THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE
Volume 4
SUMMARY
Table of Contents
GEMS
COPYRIGHT 1975
GEMS Publishing Company
"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."
1886 Revelation
to Pres. John Taylor
PREFACE
This volume represents a summation of the information presented in
Volumes 1, 2 and 3. It does not remain wholly objective but assumes the
position that there is a difference between light and dark, truth and
error, and endeavors herein to present the truth of the subject matter of
these volumes in its historical and contemporary setting. This volume
considers the significant matters pertaining to the subject insofar as it
is possible within so small a space.
It is certain that other information will arise which we will wish
had been incorporated into this work. Such a compilation is much like
compiling a genealogy. In the process, additional personages and
principles are constantly emerging because history is forever unfolding
itself. We feel it our duty at this time to present information that is at
hand.
Italics used throughout this volume are those of the author and
represent specific emphasis. Unless otherwise specified, the volumes and
page numbers referred to within the body of this work are those of The
Most Holy Principle.
*****
***
*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 4
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
SECTION ONE: "CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY" . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Lorenzo Snow Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Joseph F. Smith Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
SECTION TWO: JOSEPH SMITH AS WITNESS . . . . . . . . . . 15
SECTION THREE: "LET NO MAN BREAK THE LAW OF THE LAND". . 9
SECTION FOUR: FOUR REVELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1880 to Wilford Woodruff . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1882 to John Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1886 to John Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1889 to Wilford Woodruff . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Revelation and Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
SECTION FIVE: THE MANIFESTO IN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . 51
Manifesto of 1890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Petition for Amnesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
"That Manifesto" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
SECTION SIX: "CAST OUT OF OUR SYNAGOGUES" . . . . . . . 77
SECTION SEVEN: CONTEMPORARY WITNESSES . . . . . . . . . 83
Joseph White Musser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
SECTION EIGHT: A CONTRADICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
SECTION NINE: FOLLOW THE LIVING PRINCIPLES . . . . . .
SECTION TEN: "ONE ON EARTH AT A TIME" . . . . . . . . . 135
SECTION ELEVEN: POLICY OF RETICENCE . . . . . . . . . . 163
SECTION TWELVE: A "RAM IN THE THICKET" . . . . . . . . . 169
115
SECTION THIRTEEN: "LABOR TO OBTAIN THE SPIRIT" . . . . . 187
B. H. ROBERTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
ADDENDUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211a
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
CHRONOLOGY AND DIGEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
[I]
INTRODUCTION
There is an old song that goes like this:
Give me that old time religion,
Give me that old time religion,
Give me that old time religion,
It's good enough for me.
It was good for my mother,
It was good for my father,
It was good for my neighbors,
And it's good enough for me.
It will do when I'm dying,
It will do when I'm dying,
It will do when I'm dying,
It's good enough for me!
Latter-day Saints know that as affecting as these sentimental words
may be to many, they are not the truth. The writer and the singers of
modern Christendom do not have "That Old Time Religion."
God proclaimed every denomination as an "abomination in His sight."
Moreover, their religion has no saving power when one is dying, or when
one is dead. Such a religion could not take anyone into the celestial
glory. Those professing religions might get their adherents into the
terrestrial glory, where "honorable men of the earth who had been deceived
by the craftiness of men" will be found. But where God and our Savior are,
they cannot come, worlds without end.
We Mormons have that "Old Time Religion." However, unless we conform
to its laws and ordinances, we are in no better circumstances than the
sectarian world. In fact, we are in a far more precarious situation than
they are, if we are to apply scripture: "And this is the condemnation,
that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)
[II]
Those who are inclined to fear to investigate the truth because they
have once again become children "who walk in darkness at noonday," and
delight to justify themselves in straying from the fulness of the restored
gospel, ought, for their own sakes, to cease seeking after light and truth
as revealed within the pages of these books. Surely those who can be
swayed to fear searching after truth will not have courage enough to obey
its mandates.
Rejection of the Book of Mormon is often followed by, "It is poison!
So I did not read it." Those who reject a study of the holy principle of
celestial plural marriage are often found making a similar statement. It
is unfortunate. With the assumption of such a position, the following
familiar phrase is brought to mind: "There is a mental attitude which is a
bar against all information, which is a bar against all argument, and
which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That mental
attitude is condemnation before investigation." Those who take the same
attitude will never know the "truth of all things."
Latter-day Saints know that God has restored His Priesthood and the
"fulness of His everlasting gospel (or covenant) to the earth in this, the
dispensation of the fulness of times, never to be taken from the earth
again." This is fulfillment of the words of Christ and His prophets.
Consequently, if the Latter-day Saints are to be saved in the fulness of
celestial glory, it must be because they have received and obeyed the
fulness of the restored gospel. The scriptures are explicit upon this very
point: "For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law
which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were
instituted from before the foundation of the world. And as pertaining to
the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my
glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the
law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." (D.&C. 132:5-6)
It is of no small value to notice that when the Lord says something
once, we pay attention. When He says something twice, we pay very strict
attention. Of such importance is the "law" of celestial plural marriage,
that the Lord mentioned it not once or twice, but thirty-two times in
section 132.
To reason very briefly, the Lord said in verse 12: "I am the Lord thy
God; and I give unto you this commandment--that no man shall come unto the
Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord." We come
unto the Father through the [III] Lord or His law. God is explicit on that
point.
The "law" referred to thirty-two times is defined in verse 34: "God
commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did
she do it? Because this was the law." (Italics ours unless otherwise
noted.) Through Joseph Smith we have the same law, the same command.
Our position in relation to that law and all of God's laws as
restored is this: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law
ye cannot attain to this glory. For strait is the gate, and narrow the way
that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few
there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do
ye know me. But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and
shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also. This is
eternal lives--to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law." (D.&C. 132:21-24)
That is our position and the position of all men who would "attain to this
glory." We must receive the Lord and the law of Sarah "in the world."
