Did the Church keep its promise to end plural marriage?

Yes. Some individual leaders approved new marriages, particularly outside the United States. The surviving evidence leaves questions about who approved particular ceremonies.

That answers the question about new marriages and acknowledges high-level involvement. Look for the date, place, and authorizer when evaluating an individual case.

The Manifesto didn’t require existing families to separate, so I’d start there.

That explains why some plural households remained together. Your friend asked about new ceremonies. The Church’s essay acknowledges new marriages and some leaders’ involvement.

I’d take his statement to settle whether the marriages were authorized.

His statement establishes the public position. Compare it with evidence of private approvals and ask what he meant by institutional sanction.

The historical record shows some leaders approved marriages. Smith’s denial concerns institutional sanction. That distinction matters, and I can still see why the public assurance would feel misleading.

You address the tension directly. To assess knowing deception in a specific case, look for what the speaker knew and how his audience would understand the words.

The pressure was real. His journal says he feared for the Church and felt inspired after praying. I believe God can direct a prophet in that kind of crisis.

You give the historical reason for acting and identify Woodruff’s contemporaneous testimony as the basis of the faith claim.

I’d focus on Woodruff’s later testimony about a vision. That seems to explain his decision.

His later testimony matters. Address your friend’s specific point by acknowledging the documented legal pressure and explaining how Woodruff understood his decision at the time.