How Plural Marriage Helps Women in the Book of Mormon (Part 2)


Christ was plurally married:

(I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on marriage, at our last conference that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children. All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfill the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough “to fulfill all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth.” Startle not at this, for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children he only “did that which he had seen his Father do.” (Apostle Orson Hyde, J.D. 2:210)

And so was Abraham the Father of our Covenant but is this Celestial Law found within the Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon is a book “for our day”, and we are as a Church under condemnation (D&C 84) for rejecting the Covenant found with it. Doubtless this is for more than one reason, and it becomes paramount to our hopes of exaltation if not salvation to find out all these reasons so we may repent.

So when the Law of Celestial Marriage is found strewn about the Book of Mormon such as in 2 Nephi 8:1 “Hearken unto me, ye that follow after righteousness. Look unto the rock from whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit from whence ye are digged.

 Look unto Abraham, your father, and unto Sarah, she that bare you; for I called him alone, and blessed him”, if behooves us to study this out and put oil in our lamp.

Look unto Abraham? How can we look unto Abraham?



Certainly there is much in the Bible and Pearl of Great Price to glean from, but also the Doctrine and Covenants which we have Covenanted to Obey:


132: 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.
  31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
  32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
  33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
  34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to 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.

So there we have it. The Book of Mormon asks us to look unto Abraham. But should we is the question? For obvious reasons it’s a good thing in the Book of Mormon Jacob condemns the unauthorized practice of plural marriage (see Jacob 2), and those inside the Covenant are keeping this law in part as we can see as defined by Joseph F. Smith here:

joseph-f-smith-mormon-prophet-321856-printSome people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation 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 solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. . . . The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part . . . . But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. 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 . . . . it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law (polygamy) or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful. Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations. . . . Man . . . cannot receive the fullness of the blessings unless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by the proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism. 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 damned. I say I understand it to [185] mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. (Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:23-31)

So when, according to prophecy are we to keep this law of Abraham in full and again bless all women who otherwise haven’t access to a righteous Priesthood holder? Many women today live singly not being able to find a suitable Priesthood bearer and many more are counseled to stay with an unrighteous man against their better judgement, still others are not able to use their agency to bear children based on the disapproval of the head of household. When and why did it cease is maybe a more pertinent question? After all it certainly wasn’t to ‘obey the law of the land’. At we read: “In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States. Joseph knew the practice of plural marriage would stir up public ire.”, and it wasn’t because of the 1890 Manifesto, ” new plural marriages were performed between 1890 and 1904, especially in Mexico and Canada…”, “The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.”23  (

Perhaps then, our agency is the hinge as described by our Lord Jesus Christ, “Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with them these many years; and this because of their weakness—because of the perilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not, and as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; even so, Amen.” Revelation Received Monday, September 27, 1886, at Centerville, Utah Territory.  (John Taylor Papers, LDS Archives).1886

Top LDS Scholar Says All Religions Have to Adapt To the Present Like Catholics

Bushman is correct. That is the story of all religions. The Premise of Mormonism is that all those religions are false and Apostate and the Gospel was Restored by the Prophet Joseph Smith. To allude that all other religions have adapted to the present as the reason its okay for us the Mormons to do so is quite alarming. I will respect other’s freedom of conscience. I hope they would follow the Brethren in defending religious freedom of conscience and respect other’s who don’t wish to adapt God’s eternal laws to the present dominating humanism religion.

Galatians 1:I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.


Listen below as Top LDS Scholar Richard Bushman likens the changes in the Church to a Living Constitution (read changing Constitution), something LDS have been warned about, and to the changes all other religions have experienced like the Catholics……wait…….aren’t they apostate?………. Anyway…times change but Principles are everlasting. To his credit, Richard Bushman declares he “hopes” principles are behind the changes he is sure will come.