"In the world" is extremely significant. In a discussion of the
principle of plural marriage specifically, Andrew Jenson, Assistant Church
Historian and publisher of the Historical Record, quotes Joseph Smith: "I
slightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showing
that a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or he
will have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of the
unbelief of people, I cannot reveal the fulness of these things at
present." (Hist. Rec., 7:529)
With these observations in mind, Volume Four is drawn together to
call attention to those points set forth in the preceding three Volumes,
culminating in a single witness: Plural marriage as restored through the
Prophet Joseph Smith was to remain, was to be perpetuated, "never again to
be taken from the earth," despite all combined effort to "sink it out of
existence." When all of the threads are gathered, the burden of proof of
position tends to fall upon the shoulders of the opponents of plural
marriage and its present-day practice.
The intent of this work is to define the latter-day position of
celestial plural marriage and its uninterrupted perpetuation within the
confines of the holy Priesthood of God upon the earth.
[1]
SECTION ONE
"CHOOSE, YOU THIS DAY..."
Satan has no light. In him is the absence of love. He despises God's
people and desires that they be as he is--miserable. His method in
achieving that end is slow and careful, attractive and deceptive. He uses
those things unique to an individual or a people to destroy them. He
succeeds as we fail. He uses slogans and causes and religions of
high-sounding facade to lure and, finally, to destroy.
One of his favorite tricks is to anesthetize the people into
believing, when the winds rage against us, that it would be "better to
wait." Wait until things quiet down. Wait until the Lord provides a better
way. Wait a little while. It is as true as the "temporary" income tax.
George Q. Cannon had little patience for such a viewpoint:
"There are men who say: `Yield this practice for the present; perhaps
public opinion may soften and then this principle may be taught and
practiced.' I look upon such a suggestion as from the devil. It would be
quite as proper to propose apostasy for a short season until public
opinion would become more favorable to us. If there are any in the Church
who cannot stand the pressure, instead of talking compromise, let them
withdraw quietly from the Church. If they can see nothing in the principle
of celestial marriage worth contending for, leave those who do see and
appreciate its value to fight the battle alone. The latter will then be
neither weakened nor betrayed by the association of those who, in their
hearts, stand ready to yield ...." (Juv. Inst., 20:156, 1885)
Many saints are still waiting to live all of the gospel laws,
provided the time is right. Satan's deception has been partly successful.
But only partly.
That the Lord provides a way for His people is abundantly indicated
in all scripture. "I will go and do the things which the Lord hath
commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the
children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may
accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." (1 Ne. 3:7) Following are
similar words from a latter-day prophet:
[2]
Discourse by Elder Lorenzo Snow.
April 21, 1878
"... It is argued by some that when the principle of tithing came in,
it superceded the principles of the United Order. The law of Moses was
given to be a schoolmaster, to bring the people to a knowledge of the Son
of God, and induce them to obey the principles of the fulness of the
Gospel. 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. We find that the inhabitants of this continent had a
knowledge of the fulness of the everlasting Gospel and were baptized for
the remission of sins, many generations before Jesus came into the world.
We find that Alma was baptized in the waters of Mormon, and some four
hundred and fifty other individuals. Alma, by his energy and perseverance,
had discovered the fulness of the Gospel and obtained revelations from the
Lord, and the privilege of observing the Gospel in all its fulness and
blessings. Do you think the Lord was angry with them? They were under the
Mosaic law, and yet considered it a blessing to observe the higher law.
"Now I will say in regard to the matter of tithing, I think that law
was given to the Latter-day Saints, one object being to prepare them for,
and conduct them to, the United Order, that they might not fall into the
same error as the people who were driven from the State of Missouri, but
gradually be inducted into these higher principles. There is nothing more
elevating to ourselves and pleasing to God than those things that pertain
to the accomplishment of a brotherhood. Wise men, for centuries, have
sought to bring this about, but without success. They had not the ability,
the wisdom, the intelligence, nor the authority, to bring the people up to
that standard, that they could become a united brotherhood. All their
efforts were ineffectual. But the Lord will be successful; and he will
prepare the Latter-day Saints that these principles will be in their
hearts when they go back to Jackson County. Remember, while the Gospel in
its fulness was [3] observed by Alma and his brethren, and by many
thousands in different ages of the world, they lived under the Mosaic Law,
and cannot the Latter-day Saints under the law of tithing, observe the
fulness of the gospel? If we allow that we are under the principle of the
law of tithing, is there any harm in our complying with the principles of
the United Order?" (J.D. 19:345)
It becomes clear that President Snow was not teaching a "wait"
concept. Rather, his counsel was filled with the kind of invitation born
of the Prophet's great love and concern for the children of God. Satan
extends his invitation. The Lord extends His. Israel must choose, for well
might the same words given by President Snow in 1878 be re-emphasized in
our present day.
From a contemporary voice, President Joseph Fielding Smith said in
1971:
"Now what does the Lord expect of us when he says, `search
diligently'? ... I think He wants us to come to a knowledge of Him and His
laws, to search the scriptures, to learn the doctrines of salvation. He
wants us to gain wisdom out of the best books, to seek learning even by
study and also by faith, to come to a knowledge of countries and kingdoms.
"He wants us to learn the mysteries of His kingdom, to have the
spirit of revelation, until eventually we know all things. ... It is not
our province to select and obey those gospel principles which appeal to us
and to forget the rest. It is not our prerogative to decide that some
principles no longer apply to our social and cultural circumstances.
"The Lord's laws are eternal, and we have the fulness of His
everlasting gospel and are obligated to believe all of its laws and truths
and then to walk in conformity to them.
"There is nothing more important to any individual than keeping the
Lord's commandments. He expects us to cleave unto every true principle, to
put first in our lives the things of His kingdom, to press forward with a
steadfastness in Christ, and to serve Him with all our might, mind and
strength." (Des. News, June 28, 1971)
The knowledge of God and His ways is possible for us, not because we
discover Him for ourselves, but because He makes Himself known to us. He
reveals and invites. When President Smith stated in modern times that "we
have the fulness of His everlasting gospel," and President Snow counselled
us to search out the fulness and live it, we have companion statements
that must excite Israel to choice. Why not put it to the test? We stand
[4] to gain everything and lose nothing. To embrace the pessimistic view
that the "fulness" is not exactly full, is to accept the certainty that
our chance for eternal exaltation is not exactly brilliant. One is
reminded of John's words: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of
the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John
7:17) There never was a time for the Latter-day Saints when John ought to
be taken more seriously. For, as President Smith stated, "It is not our
prerogative to decide that some principles no longer apply to our social
and cultural circumstances."
