In his apologetic book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research), Michael R. Ash hopes to calm those Mormons who are thinking about leaving the Mormon Church when presented with information by “anti-Mormons.” I’m writing a review of the book that should be online at mrm.org soon, but I thought it would be interesting to include part of the review here:

Official Declaration—1, which was signed by Mormon President Wilford Woodruff in September 1890, is found at the end of the LDS scripture Doctrine and Covenants. The “Manifesto,” as it is known, denied that polygamy was still taking place within the LDS Church. The Manifesto says, in part:

“We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory. … Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I 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.”

It continued with this lie:

“There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

The next month, Lorenzo Snow—the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who later became the Mormon prophet—moved to accept Woodruff’s “declaration concerning plural marriage as authoritative and binding.”

The last line in the declaration declares, “The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.”

As it has been clearly shown in such books as Mormon Polygamy: A History by Richard Van Wagoner (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1989) and In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd Compton (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1997), polygamy continued within the LDS Church until 1904 when the Reed Smoot hearings took place in Washington, DC. This fact is acknowledged by Ash on page 218 when he writes,

“Church leaders recognized what they needed to do to appease the government—even if that meant being duplicitous; publicly rescinding polygamy while privately continuing the practice.” (sic)

However, Ash classifies the lies told by the LDS leadership as mere “civil disobedience,” which sounds pretty heroic.  Incredibly, he writes on pages 218-219:

“From the inception of the practice of polygamy the Latter-day Saints were engaged in civil disobedience. While the decision to defy anti-polygamy laws was a painful one…(they) decided to follow their consciences, ready to accept the penalties if convicted. Their highest moral obligation was to follow God’s commandments.”

On page 219, Ash asks the questions,

“What if you lived in World War II Europe and were harboring fugitive Jews? What if you were asked if you had any Jews in your home? Would it be wrong to lie to save their lives?”

He answered the questions this way:

“In this scenario, the morally higher ground would be to lie to save a life, especially if this choice was confirmed by personal revelation. Likewise, in some pre-Utah, and post-Manifesto situations, some Saints felt it necessary to lie, in fact, to save their spiritual lives and to protect their fellow members from physical attacks.”

He added,

“The Saints took the same approach to civil disobedience as advocated by Gandhi—a position of non-violence. With the first Manifesto some Saints chose the lesser of two evils—they would deceive the government by abandoning the public practice of polygamy rather than surrender their religious practice completely. They were backed in a corner and this was the only way they felt they could live the commandments and keep the Church alive.” (p. 219)

Further justifying the lies, Ash writes this:

“The Saints found themselves in a war in which they were the underdogs. They did not feel that they were being fairly represented in the governmental system—heavily influenced by religious enemies—and therefore they didn’t feel obligated to jeopardize their existence by dealing forthrightly with their persecutors.” (p. 22)

What’s your opinion? Does Ash make a good case for the lies told by the LDS leadership?