wanted people to accept the policy of polygamy as a matter of faith, but they always made it clear that it was just the policy they were commanded to follow at that period of time.
Gordon B. Hinckley Denounced Modern Polygamy – CES Letter quotes President Gordon B. Hickley:
“In a September 1998 Larry King Live interview (14:37), Hinckley was asked about polygamy:
- Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy]?
- Hinckley: I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.” (CES Letter)
CES Letter took Gordon B. Hinckley’s quote out of context (I know… shocking). He was not being asked about Mormon polygamy or the church’s history with polygamy. He was answering a question about a currently living man named Mike Leavitt, a non-Mormon–and his answer was 100% correct, it is not doctrinal. The doctrine is to have a policy dictated by God that reflects the circumstances of the time to help personal virtue and societal health. Polygamy will be a policy if God directs it to “raise up a seed,” and that is not the policy in place today.
LDS doctrine is furthermore to obey the laws of the land, which forbid polygamy.
No, that is being sealed to multiple women in the afterlife. CES Letter started their entire polygamy discussion with the Big Lie that eternal sealings are the same thing as marriage for time, and this is false. A sealing for eternity does not involve anything physical or earthly, and sealings for time do not involve anything about the afterlife and spirit. They are two completely separate things.
So, when a wife dies, the sealing “for time” is broken, and the he could get sealed to a second woman without being polygamous. When the man dies, he enters the afterlife and then the sealing “for eternity” takes effect for both women. Polygamy is a physical, earthly relations with multiple women at the same time, and current policy does not allow that. We practice that a man may be sealed to another woman after the first dies, as this is not polygamy.
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehood | Polygamy was never doctrine but a policy. The premise of this argument is false. CES Letter claims Gordon B. Hickley “was asked about polygamy” in the interview, presumably Mormon polygamy, but actually he was asked about non-Mormon Mike Leavitt’s lawbreaking by taking multiple wives. | |
| Shifting Goalposts | CES Letter earlier admitted the Book of Mormon has a “prohibition on polygamy except in the case where God commands it to ‘raise up seed.’” But now CES Letter claims Mormons believed “polygamy is required for exaltation.” CES Letter earlier referred to eternal sealings as “marriage,” lumped together with any other kind of marriage, but now they admit that it is a “new and everlasting covenant.” | |
| False Dilemma | CES Letter shockingly refers to elderly widows who remarry as polygamists: “Apostles Elder Oaks and Elder Nelson are modern examples of LDS polygamists in that they’re sealed to multiple women.” No, they are senior citizens who lost their sweethearts and needed some company in the twilight of their lives. It is illogical and cold-hearted to call elderly widows who remarry “polygamists.” CES Letter reaches this stunning conclusion because they refuse to distinguish between marriage for time and marriage for eternity. To be sealed to multiple women for the afterlife does not affect being married “for time” to one woman at a time on earth. | |
| Association Fallacy | CES Letter incorrectly calls “plural marriage” “the New and Everlasting Covenant.” Plural marriage was a policy that was allowed under the new and everlasting covenant of eternal sealings, but it was just a policy, not the covenant. | |
| Etymological Fallacy | CES Letter uses present tense when talking about historical events from the past: “taught the doctrine that polygamy is required…” This incorrectly make it sounds like the policy is still valid and correct. The LDS semantics of “eternal” sealing versus “marriage for time” are unusual, and it is easy for CES Letter to just lump everything together as “marriage.” | |
| Poison The Well | Denouncing something is not an admission of guilt. | |
| Repetition | CES Letter repeats again the sarcastic slogan they repeated several times before: “Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s prophets are today’s heretics.” CES Letter repeats this argument on p. 73 |
The narrative that Mormons victimized women is important for anti-Mormonism because it gives people a reason to hate Mormons. If the Book of Mormon was made up and Joseph Smith was a conman–so what? Even if he were a fraud, aren’t Mormons still nice people who do nice things and make the world a better place? Why not just let them be? The powerful thing with these polygamy arguments is that CES Letter tells you why Mormonism is evil: it victimizes girls. It matters because Joseph Smith was a creep who preyed on women, and “true” Mormons still follow the practice of polygamy. This is easy rhetoric for them to push, as the internet is filled with all kinds of false rumors about Mormon polygamy and because the fake news media labels modern-day polygamist cultists as “Mormon”.