The admonition echoes throughout eternity and is the same:
"Therefore, ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto
you; for he that asketh, receiveth; and unto him that knocketh, it shall
be opened." (3 Ne. 27:29)
In order to re-establish firmly in our minds that principle which we
seek to sustain upon the earth under the direction of the Lord, that
principle which "savors of life unto life," we reproduce here a talk by
President Joseph F. Smith in its entirety:
Discourse by Elder Joseph F. Smith
July 7, 1878
"I naturally shrink from the task of addressing a congregation in
this house, feeling as I do my inability to make myself heard.
"I have been interested this morning in listening to the remarks of
Brother Cannon. We cannot but be delighted with the testimony that has
been given in our hearing, and that we are continually receiving from many
sources, which go to prove that the world can do nothing against, but for
us. Even their attempts to slander and misrepresent us, and their
unrighteous attacks on the principles of our religion have ever tended to
excite inquiry and investigation into the facts, which cannot but result
beneficially to us as a people. I say, the efforts of our enemies against
us have ever had a tendency to cause people who desire to arrive at the
truth, to inquire into the real condition of things. The more people
interest themselves in this direction, the more truth they will learn, and
we court such investigation, for there is certainly nothing connected with
us, as a religious community, in consonance with the gospel we preach,
that we should be ashamed of, or that should not be known by all men. It
makes no difference with the truth how much we are wrongfully accused; nor
will it [5] permanently injure us. If we sustain injury or suffer loss by
the misrepresentations and evils maliciously promulgated about us by our
enemies, it can only be such injury and loss as will be temporary, for
when the facts do come out, and people learn the truth, so much the more
good will be accomplished in our favor, and so much greater injury to
those who are the authors of the falsehoods concerning us. We want nothing
hidden or covered up, neither can we respect any principle or individual
that will not bear the daylight and the most careful investigation.
"Since 1830 the Elders of this church have been faithfully
endeavoring to promulgate the gospel which we have received to every
nation and people, without distinction as to race or color that would
receive them; in other words they have diligently sought to "expose
`Mormonism'" to the world.
"We are not ashamed of our domestic relations, so far, at least as
they exist in accordance with the principle of the Gospel, nor does any
right-minded man or woman feel in his or her heart to shrink in any manner
from the most rigid exposition of correct views in relation thereto. It is
true that in common with mankind generally, we do not like our faults made
public, we shrink from that, and it is natural that we should. It is very
proper that we should feel a reluctance to have our weaknesses and
imperfections exposed to the world, or even to our neighbors. This feeling
is a very proper incentive to us to continue in the work of
self-improvement, until we shall overcome the weaknesses we have
inherited, living nearer to the principles of life and salvation which we
have received. But the errors of man affect not in the least the
principles of the Gospel of the Son of God. You show me a man who has
embraced the Gospel in its entirety, in faith and practice, and I can then
point to a man who has overcome the follies and weaknesses of the flesh;
or show me a man who is trying to live according to these principles, and
I will show you a man who is trying to overcome his weaknesses.
"Hence there can be no blame attached to the doctrines of our faith,
because of the infirmities and shortcomings of mankind; but we should
rather attribute such weaknesses to their proper source--the defectiveness
of man, or to his failure, at least, to comply with those principles which
are calculated to correct every evil, and to establish man in
righteousness. It is perhaps a difficult thing for us, under the
circumstances in which we are placed, the traditions of the fathers
clinging to us, the practices of the world before us, and the temptations
to evil so [6] continually surrounding us, at all times to live the
religion of Jesus Christ as perfectly as we should or otherwise might. It
is no doubt difficult for us to overcome our follies, to forsake the
traditions of the fathers, to eschew the practice of sin, to be patient in
suffering, to endure privations and trials of our feelings, while we
possess so little, as we do, of the Spirit of the Lord, and the knowledge
of the truth.
"But we need not be discouraged because of this, nor because we see
faults in each other, for no man is perfect; all men have, more or less,
the shortcomings incident to humanity. We need not falter or be
discouraged because of this, for perhaps it would not be possible for one
who was perfect in all good to remain in the midst of this corrupt and
perverse generation. Still it would seem good if we had a few among us who
were really perfect, whose example we could see, whose precept we could
learn, and whose footsteps we might follow. We might then be the better
able to perfect ourselves. Still we do well to emulate the good that are
in our midst, and to observe those great truths we have already received
in part, which in their fulness are able to save us unto the uttermost. We
shall not be cast off, my brethren and sisters, for those sins which we
ignorantly commit, which are the results of misunderstanding in all
honesty before the Lord.
"The difficulty does not lie here; the danger lies in our failing to
live up to that which we do know to be right and proper. For this we will
be held responsible before the Lord; for this we will be judged and
condemned unless we repent and forsake our follies, and our unwillingness
to obey the light and the knowledge which we have received. There are some
plain, simple truths which we do know, but which we do not observe. Herein
lies our great sin. The condemnation of the world, when the Savior
commenced his mission among men, was that light had come into the world,
but they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
This principle applies with equal force to us in this dispensation. If we
had remained without the Gospel, we would not be under condemnation. But
now that light has come into the world; now that truth and the authority
of God have been restored, we cannot longer remain without sin, unless we
obey this Gospel so revealed, and practice our profession.
"There is a great deal said about our plural marriage by the outside
world, and sometimes it is referred to by the Latter-day Saints at home. I
fancy sometimes that not only is the world [7] without knowledge in
relation to this principle, but many of those who profess to be Latter-day
Saints are far from possessing a correct understanding of it.
