31/08/2024
PLURAL MARRIAGE, Part 4 of Chapter 12 of The Church and The Gospel
Pages 191 to 197
Matthias Cowley (1901)
None of the revelations of the prophets either past or present have been repealed. . . . These revelations received by our prophets and seers are all of God, and we cannot repeal or disannul them without making God out a liar, and God cannot lie. . . . I wish to remind you of a certain revelation given through President Taylor. The command was given to set our quorums and houses in order, and the promise was that if we should obey the command, God would fight our battles for us; but we did not obey the command, so God did not fight our battles for us. If we [192] had obeyed that command and revelation given through President Taylor, there would have been no Manifesto. (Smoot Investigations 1:8, Jan. 28, 1901)
The 1890 Manifesto
Since we did not give God a chance to “fight our battles for us,” the Manifesto was written and accepted, and the question is often asked why Wilford Woodruff signed it. Consider the following reasons:
1. Some have said that the Manifesto was issued because the Saints were told to obey the laws of the land against plural marriage. But the Prophet Joseph Smith and many others lived it in several states that had laws against it. Brigham Young lived it throughout his life against the laws of the land. John Taylor died in exile rather than submit to the laws of the land. Furthermore, many states today have laws which protect people in marriage relationships, stating anything “between consenting adults” is all right-which means that plural marriage is permissible and legal in those states.
2. It is said that plural marriage was discontinued because of persecution, but the Church suffered persecution long before the doctrine of plural marriage was practiced. To give up principles because of opposition is not according to the instructions in the scriptures.
3. Another reason is so the Utah Territory could become a state (and then make our own state laws). But Brigham Young didn’t think that becoming a state was so important:
Now then, it is said that this (polygamy) must be done away before we are permitted to receive our [193] place as a state in the Union. . . . Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy? If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted. (JD 11:269)
4. It has been declared by many that the Manifesto was a revelation. This has been seriously questioned, however, because it was issued as an official declaration rather than a revelation. It begins with “To whom it may concern” rather than “Thus saith the Lord,” such as sections 83, 84, 88, etc., in the Doctrine and Covenants. Within the document are the words “my intention,” “my teachings,” and “my advice,” which are the words of Wilford Woodruff himself. Since it carried only Woodruff’s signature, and not those of either of his two counselors, it has been questioned as even being an official statement from the First Presidency of the Church. Furthermore, no revelation has ever been produced stopping the practice of plural marriage.
This question of whether or not the Manifesto was a revelation from God was discussed in the Millennial Star in June 1939:
Question: Was the Manifesto, which discontinued the practice of plural marriage, a revelation from God?
Answer: The Manifesto, issued in 1890 and adopted by the Church in conference assembled, was not a revelation but was a statement drawn up by the leaders of the Church, based upon a revelation from God given to President Wilford Woodruff. The Church has not repudiated the principle of plural marriage but, in obedience to a divine commandment, has suspended its operation. (Mill. Star 101:413)
[194] When the general Church vote was called for in support of the Manifesto, there were many people who refused to accept it. Woodruff recalled this in an address in Logan, November 1, 1891, at a Cache Stake Conference:
I know there are a good many men and probably some leading men, in this Church who have been tried and felt as though President Woodruff has lost the spirit of God and was about to apostatize. (Des News, Nov. 7, 1891; also Way of the Master, Petersen, p. 49)
The main reason that so many people could not vote for the Manifesto was because there had been so many warnings and statements made against just such a proposition.
In December of 1891, the Church leaders wrote a Petition of Amnesty for those people who had contracted a plural marriage before the Manifesto. This list of men included the name and signature of Wilford Woodruff. The petition said, in part:
The President of the United States:
We, the first presidency and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beg to respectfully represent Your Excellency the following facts:
We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.
To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow-citizens who are not of their faith, . . . our people have voluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle. (Smoot Case Proceedings, 1:18)
But the Manifesto did not stop plural marriage in the Church. Several presidents and apostles sanctioned it and [195] entered into it after 1890, and privately encouraged others to do so. Hundreds of Saints went to Mexico or Canada to add new wives to their families. Some even went off the coast of California beyond the continental United States to have their ceremonies performed, as Wilford Woodruff himself is reported to have done in 1897. (See “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904,” Michael Quinn, Dialogue 18:1, Spring 1985, p. 63.)