In this phony argument, CES Letter stretches the emotional outrage against polygamy to include corrent prophets and church doctrine. Suddenly it’s not just Joseph Smith. Now, all Mormons are dangerous! Skeptics complain if we don’t change policies to suit modern circumstances, and then they complain about “inconsistencies” if we do. What do you want from us??
The mainstream media has trumpeted this narrative since the beginning. In the 1800’s, American newspapers were putting out story after story about how women in Utah were treated as “slaves.” It led to the federal government for the first time registering all marriages, controlling the definition of marriage, and jailing Mormons who did not fit that definition. Still today, Mormons are persecuted as some kind of oppressive patriarchy that victimized women.
This type of attack on Mormons expands the narrative so that not only is Joseph Smith a dangerous creep that had his murder coming, but he spread corruption to other members of the church. You know that nice old Mormon man down the street who remarried after his wife died? Yup.
Big Lie Tactic – In the polygamy arguments, CES Letter approaches marriage from our modern society’s definition, ignore all historical context, and perpetuate the big lie that eternal sealings in the temple were the same as a civil marriage with a physical relationship. People are much more likely to believe CES Letter‘s string of illogic because they connected the dots out on their own, subconsciously. They are also more likely to believe the evidences for that deduction, which in this case are falsehoods. One lie leads to another.
Why do so many “pro-equality” activists, good progressives who say people should be free to marry whoever they love, condemn Mormons for their history with polygamy? The same anti-Mormons who attack us for the old history of polygamy also endorse “progressive” ideas about marriage and love. Shouldn’t polygamy be on their list of marriages that deserve “equality?” Well yes, it should, and this is why anti-Mormons spin polygamy as something that coerces and manipulates women into subjugation. Lately, this narrative has become evens easier as there really are crazy cults that actually do victimize young girls and force people to marry, criminals like Warren Jeffs.
CES Letter can get away with this Big Lie because it is the consensus among so many fake scholars that Joseph Smith had carnal relations with plural wives, and because it takes so long to actually investigate the evidence. People are too lazy to actually look through all the historical documents. Even mainstream church apologists are beaten down by all of the accusations and have give way to the big lie. They are too tired defending against it. They let CESLetter get away with the lie that Joseph Smith “married” underage girls, as we understand the definition of marriage today which involves sexual relations. Even if you don’t believe the allegations, just this association frames Joseph Smith as a creep.
We could see the intellectual tricks and sophistry CES Letter used to portray Joseph Smith as a fraud in their arguments about the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. It is easy to just repeat claims over and over, not give any evidence, and make the issue personal through manipulative repetition. When it comes to polygamy, the arguments are almost completely appeal to emotion. Changeable Truth = CES Letter sarcastically says: “Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s prophets are today’s heretics.” They repeat this general slogan several times. It is important to remember this is not so much an attack on modern prophets as it is an attack on our methodology for truth. The question is how do we gain our testimonies and how do we decide what is true? CES Letter builds a phony narrative about the Mormon methodology. Why, if gospel doctrine were eternal and unchanging, would we be changing the all-important covenant of marriage? Well, it is easy to take quotes and events totally out of context. Followers of Satan do not believe truth is constant. The only thing constant to them is their ideology of compulsion and universal salvation. Everything else is a narrative that can shift at any moment as needed to propagate the ideology. In following their contradiction strategy, they seek to prove that truth is changeable by holding Mormons to an unrealistic rigid standard. Ever single prophetic statement in history must line up perfectly, or else truth must be changeable. If one day Joseph Smith told people about “the Lord” visiting him in the First Vision, and then the next day he talked about the Lord and God the Father, then that is different, and that means it’s a contradiction and truth changed. The same applies here. If anyone can possibly misconstrue something to sound different than what other church leaders