"In the first place, it is a principle that savors of life unto life,
or of death unto death; therefore it is well for those who have embraced
the Gospel to obtain a knowledge in relation to this matter. It is a
principle that pertains to eternal life, in other words, to endless lives,
or eternal increase. It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial
kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not
otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by
commandment, not only so given in this dispensation, but particularly
adapted to the conditions and necessities thereof, and to the
circumstances, responsibilities, and personal as well as vicarious duties
of the people of God in this age of the world. God has revealed it as a
principle particularly suited to the nature of the work we are called to
perform, that it might be hastened to its consummation.
"It is a righteous principle not an unrighteous one. It is a pure and
holy principle; and, therefore, persons either male or female who have not
the desire in their hearts to become pure and righteous, have no business
to practice it, for it cannot be practiced acceptably before God on any
other principle than that of purity and righteousness, therefore no wicked
unjust or impure person can enter into the law of celestial or plural
marriage without incurring the displeasure of the Almighty and his own
condemnation before the Lord, unless he speedily repent of all his impure
motives and designs. A man that is not honest in his heart, who does not
desire to be just and impartial, even as God is just and impartial, has no
business in plural marriage; and before he enters into the practice of
that principle he needs to repent, to learn wisdom, to get the Spirit of
God, to get understanding in relation to the purpose God has in view in
regard to this principle; that he may go into the practice of it
understandingly, that his heart and mind may be set upon practicing it in
righteousness. It is a difficult matter, I am aware, to distinguish
between the actions of a man and the principles in which he professes to
believe. A corrupt ungodly hypocrite can do more injury in the midst of a
people, in a given length of time, correspondingly, than a host of upright
men can do good. Send an Elder to preach the Gospel among the nations, and
let him degrade himself, dishonor his priesthood and calling, and he will
[8] bring more reproach upon the cause misrepresented by him, than twenty
good men could remove. Because people generally look at the man. To judge
him by his acts would be righteous judgment; but to condemn the Gospel or
the Saints because of his acts would be unjust; yet the cause he
misrepresents suffers wrong because of his connection with it. A man's
acts may justly be considered as resulting from his principles. We judge a
tree by its fruits. The fruits of the Gospel are good; he that has
actually embraced the Gospel will do good, only so far as he may err, or
depart therefrom. Hence, it is difficult to separate a man's actions from
his principles.
"There is no difficulty, however, in this matter to those who always
bear in mind, that evil and corrupt practices are not the results of
obedience to the Gospel, but of disobedience, and of the perversion of the
truth. If we would keep this in our minds we would not cast blame upon the
principles themselves when we see or hear of men who should represent
them, do wrong; but we would rather say, the man has departed from his
principles and gone into error. It is he that is defective, through not
practising what he professes; the principles are good and holy, and he
himself would become so too, if he would but practice them.
"It is precisely so in relation to our domestic relations. We see
trouble in families occasionally, not any more so in plural than in single
families. There is no reason why there should be any difference between
the husband and wife, or husband and wives, in the midst of this people,
if all are disposed to obey the principles and doctrines of the Gospel. It
is only by the practise of these principles that we can avoid the
disturbances that occur in families, or among mankind. We must learn and
obey correct principle, or we will ever be in turmoil and confusion, and
in antagonism one towards another. Where differences exist in families,
they are traceable directly to some cause. I want to impress upon the
minds of my hearers that the cause of such evils is not traceable to the
practice of any principle which God has revealed touching these matters,
but to the non-observance of them; and this is true in relation to every
principle of the Gospel. Sometimes it is the fault of the man, sometimes
of the woman, and oftener of both, but never the fault of the principle.
The principle is correct, great, ennobling and calculated to bring joy,
satisfaction and peace, if we would but observe and practice it as we
should.
"But in order to do this we should get wisdom and under-[9]standing.
These, by many, are acquired only through long experience. We begin as
children, we have to learn precept by precept, line after line, here a
little and there a little, which is good, provided we profit by that which
we learn. Men must be just, so also must women, in relation to these
matters. All must be just one towards another; also forbearing and
patient, cultivating largely that Christian attribute called Charity, in
order to get along peaceably with our neighbors, our brethren and sisters,
as well as with our wives, husbands and children. We are all imperfect, we
have to learn by littles as we pass along, profiting ofttimes by that
which we suffer, yet often repeating the same errors. When we find
ourselves overcome in a fault, that should be set down as an example for
future time, if possible, never allowing ourselves to be caught in the
same predicament again. Thus profiting by the experience we gain.
"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a
sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or 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. There is no
blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained
by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon
which the same is promised. 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--and is good so far
as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he
will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could
not obtain on any other grounds or conditions.
"But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it,
Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the
blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a
portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When
that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturally
shrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed upon
him; forseeing, as he did in part, the apparently insurmountable
difficulties in the way of establishing it, in the face of popular
opinion, the traditions and customs of many generations, the frowns,
ridicule, slander, [10] opposition and persecution of the world. Yes, this
man of God, who dared to meet the opposition of the whole world with bold
and fearless front, who dared to dispute the religious authority and
accumulated learning and wisdom of the age--who dared everything for the
truth, and shrank not even from the sacrifice of his own life in testimony
of his divine mission, shrank in his feelings from the weight of the
responsibility of inaugurating and establishing this new innovation upon
the established customs of the world. But he did not falter, although it
was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and
commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he
should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal
and establish that doctrine.
"To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that
the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of
July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had
been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as
1832. About this time or subsequently, Joseph the Prophet intrusted this
fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and
brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running
before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak,
hence the publication by O. Cowdery about this time of an article on
marriage, which was carefully worded and afterwards found its way into the
Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to
those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the
early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage
by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery.
"When the revelation was written, in 1843, it was for a special
purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not then
designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable
that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine
of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form.
There are personalities contained in a part of it which are not relevant
to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which
necessitated its being written at that time.
"Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared that
there was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would be
revealed in due time, but this was sufficient for the occasion, and was
made to suffice for the time. And indeed I [11] think it much more than
many are prepared to live up to even now.
"When the time came to introduce this doctrine to those who were
worthy in the church, God commanded the Prophet and he obeyed. He taught
it as he was commanded to such as were prepared to receive and obey it,
and they were commanded to enter into it, or they were threatened that the
keys would be turned against them, and they would be cut off by the
Almighty. It need scarcely be said that the Prophet found no one any more
willing to lead out in this matter in righteousness than he was himself.