Increasingly it is up to us using our oil to know those principles and how to apply them with individual agency. I love how Elder Donald L. Hallstrom of the Presidency of the Seventy put it in a general conference talk a few years ago. He talked about the difference between the Church and the gospel. “Some have come to think of activity in the Church as the ultimate goal. Therein lies a danger,” he said. “It is possible to be active in the Church and less active in the Gospel.”
Ezra Taft Benson Quoted George Q. Cannon in Conference Report April 1969:
“Now hear this test proposed by President George Q. Cannon: “If the breach is daily widening between ourselves and the world . . . we may be assured that our progress is certain, however slow. On the opposite hand, if our feelings and affections, our appetites and desires, are in unison with the world around us and freely fraternize with them . . . we should do well to examine ourselves. Individuals in such a condition might possess a nominal position in the Church but would be lacking the life of the work, and, like the foolish virgins who slumbered while the bridegroom tarried, they would be unprepared for his coming. . . .” (Millennial Star, Oct. 5, 1861 [Vol. 23], pp. 645-46.)”
“Yes, within the Church today there are tares among the wheat and wolves within the flock. As President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., stated: “The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood… We should be careful of them…” (Conference Report, April 1949, p. 163.)
Brigham Young in his foresight said, “There is nothing that would so weaken my hope and discourage me as to see this people in full fellowship with the world, and receive no more persecution from them because they are one with them. In such an event we might bid farewell to the Holy Priesthood with all its blessings, privileges and aids to exaltations, principalities, and powers in the eternities of the Gods”. (BY 1862, JD 10:62)

Elder L Tom Perry: “When we conform our lives to His laws we will find a rewarding joy, a fulfillment, a peace as we live here on earth. When we would pervert or change His laws, or disregard them, we must stand the judgements of God.

Richard Bushman: “That’s the story of all religions, they’re always having to adapt to the present….with the LDS religion it’s become somewhat institutional..”

Let us know what you think in the comments section and for more information please see you. God Bless!

As for me, I’m grateful today that Joseph Smith left us with such explicit Keys of Knowledge when he stated we can always tell a false Revelation by it contradicting a previous revelation. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 214-215).

Yours in Christ, Amy K. Brown

Updated Note: Please be advised this video has been attempted to be created in full context and was blocked by MSNBC claiming copyright laws. Fair Use copyright laws allow short portions to be used and the author encourages the original context to be viewed.



How Plural Marriage Helps Women In the Book of Mormon Part 1

Christ our ExamplarMartha Mary was plurally married and so was Abraham the Father of our Covenant, but is this irrevocable law found in the Book of Mormon? I’m bewildered whenever I encounter otherwise faithful LDS who profess that plural marriage isn’t part of the Gospel and that it was not from Heavenly Father. Wow. I find it cold hearted to say the least. When a man won’t bring his wife into the Kingdom of Heaven what would they have her do? Sit this one out? Not to mention the assumption this would take that every LDS leader from Joseph Smith down to David O. McKay had been living and teaching false doctrine as a Fundamental Key tenant of the Restored Gospel, that cannot be separated from Mormonism (The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation, just as baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham or they will have to resign. (Life of Wilford Woodruff, Cowley, p. 542).

Plural Marriage allows every woman an opportunity to have a worthy Priesthood holder. With increasingly fewer WORTHY males it’s easy to see why this would be increasingly necessary. Righteous women only want worthy men to lead them.

Is this why Joseph Smith as he Restored the Gospel was commanded at sword point by an angel to enter into plural marriage or be destroyed? The Saints were repeatedly told, “If we do not embrace that principle (of plural marriage) soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him.” (Life of Wilford Woodruff, Cowley, p. 542), but is the Law of Plurality of Wives found in the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our religion, where people turn for the Fullness of the Gospel? Jacob

Since D&C (84:57) reprimands us for rejecting the Book of Mormon, this is an important question. Why did John Taylor as editor of the Times and Seasons, publish: “If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible or Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, put him down as an imposter.” (Times and Seasons Vol 5 [April 1, 1844]: 490: 491) ? Because, out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Here we have three witnesses containing the Fullness of the Gospel. The Book of Mormon is the keystone to our religion. By being a provable fruit of Joseph’s Divine gifts and mission, it bridges the gap between the Old/New Testament and the Doctrine and Covenants/Pearl of Great Price/all Joseph’s words and successors.

So the answer is OF COURSE! All the commandments are there for all to see not only in the Book of Mormon but the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants, all three meshing the Fullness of the Restored Gospel. Although just like a parable the Lord hides as much as he gives, depending on the hearer of the word. Which is why D&C the Lord’s Revelation to Joseph on the Plurality of Wives, opens with,  “Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey…” (vs 3).

The first example of many: 2 Nephi 14:1 And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.

