From Wilford Woodruff's Nov. 1, 1891

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Was there anything about the announcement and revelation that was to indicate it would be halted over a 15 year period?

If it is not just a little bit scandalous, why have so many apologists gotten so upset about assertions as such?

I'm not an apologist and I'm not upset at the scandalous but rather the idiocy of your insistence upon detailed planning and a systematic approach to it's elimination ... lol

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm not sure how you can argue that they couldn't summarily stop new polygamous unions, if they really wanted to.

I agree. To expect dissolutions of existing unions is unreasonable, but to continue the practice is perplexing especially in light of WW's journal entry.

Was the revelation legitimate or entered into the journal after the fact?

Or did WW simply have a hard time complying? Is it simply further evidence that the prophets are fallible?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm not sure how you can argue that they couldn't summarily stop new polygamous unions, if they really wanted to.

How easy would it be to simply stop say (for another absurd comparison) all seminary programs? Think about the displacement involved? Think about the effects on individuals and the church on the whole ... and even the micro economies that are a part of the church.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

How easy would it be to simply stop say (for another absurd comparison) all seminary programs? Think about the displacement involved? Think about the effects on individuals and the church on the whole ... and even the micro economies that are a part of the chruch.

C'mon, this isn't rocket science. If the FP and Q12 are the ones signing off on this, they simply say "NO!"

Your seminary analogy is very odd.

What displacement? I'm not talking about dissolving existing polygamous unions, I'm talking about the beginning of new ones. I wholeheartedly agree that dissolving existing polygamous unions is extremely problematic and couldn't be done quickly or easily.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

C'mon, this isn't rocket science. If the FP and Q12 are the ones signing off on this, they simply say "NO!"

Your seminary analogy is very odd.

What displacement? I'm not talking about dissolving existing polygamous unions, I'm talking about the beginning of new ones. I wholeheartedly agree that dissolving existing polygamous unions is extremely problematic and couldn't be done quickly or easily.

And it is not a stretch to imagine that cessation of new marriages was also very problematic. We have a whole fundamentalist movement with abhorant polygamus practices today because it obviously was PROBLEMATIC!

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

And it is not a stretch to imaging that cessation of new marriages was also very problematic. We have a whole fundamentalist movement with abhorant polygamus practices today because it obviously was PROBLEMATIC!

C'mon, that's a completely separate issue.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

C'mon, that's a completely separate issue.

No, it is not. It's naive to believe that politics and power struggles did not come into play as a part of the whole cessation situation. You're telling me that 'alliances' were not made as a result of a woman being promised to a man?

I am devout in my faith. I will not apolgize for my ancestry practicing polygamy. And I will not ignore the problematic nature of the cessation of all new polygamus marriages after the manifesto.

[myboynoah]

Having lived life for quite some time now and seen a lot of things, I wonder how easily it would have been to stop. Is it wrong to assume that it had become a significant element of the culture and practice, hence making cessation a challenge?

For someone who knows, what percentage of the post manifesto plural marriages were for U.S. residents versus those Mormons outside the U.S.? Also, what justification is used for continuing the practice in some form after the manifesto? Do we have any record of what the leaders were thinking and why they would act as they did? If it went on for 15 years afterward, what do the numbers look like over those suceeding 15 years? The majority up front, steadily going downward, or regulary consistent levels over time and then ending?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Having lived life for quite some time now and seen a lot of things, I wonder how easily it would have been to stop. Is it wrong to assume that it had become a significant element of the culture and practice, hence making cessation a challenge?

For someone who knows, what percentage of the post manifesto plural marriages were for U.S. residents versus those Mormons outside the U.S.? Also, what justification is used for continuing the practice in some form after the manifesto? Do we have any record of what the leaders were thinking and why they would act as they did? If it went on for 15 years afterward, what do the numbers look like over those suceeding 15 years? The majority up front, steadily going downward, or regulary consistent levels over time and then ending?

Hardy's book would help you with these questions. One of his appendices lists all the post-manifesto plural marriages he could track down, and includes who, when, and where they were performed.

There were bursts of activity and inactivity regarding post-manifesto plural marriages. Things were definitely on the way out with the Smoot hearings and the second manifesto, but some were still done as late as at least 1912 (if memory serves). Of course, Elders Taylor and Cowley were removed from the Quorum of the Twelve over this (in 1905 and 1911, respectively).

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm not sure how you can argue that they couldn't summarily stop new polygamous unions, if they really wanted to.

The fact of the matter is, a few who felt strongly about it continued to perform such marriages and take wives. Ultimately, they either died or were excommunicated, but not until a number of years had passed (I speak of apostles).