Many could see it, nearly all to whom he revealed it believed it, and
received the witness of the Holy Spirit that it was of God; but none
excelled or even matched the courage of the Prophet himself.
"If, then, this principle was of such great importance that the
Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the
Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not
enter into and establish the practice of it upon the earth, it is useless
to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or
that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or
kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful. "Patriarchal
marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations which do
not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the faithful
observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles, which must
so far exceed those of monogamy as the conditions, responsibilities and
power of increase are greater. This is my view and testimony in relation
to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that should be taught and
understood.
"The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of
marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by
the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine
law, but upon physiological and scientific principles. In the latter view,
the wives are even more benefitted, if possible, than the husband
physically. But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes,
and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are
immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than
in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage
covenant.
"Man may receive great reward, exaltation and glory by [12] entering
into the bond of the new and everlasting covenant if he continue faithful
according to his knowledge, but he cannot receive the fulness 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, though he
may repent in sack-cloth and ashes.
"`But,' says one, `how will it be with good men who believe the
doctrine, but are prevented, or cannot enter into the practice of it?' I
reply that every man and woman will receive all that they are worthy of,
and something thrown in perhaps, on the score of the boundless charity of
God. But who can justly expect to obtain more than they merit? All the
judgments of God are not given unto man. What we do not learn relative to
the salvation of our souls which are our bodies and spirits, in this
probation we will have to learn in the eternity which lies before us, for
we cannot be saved without knowledge. `But what if we never get
knowledge?' Then we never will be saved.
"Suppose we live and die without knowledge? Then, if we ever obtain
salvation, we will have to get it in the next world, as the Antediluvians
did, who rejected the Gospel as preached unto them by Noah and were
destroyed by the flood, sent to the prison-house to be punished for their
disobedience and other wickedness, and in the meridian of time received
knowledge by the proclamation of the Gospel, as preached unto them by the
Savior while his body slept in the tomb, without which they would forever
have remained ignorant of God, his government and laws, in a lost
condition. All men must obtain salvation upon their own merits, for by our
works shall we be judged, and by them justified or condemned.
"It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple of
God to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time and
all eternity by the Authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the power
of God, for they who are thus joined together no man can put asunder," for
God hath joined them. It is an additional privilege for that same man and
wife to re-enter the Temple of God to receive another wife in like manner
if they are worthy. But if he remain faithful with only the one wife,
observing, the conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the
eternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the
benefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithful
and fuller observance of the law, he never will [13] receive, for he
cannot. As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the
observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does,
nor can he secure to himself the fulness of any blessing without he
fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the
benefit of the law he obeys. This is just and righteous. If this is not
correct doctrine then I am in error, and if I am in error I want to be
corrected.
"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 mean this and
nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that.
"But what will become of him that cannot abide it? Says the Lord,
`Whoso having knowledge have I not commanded to repent, and he that hath
not understanding it remaineth with me to do according as it is written.'
In other words, he that is without understanding is not under the law, and
it remains for God to deal with him according to his own wisdom. If a man
acknowledges that he is incapable, or disqualified by a lack of knowledge,
wisdom or understanding to obey this law, then it remains with God to deal
with him according to those principles of justice which are written, or
are yet to be revealed. It is not likely, however, that he will take his
seat with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or share in their promised blessings.
"This law is in force upon the inhabitants of Zion, and he that is
qualified to obey it cannot neglect or disregard it with impunity. But it
must be observed in righteousness. The commandment is `be ye righteous as
your Father in heaven is righteous; be holy as he is holy.'
"Why did the Son of God make this requirement of his disciples,
seeing that it is so universally believed by the world, that man cannot be
righteous at all? Did Jesus require anything inconsistent or impossible?
No, he did nothing of that kind. All that he commanded us to do, we can
accomplish by the help of the Holy Spirit; but we cannot do it ourselves.
Therefore if we will seek for the Holy Spirit, the gift of wisdom and
understanding from God, we may practice these principles of righteousness,
and they will make us righteous even as `God is righteous, in the sphere
in which we are called to act. We will fulfill the law, and receive the
blessing, exaltation and reward which will follow; if we do not, we will
fail of the reward.
"This is very simple reasoning, I admit. Critics would say, [14]
these are axioms that need not to be told. If we do wickedly, we will be
punished; if we do righteously, we than receive blessings at the hands of
God.
"May God bless you, and keep us all in the path of righteousness, and
enable us to live the religion we have received from Him, is my prayer, in
the name of Jesus. Amen." (1:203-214)
As stated above, President Smith said that "This law is in force upon
the inhabitants of Zion." It is in force and binding upon the Priesthood
not only because it was restored and the commandment given to obey, but
because the blood of an especial witness was shed as a seal and testimony
before all men that the fulness of all principles and ordinances necessary
for the glory and exaltation of man was restored in the last dispensation
of the world. We will deal with that matter in the next Section.
[15]
SECTION TWO
JOSEPH SMITH AS WITNESS
Joseph Smith the Prophet was many things to many people. Because no
single facet of his personality and character remained undeveloped, some
among his followers were captured by his energy and creativity, others by
his political thought, others by his linguistic achievements, and still
others by his profound spiritual vision or by his devotion as husband and
father. He was a whole man. There was no pretence in Joseph Smith. He
could look any man in the eye, and this gave him power and humility, for
Joseph gave all credit to the Lord in all his ways. Joseph was first and
foremost a servant of God.
We take space to note the Prophet's position here, since it directly
relates to the position occupied by those who have been commissioned to
keep plural marriage alive since its restoration as part of the whole
gospel.
Joseph is numbered among the several men who have been called by our
Father in Heaven to head a dispensation and seal his testimony with his
blood. In his case, as we know, his office was to head the "last
dispensation," in which "all things are gathered together in one." This is
the dispensation in which all of the gospel was restored for the last time
prior to the Lord's second advent.