Let’s pause for this scripture for a moment. The women in this prophecy were not forced into anything whatever. Literally the contrary. They are begging for help, “take away our reproach”. What reproach did these women have? The cross reference for the comparative verse in Isaiah 4:1 sheds light on what reproach these women experience, “the stigma of being unmarried and childless.” In the present or near future will only worthy Priesthood holders be brave enough to obey the Lord’s command to continue to replenish the earth?

For more on this please keep an eye out for part 2. For there is so much more!

He showed that the revelation that had been the subject of attention (Section 132) was only one published on Celestial Marriage, and if the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated, so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other. (C. W. Penrose, Mill. Star 45:454)

Joseph Plural MarriageIf you have the courage that is, after all, you might develop a ‘stigma’ yourself:

The women who united with Joseph Smith in plural marriage risked reputation and self-respect in being associated with a principle so foreign to their culture and so easily misunderstood by others. “I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life,” said Zina Huntington Jacobs, “for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman.” Nevertheless, she wrote, “I searched the scripture & by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself.” Zina Huntington Jacobs, autobiographical sketch, Zina Card Brown Family Collection, Church History Library, Salt Lake City; spelling modernized.










“Loyal members of the Church look down with scorn”, an open letter to my Bishop.

David O. McKay once stated, “Let every loyal member of the Church look down with scorn upon any man or woman who would undermine that Constitution.” ( Source: “Safeguard in Loyalty” 3

I don’t wish to act contrary to any advice from the First Presidency, but I’d much rather commend SINCERE LDS as President McKay does here:

“. . We therefore commend and encourage every person and every group who is sincerely seeking to study Constitutional principles and awaken a sleeping and apathetic people to the alarming conditions that are rapidly advancing about us.”

( Source: “Statement Concerning the Position of the Church on Communism” 477 )

The problem is, as I’ve attempted for the past several years to perform this commendable deed described above by President McKay in the form of meetings in my home, culminated advice to stop making comments, prayers or testimony in church came from my bishop and I quote, “We don’t only obey Constitutional law”, “the judges determine what is Constitutional for us. It’s not our job.” After I swallowed the lump of feeling betrayed I asked him if I could read a quote from the First Presidency or Joseph Smith. He declined quickly saying he was out of time and had to go. ‘Wow’, I thought. It had only been about 3 minutes since I was in his office. This is not the first or second time I’ve attempted to discuss matters of doctrine with him, so I thought I would share it with him here, and he can read it at his own leisure. It goes something like this no doubt derived from the Revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 98: Constitution

Many Latter-Day Saints strive to be obedient. WHO are we obedient to, is the question. God? or  Man? For Joseph Smith the answer came like this: “The different states and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States… Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!” History of the Church pg 289-290.

May we increase in obedience is my prayer, ~Amy K. Brown


LDS Flag of the Nation of Deseret


As Saints what do we pray for?

The Lord’s words in 3rd Nephi 13 mirror the Council of Fifty Statement of Purpose:
“Thus saith the Lord God who rules in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, I have introduced my Kingdom and my Government, even the Kingdom of God, that my servants have heretofore prophesied of and that I taught my disciples to pray for, saying ‘Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,’ for the establishment of my rule, for the introduction of my law, for the protection of civil and religious liberty in this nation and throughout the world; and all men of every nation, color and creed shall yet be protected and shielded thereby; and every nation and kindred, and people, and tongue shall yet bow the knee to me, and acknowledge me to be Ahman Christ, to the glory of God the Father.”

– Prophet John Taylor revelation, June 27, 1882, in Collier, Unpublished Revelations, 133, vv 4-8; see Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 88

The Council of Fifty’s name by Revelation is “The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ”. (Quinn 1980, p. 167; Ehat 1980, p. 256)

We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now. Thank God.”

– Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 266, September 20, 1857

This might feel very unfamiliar to most LDS because as Defending Utah explains in the video below:

“….We don’t know our history. George Orwell said the most effective way to destroy a people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history. We don’t know our history here in Utah. We don’t know about organizations that have been around since the 1880’s, that still exist today and their agendas still exist today…in 1872 there was a secret society named the League of the Gentiles formed in Utah for the direct purpose of going after the Church’s political power….there was another group called the Secret Loyal League of Utah which had the same agenda…”~ Ben McClintock, DefendingUtah.o

Turns out our history is riddled with Secret Combinations planted in Utah’s government by force of federal edict, who’s object it was “to break up the ‘Mormon Theocracy’ “, and

~”eradicate by lawfull force (supposedly) the doctrine of the Mormons“.

