Posted by:
Nick Humphrey
(
)
Date: July 26, 2012 12:59PM
polyandry is mentioned, in what appears to be, only *one talk* between the years 1851-2010, by Heber J. Grant in 1902, and the context is Grant ridiculing the practice, calling it "Lamanism".
abstracts:
"
writer in defense of Christianity in the nation of Japan. This man, before I ever met him, wrote an article in one of the leading magazines of Japan in which he criticized the newspapers and the people of Japan, for opposing the " Mormon " religion. My interpreter interpreted this for me, and I afterwards read it to the man. He laughed, and said, " He has not interpreted my article. " He said, " The very first line says,' The people of Tokio welcome with loud Huzzahs Lamanism, which is polyandry, or a plurality of husbands,' and I did not say any such a thing. I said,' The enlightened people of Tokio.' The whole sarcasm is lost by your interpreter. It was not the common people, it was not the laboring people, but it was the enlightened people of Tokio that was crying out against the' Mormon' people. " I asked him if he would not translate the first page for me himself. (I had about 10 pages of it
"
"
It was not the common people, it was not the laboring people, but it was the enlightened people of Tokio that was crying out against the' Mormon' people. " I asked him if he would not translate the first page for me himself. (I had about 10 pages of it.) He said he was very busy, but he would translate the first page, as near as I can remember, the first page was as follows: " The enlightened people of Tokio have recently welcomed a sect from Thibet that preaches Lamanism, polyandry, a plurality of husbands, and scarce have they welcomed them with extraordinary enthusiasm and the huzzahs died away before they are condemning, with absolute ignorance, the' Mormon' religion! And these people who are condemning the' Mormons' and polygamy are believers in concubinage! Can there be under the sun a greater inconsistency than this? We might say something about the emperor and his concubines, but perhaps it would be considered disloyal, and therefore we will keep quiet. " This gives you a
"
source:
http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/