Joseph Smith was given the keys of the last dispensation and of the
Church and Kingdom of God. The keys of power and authority were committed
to him by heavenly messengers. He will hold those keys eternally, and all
others subsequently holding keys upon the earth do so under his
jurisdiction. All in this dispensation are subject to the Prophet Joseph.
We will one day more fully understand his position and calling and will
rejoice because of Joseph Smith. Though his mission upon the earth was
significantly great, it was but preparatory to his greater expanded
mission in eternity.
It is crucial to our understanding at this point to recognize that
Joseph Smith is the ordained witness to and for our dispensation. He is a
special witness of the Father and the Son. He is also called to be a
special witness to the fulness of the gospel having been restored upon the
earth and made available [16] to man to prepare and qualify him for
exaltation in the eternal world. This must not be lightly esteemed nor
minimally appreciated. The word of the Lord has been given to us through
Joseph the Prophet, and "whosoever receiveth my word, receiveth me," saith
the Lord. Therefore, any intent to restructure any principle or to
dissolve any ordinance restored by the Lord through His servant Joseph, is
to imply rejection of God.
Therefore, is any principle or ordinance of the gospel expendable? It
is recorded in the Millennial Star (5:27): "Mormonism is that kind of
religion the entire divinity of which is invalidated and its truth utterly
rejected, the moment that any one of its leading principles is
acknowledged to be false .... Polygamy was revealed by God, or the entire
fabric of their faith is false. To ask them to give up such an item of
belief, is to ask them to relinquish the whole, to acknowledge their
Priesthood a lie, their ordinances a deception, and all that they have
toiled for, lived for, bled for, prayed for, or hoped for, a miserable
failure and a waste of life." This is not a day to relinquish a single
principle. The Lord said, "And there are none that doeth good except those
who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth
unto this generation." (D.&C. 35:12) This generation, then, cannot take
its responsibility lightly. For Joseph the Prophet to witness that the
full gospel has been restored is also for Joseph to witness of the Christ.
And that is where he stands.
Through the Prophet Joseph Smith the Lord said, "For I deign to
reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the
foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the
fulness of times." (D.&C. 124:41) Since celestial plural marriage was one
of those revelations, since baptism was one of those revelations
accompanied by bestowal of authority, since conferring Priesthood was one
of those revelations, which is the safest to give up without incurring the
displeasure of Almighty God? For which restored ordinance does Joseph
Smith not stand as witness?
The Lord has placed Joseph Smith in that position. "I, the Lord, am
God, and have given these things unto you, my servant Joseph, Jun., and
have commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things ....
Behold, verily I say unto you, I have reserved those things which I have
entrusted unto you, my servant Joseph, for a wise purpose in me, and it
shall be made known unto future generations; But this generation shall
have [17] my word through you." (D.&C. 5:2,9-10)
This generation has the word of the Lord through Joseph. It is at the
peril of our eternal lives to reject any part or portion of the fulness of
the gospel entrusted to us. All of the law is here to accept. Further,
"For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are
appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of
this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the
which is the dispensation of the fulness of times." (D.&C. 112:30)
The full gospel was restored. The full gospel remains. We must
receive all ordinances in order to fulfill the admonition of Joseph Smith,
"Oh! I beseech you to go forward, go forward and make your calling and
your election sure ...." (D.H.C. 6:365) It is a hollow admonition if any
part of the process for so doing has been removed or voted away. Those who
insist plural marriage was "suspended" had better be very certain that
they are
correct.
Our relationship to the Prophet Joseph is singular. It is awesome.
"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him; if we enter into
our glory it will be through the authority that he has received. We cannot
get around him . . . ." (GQC, J.D. 23:361)
Brigham Young said, "No man or woman in this dispensation will ever
enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph
Smith." JD. 7:289) How can we approach Joseph the Prophet and admit to
having given up one of the holiest of laws for which he stands as witness
and for which he shed his blood: But men by their votes sought to bury a
holy principle, and men by their speeches proclaim a holy principle
fulfilled or unnecessary or suspended. That is not the gospel Joseph Smith
preached.
Joseph as witness said, "Oh! I beseech you to go forward, go forward
and make your calling and your election sure; and if any man preach any
other gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed." (D.H.C.
6:365) The one thing that the Latter-day Saints must get into their minds
and hearts is that no one can preach any other gospel than Joseph Smith
preached, not in any form. They must get the understanding before they die
that it is imperative to be in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ
and Joseph Smith, or they have lost their exaltation as surely as God
lives. If Joseph Smith, the best blood of this dispensation, could not be
exalted without living celestial plural marriage in [18] this life, what
in the world makes us think we can?
[19]
SECTION THREE
"LET NO MAN BREAK THE LAWS OF THE LAND"
It is not our intent to deal with every objection proposed against
plural marriage and its practice. However, one or two seem constantly to
capture the imagination of the negative group. Common to their view is the
platform framed around the concept of obedience to the law of the land.
This is a view with which we entirely agree--unless man's law
conflicts with God's law, when God's law remains in force. The settling of
the "law of the land" problem as it relates to living plural marriage
seems so self-apparent as to hardly merit space. Students of history will
feel justifiably prone to skip this Section. We will be as brief as
possible.
One of the two commonly cited scriptures from the negative forces is:
"Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of
God hath no need to break the laws of the land." (D.&C. 58:21)
Verse 21 has more significance if those who quote it will read verse
19 along with it: "For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on this
land."
The Saints were in Jackson County, Missouri, when the revelation was
given. It was not the law of God upon the land that sanctioned the
plunderings and drivings of the Saints. Nor is it the law of God to
presently destroy our Constitutional rights as they undeniably have been.
Where is the line drawn as to which laws we submit to, and who is to draw
them? If it becomes the law of the land to require abortions for anyone
already having two children and a boat and a canary, what shall the Saints
do? Following always the laws of God seems the safer course. What we are
saying here is that the law of the land is not necessarily God's law. They
gravely conflict occasionally, and the Saints must choose to keep God's
laws and trust in Him to fight their battles. It is conceded that we are
justified in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But we must
first of all render unto God that which is His.
Perhaps the clearest answer to D.&C. 58:21, is to turn to D.&C.