The practicing of plural marriage continued until the U.S. Government made a senatorial investigation into the Church, known as the Smoot Hearings, which lasted over three years. The Church then issued another Manifesto in 1904, although again no claim to revelation was given.
About this time many Saints began to wonder if their marriages were legal, illegal, or favored by the Lord. Confusion took the place of clearly defined principles, and the Church began to sweep the whole matter under the carpet and tried to forget about it. Several years passed after the turn of the century, however, before the Church took any serious steps against polygamists and excommunicated those who continued to live or advocate plural marriage. Misunderstanding, confusion, and denial became the position of the Church, i.e.:
But that plural marriage is a vital tenet of the Church is not true. * * * Plurality of wives was an incident, never an essential. (James E. Talmage, Story and Philosophy of Mormonism, p. 89)
There were two kinds of plural marriage approved of God in Biblical times. One was a type of “church welfare program” to care for widows, to keep them from becoming a public charge.
Then in cases of sterility, such as with Abraham and Sarah, again polygamy was permitted if agreed to by the Lord. (Mark E. Petersen, Way of the Master, pp. 41-42)
[196] We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage. (John A. Widtsoe, Imp. Era 46:191)
Issuing the Manifesto, however, did purchase statehood for Utah and won acceptance from the world. Thomas Alexander, historian and BYU professor, authored an excellent biography on Wilford Woodruff, wherein he – . . called President Woodruff a “prime mover” in the effort to shift the Church’s emphasis from a political, economic, social and religious organization to an organization that emphasized personal piety, church attendance and ritual.
He said President Woodruff chose to accommodate the customs of non-Mormons rather than see the Church destroyed. Such an accommodation, said Alexander, paved the way for sweeping political, economic and social change that would bring Utah statehood and its people into the 20th century. (Des. News, Jan. 13, 1990)
The Manifesto, then, not only heralded the beginning of the end of plural marriage in the LDS Church, but also started the trend for making other major compromises with the outside world: the disorganization of the United Order and the Kingdom of God followed shortly thereafter-along with many other “unchangeable” Gospel doctrines.
* * *
Plural marriage was never popularly received even among LDS Church members. It instigated nearly every form of slander, persecution, and prosecution. Men suffered intense loneliness for their families while hiding in the underground or serving time in prison. Many lost their jobs, reputation and Church membership for living that law. And a few stalwarts sacrificed their health and even their lives.
[197] Today it is merely a curiosity-often considered by society as a lifestyle for those with loose moral standards. The meaning and significance of plural marriage is nearly lost to all but those few uncompromising souls who still obey this eternal law of the Priesthood outside the mainstream church.
To summarize
1. About 4/5 of the world’s population live in countries that accept plural marriage. It was lived by Old Testament prophets and not considered a sin by Christ or the early reformers.
2. Plural marriage was considered to be one of the “most holy” principles of the restoration. It was accepted as an eternal law, a commandment, and an ordinance.
3. It was lived by leading men of the Church both before the body of the Church accepted it and after the 1890 Manifesto was to discontinue it.
4. It was taught as the only eternal marriage system and the required pathway to exaltation.
5. Plural marriage is still considered by the Latter-day Saints as a true principle, and the revelation regarding it is published in the Doctrine and Covenants. (Section 132)
6. The practice of the principle has gradually been discontinued in the Church, but it has been prophesied that it would never be completely done away.
iTunes:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zions-redemption-radio-network/id1463911397?i=1000667542045
Blogtalkradio:
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/fundamentallymormon/2024/08/30/plural-marriage-part-4-of-chapter-12-of-the-church-and-the-gospel
Next Episode:
THE BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD, Chapter 13 of The Church and The Gospel
Pages 198
PLURAL MARRIAGE, Part 4 of Chapter 12 of The Church and The Gospel Pages 191 to 197 Matthias Cowley (1901) None of the revelations of the prophets either past or present have been repealed. . . . These revelations received by our prophets and seers are all of God, and we cannot repeal or disannul th...