Winston Churchhill is quoted as saying: “The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”     Perhaps taking the Lord’s advice here: Jer 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion”, we can again pray “Thy Kingdom Come”, as Saints.







New Order Mormons Choking out the Wheat; D&C 86

New Order Mormons Choking out the Wheat; D&C 86

NewOrderMormon2The probability of a New Order Mormon (self-described as Finding the Middle Way in Mormonism, near you, teaching your children to disbelieve the Principles of the Gospel in Primary or other auxilary groups is increasingly real. In case you’re thinking what I was when I first heard of this, no I don’t think the name is a coincidence. Click here for something to ponder.  A New Order Mormon ‘stays in the Church to change the Church’ or because they don’t believe what is taught but find it culturally easier to stay. The following is an entry from the Feminist Mormon Housewives Society. As you read consider the warning and direction in D&C 86:

3…the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.

 But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender—

Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields;

 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.

Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.wheat-tares

Disfellowshipped From Relief Society For Quoting Thomas S. Monson

soldierI don’t make this post to hurt feelings, only shed light on a pattern that our brothers and sisters are experiencing perhaps largely unnoticed all around us. Click here for another example.We are taught increasingly to be ‘tolerant’, but I find that applies less and less to LDS who quote or ‘DO’ the word of the Lord.

Like many others I study the Gospel everyday. I get so deeply moved I greatly want to share what I’m feeling and learning with others. So yesterday morning I posted this to my ward Relief Society Facebook Page:

“The higher law was given to the children of Israel when they were first delivered from Egyptian bondage, but in consequence of their disobedience, the Gospel in its fulness was withdrawn, and the law of carnal commandments was added. Now, do you imagine that there would have been any wrong if the people wanted to find the principles of the higher law and obey them as near as circumstances would admit? Do you suppose it would have been wrong to search out the fulness of the Gospel, while living under the Mosaic law? But, in the Book of Mormon we find this point more fully illustrated.” Lorenzo Snow JD Vol 19:345
My Relief Society President Responded (I have not included the screen shot with her picture as I did mine below, but rather quoted myself recounting her words) with pointing out that when the Children of Israel were disobedient to their Prophet, they lost the higher Priesthood. “No amount of sorrow or seeking could bring that back until God restored it through a Prophet. They did not have the authority. It is my testimony that our most careful attention should be given to those placed in authority over the Kingdom of God in our day. That Kingdom is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Can you imagine for a minute, that God would not have reserved His most faithful and devoted servants to take the Gospel to all the earth in this incredibly challenging time, or order for us to prepare the earth for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.. I would not for a minute think myself so wise as to walk away from their counsel. I am so grateful for it!”
Here was my response, with the added quote at the bottom of this page at which point I was disfellowshiped from my Relief Society FB page.
I was not given a warning or reason for being excluded, so I can only assume it produced guilt in those not following this counsel. At any rate it was appears fanatical as Elder James E. Talmage describes in the same article.
“As we study reliable sources, we will become familiar with multiple, even opposing, points of view. Elder James E. Talmage (1862–1933) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles quoted from a Pennsylvania newspaper: “The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.”4 InspirationalQuotes.Club-smile-courage-brings-approval-Thomas-S.-Monson
Again, I am not upset at this, and I only make this post because I know of many others who have experienced similar circumstances of intolerance when they express faith in the prophets in any type of Church setting. I hope this gives them the ability to stand against popular opinion and approval in support of all the principles of the Gospel that Joseph Smith restored. Afterall Stand uprightthe Gospel is the solution to all the world’s problems. We should not compromise following the example of our Savior, and striving toward the Fullness of His Restored Gospel, as Lorenzo Snow describes. This is my Strongest Desire. ~Amy K Brown
 *’Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “My challenge is that we join with people of all faiths who feel accountable to God in defending religious freedom so it can be a beacon for morality. We caution you to be civil and responsible as you defend religious liberty and moral values. We ask that you do this on the Internet and in your personal interactions in the neighborhoods and communities where you live. Be an active participant, not a silent observer.”