98:4-7. This was given in Kirtland, Ohio, two years later. "And now,
verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, [20] it is my will
that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
And the law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle
of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind,
and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and
your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the
constitutional law of the land. And as pertaining to law of man,
whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."
Let us now refer to Joseph Smith the Prophet. Joseph and all of his
fellows broke the law of the land wherever they went in their living of
plural marriage. He was born in Vermont in 1805. The statute against
polygamy was on the books in 1797. He was in New York from 1815-1830 with
an anti statute on the books since 1788. He was in Ohio in 1831, with a
negative statute dated 1824. He was in Missouri in 1831, with a statute
against polygamy dated 1825. He was in Illinois in 1839, whose law against
polygamy was dated 1833.
The principle since its restoration has always been against the law
of the land. But the Saints were disposed to obey God's law. They did not
establish a precedent. The three Hebrews refused King Nebuchadnezzar's law
of the land and wound up in the fiery furnace. Daniel refused to cease his
prayers according to the decree of King Darius, and wound up with the
lions. Abraham refused to worship as he was admonished apostate peers.
Laws against plural marriage were no less a thorn to the early Saints
than they are now. President Wilford Woodruff said in 1879: "God ...
commanded Joseph Smith the Prophet and all Latter-day Saints to obey this
law, `or you shall be damned,' saith the Lord. Now, having obeyed the law
for many years, the Congress of the United States and the supreme judges
of the nation, stand forth and say, `You shall be damned if you DO obey
it.' Now, Latter-day Saints, what are we going to do under the
circumstances? ... Our enemies have pursued the same course. And made it a
law of offense to obey the laws of God. Now who shall we obey, God or man?
My voice is that we obey God. ...." (Mill. Star 41:241-246; 1:225-226)
It is well known that many of the Saints have gone to prison over
this principle, many were in hiding, many defied the law of the land and
rule of the Church after the Manifesto. President John Taylor said in
1880: "When they enact tyrannical laws, forbidding us the free exercise of
our religion, we cannot submit, [21] God is greater than the United States
... I defy the United States. I will obey God." (S.L. Trib. Jan. 6,1880)
Finally, Apostle Rudger Clawson before going to the penitentiary
declared: "Your honor, since the jury that recently sat on my case have
seen proper to find a verdict of guilty, I have only this to say why
judgment should not be passed upon me: I very much regret that the laws of
my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they
do, I shall invariably choose to obey the latter. If I did not so express
myself I should feel unworthy of the cause I represent. The Constitution
of the U.S. expressly provides that Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It
cannot be denied, I think, that marriage, when attended and sanctioned by
religious rites and ceremonies, is an establishment of religion. The
anti-polygamy law of 1862 and the Edmunds law of 1882 were expressly
designed to operate against marriage as believed in and practiced by the
Latter-day Saints. They are therefore unconstitutional and, of course,
cannot command the respect that constitutional laws would. That is all I
have to say, your honor." (1:345-346)
We see that these brethren, and many others, were never found saying
they could not live plural marriage because it was against the law. Joseph
the Prophet led the way. Have we a prerogative where they had not?
Samuel W. Taylor, son of Apostle John W. Taylor and author of the
book, Family Kingdom, published in 1951, summarizes the posture assumed by
President John Taylor with regard to the anti-polygamy laws: "John Taylor,
President of the Church, counseled defiance to this man-made law [Edmunds]
that conflicted with the law of God. It was unconstitutional on two
counts, one in being retroactive, two in being directly counter to Article
I of the Bill of Rights, which said, `Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.' But nobody outside of Utah cared much about the legal aspects.
What politician could defend polygamy on any grounds?" (Page 16) When holy
laws were at issue, the prophets and those initiated in the ways of the
Lord, chose to obey God regardless of penalties imposed by man.
The second commonly cited scripture used against practicing plural
marriage we insert here parenthetically, since it is not a law of the land
issue. In the 1890 Conference when the Manifesto was presented to the
Church, President George Q. Cannon pre-[22]sented an explanation. He said,
"It is on this basis that President Woodruff has felt himself justified in
issuing this manifesto." He read from D.&C. 124:49: "... When I give a
commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those
sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that
work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and
hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require
that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of
their offerings." (2:481)
This explanation satisfied some of the people. Without laboring the
issue, let us dismiss it with the comment of Apostle Charles W. Penrose,
who put the intent of the scripture into true perspective. He said, "But
we are not yet through with treating upon the quotations sometimes
referred to by the weak-backed who need a ramrod fastened parallel with
their spinal column, and occasionally manifest a desire to see the
stiffening taken out of others. A favorite passage used by such ...." And
he quotes D.&C. 124:49).
The Penrose explanation follows: "It is a little singular that some
people will persistently refuse to see the difference between a certain
special work and a principle or law. The consistency of the Lord relieving
a people from any such obligation as the building of a house when
prevented by enemies from accomplishing it is self-evident. When it comes
to the abrogation of a law, a principle, a truth, the matter is entirely
different. The revelation does not apply even remotely to the present
situation." (1:386) The subject of his editorial was that plural marriage
would not be suspended.
Joseph Smith's teaching in his Lectures on Faith comes to mind here.
It applies to living the law of plural marriage even under the most trying
circumstances: "That religion that does not require the sacrifice of all
things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life
and salvation." (Sec. 6th)
The following Section contains four important revelations. The
history of the acceptance of these revelations by the church leaders
follows each revelation. Notice that the Lord apparently has no concern
for the law of the land. May we point out that the 1882 revelation calling
Heber J. Grant, Seymour B. Young and George Teasdale to offices in the
Church, came from the Lord 20 years after the anti-polygamy law was passed
by Congress (1862). It came three years after the law was declared
constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court (1879). It came seven [23]
months after the Edmunds Law (1882) was enacted, which was to give
strength to the 1862 Law. (This is reminiscent of the Nicene and
Athanasian Creeds--one to explain and support the other.) Notice also that
the 1886 revelation came from the Lord 18 months after the Edmunds Law.