have said, then anti-Mormons will use that to reaffirm their belief in relative truth. Victimization Culture – This slogan “yesterday’s prophets are today’s heretics” reinforces the victimization culture among anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons, where everything bad in life is the fault of Mormons and the LDS church. If Mormons don’t agree with their shifting truth, the narrative that changes as needed to propagate the Socialist ideology, then that means Mormons are branding them “heretics,” holding some kind of Dark Age inquisition like the witch-burners of old. Suddenly, disagreement with anything an anti-Mormon says is an act of aggression and intolerance. This is where we get today’s popular cultural appeal to accept degeneracy and apostasy, relative truth, in the name of “tolerance” and “equality.” It is really just intolerance of Mormon beliefs. This narrative introduces a false dichotomy between continuing revelation and eternal rigid truth. How is truth supposed to be eternal when we have all these new prophets saying different things than ancient prophets? Why do we need modern prophets if truth is eternal? Satan’s followers believe church policy is the same thing as doctrine, and that doctrine is therefore always changing. But the reality is policy is different than doctrine, and while doctrine is unchanging, policy is always changing to fit with modern circumstances. We don’t drink wine in modern times because drinking is a much more dangerous vice than it was in ancient times, for example. CES Letter takes snippets of text wildly out of context and tries to show a contradiction with other church teachings. People fall for this illusion because it is the easier path. It takes work to read an entire sermon and try to understand its 19th century language and complex message.  As a believing Mormon being attacked, it is easier to just give in and “admit” Brigham Young taught plural marriage as doctrine. Many Mormons already do! It is shocking how many scholars and faithful Mormon apologists allow the false narrative to continue. It isn’t a big deal if Brigham Young did teach it, after all, because everybody is human and sometimes we say things that are just wrong–even prophets. They were extreme circumstances, after all, and they were doing what they had to to survive. But the problem is this concession gives the Big Lie legitimacy and allows further lies to fester. Suddenly, all the other lies about the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and polygamy become legitimate too because they were built on CES Letter‘s same modus operandi. Suddenly, we can’t trust anything a prophet says. You could take this easy path or taken the other path which is the lengthy task of answering every single nit-picked question that anti-Mormons throw at you. Often, the answer cannot be known because it is lost history. Either make the easy assumption or be forced to back up every detail of your beliefs from attack. That is your choice. The author of CES Letter apparently made the easy decision, and that is why they expect members of the church to answer every single little challenge instead of discovering the truth for themselves. They want easy beliefs. Of course, they do not say what it is they belief in so we can’t return challenges in kind to their faith. They never say “instead of this we believe in this.” I think this is why anti-Mormons typically don’t bring up the real reasons why they left the church when they ask their “questions.” No mention of gay marriage, feminism, or the other social issues of today which they typically complain about. They want to snipe from a safe position where they don’t have to talk about their own beliefs. What actually obliterates a person’s testimony of the gospel? Is it the groundbreaking discovery about Brigham Young’s sermons–which actually have been talked about for hundreds of years? No, I think there is a lot that leads up to a lost testimony. Of course it is difficult to open up and discuss these throbbing painful experiences, but I wish anti-Mormons would talk about it instead of making up these justifications for what they have decided about the gospel. Use Opponent As Authority Tactic – This is a popular Marxist tactic that anti-Mormons use. They use Mormonism’s own authorities to discredit the faith, such as an alleged Mormon scholar. CES Letter claims that the “Church now confirms” blood atonement was taught. What makes this argument powerful is: Deceptively discredits the vast libraries of study on Book of Abraham by LDS professionals. Gives more focus to a phony frame that attacks the Mormon church. Divides the ranks of the church. Establishes a frame that demands a clear, modern explanation in the Book of Abraham for every religious issue in existence, and that it be exactly corroborated by every other Mormon source. |