The 1889 revelation instructs the brethren to make no concessions to the
government and not to deny His law. The 1886 revelation says the law of
plural marriage never will be revoked. To those who are quick to agree
that the "law" will never be revoked but the practice was, we direct their
attention to the fact that President John Taylor did not seek answer from
the Lord concerning the principle as a law, but specifically as to its
present practice.
The Deseret News encouraged the Saints in strong terms: "Any man who
says that he really and firmly believes a certain law of God binding on
him, and who will not obey it in preference to a conflicting law of man or
a decision of a court, has either an unsound mind or a cowardly soul, or
is a most contemptible hypocrite." (Des. News, July 7,1886)
George Q. Cannon's comments in 1899 were a little more forthright
than were his necessary comments in 1890: "I admit that those raising
children by plural wives are not complying with man-made laws, but in the
sight of God they are not sinning, as there is no sin in it." (3:300-301;
Sanpete St. Conf., Sept. 1899; Smoot Inv., 1:9)
Even after the example of early scriptural history as well as that of
our prophets since the restoration of the gospel, there are those who
urgently protest the practice of plural marriage because of the law of the
land issue. We wonder if they will be caught off-balance by the trend of
modern society. The law with respect to polygamy in a few of our states
has become quite liberal, allowing for its practice. The issue may well
become one of state's rights. However, legalizing the practice of plural
marriage under any but theocratic or Priesthood direction, would tend
toward misapplication of God's holy law, which was designed to be
safeguarded under the guidance of the servants of God. Anyone can live
polygamy. But not everyone can live celestial plural marriage. It is a
distinction with a great deal of difference. The principle of celestial
plural marriage is a holy order governed by holy law and given to the
Saints as a commandment. It was not given to the world.
The choice between obeying a law of man or a law of God is still
available to every Latter-day Saint. That choice has not been [24] made
for us. With either decision, there is a price to pay. But Joseph Smith
the Prophet makes the issue clear, leaving very little room for evasion or
conjecture: "That religion that does not require the sacrifice of all
things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life
and salvation." (Lec. 6th)
[25]
SECTION FOUR
FOUR REVELATIONS
1880
Revelation to Wilford Woodruff
"Thus saith the Lord unto my servant, Wilford Woodruff, I have heard
thy prayer and will answer thy petition. I will make known unto thee my
will concerning the nations who encumber the land of promise and also
concerning Zion and her inhabitants.
"I have already revealed my will concerning this nation through the
mouth of my servant Joseph, who sealed his testimony with his own blood,
which testimony has been in force upon all the world from the hour of his
death.
"What I the Lord have revealed in that testament and decreed upon
this nation and upon all the nations of the earth, shall be fulfilled,
saith the Lord of hosts. I the Lord have spoken and will be obeyed. My
purposes shall be fulfilled upon this nation and no power shall stay my
hand. The hour is at the door when my wrath and indignation will be poured
out upon the wicked of the nations.
"Their murders, blasphemies, lying, whoredoms and abominations have
come up before my face and before the heavens, and the wrath of my
indignation is full.
"I have decreed plagues to go forth and waste my enemies, and not
many years hence they shall not be left to pollute my heritage.
"The devil is ruling over his kingdom and my spirit has no place in
the hearts of the rulers of this nation, and the devil stirs them up to
defy my power and to make war upon my Saints. Therefore let mine Apostles
and mine Elders who are faithful obey my commandments which are already
written for their profit and guidance.
"Thus saith the Lord unto my servant, John Taylor, and my servant
Wilford Woodruff, and my servant Orson Pratt, and to all the residue of
mine Apostles; Have you not gone forth in my name without purse or scrip
and declared the gospel of life and salvation unto this nation and the
nations of the earth and warned them of the judgments which are to come as
you have [26] been moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost and the
inspiration of the Lord.
"You have done this year by year for a whole generation, as men count
time. Therefore your garments are clean of the blood of this generation
and especially of this nation.
"Therefore, as I have said in a former commandment, so the Lord say
again unto my Apostles: Go ye alone by yourselves, whether in heat or in
cold and cleanse your feet in water, pure water, it matters not whether it
be by the running streams, or in your closets; but leave these testimonies
before the Lord and the heavenly hosts; and when you have all done this,
then gather yourselves together in your holy places and clothe yourselves
with the robes of the Holy Priesthood and there offer up your prayers
according to my holy law.
"Let him who presides be mouth and kneel at the holy altar, and there
let mine Apostles bring all these testimonies before my face and before
the heavenly hosts and before the justified spirits made perfect. And thus
saith the Lord unto you, mine apostles, when you bring these testimonies
before me, let them be presented by name as far as the Spirit shall
present them unto you: The presidents of the United States, the Supreme
Court, the Cabinet, the Senate and the Houses of Congress of the United
States, the governors of the states and territories, the judges and others
sent unto you, and all men and persons who have taken any part in
persecuting you or bringing distress upon you or your families, or who
have sought your lives, or sought to hinder you from keeping my
commandments or from enjoying the rights which the constitutional laws of
the land guarantee unto you.
"And what I the Lord say unto you, mine Apostles, I also say unto my
servants--the Seventies, the High Priests, the Elders, the Priests and all
my servants who are pure in heart and who have borne testimony unto the
nations. Let them go forth and cleanse their feet in pure water and bear
testimony of it unto their Father who is in Heaven.
"And then, saith the Lord unto mine Apostles and mine Elders, when ye
do these things with purity of heart, I the Lord will hear your prayers
and am bound by oath and covenant to defend you and fight your battles.
"As I have said in a former commandment, it is not my will that mine
Elders should fight the battles of Zion, for I will fight your battles.
"Nevertheless, let no man be afraid to lay down his life for [27] my
sake, for he that layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again and
have eternal life.
"The nation is ripened in iniquity and the cup of the wrath of mine
indignation is full and I will not stay my hand in judgments upon this
nation or the nations of the earth.
I have decreed wars and judgments upon the wicked and my wrath and
indignation are about to be poured out upon them and the wicked and
rebellious shall know that I am God.
"As I the Lord have spoken so will I fulfill. I will spare none who
remain in Babylon, but I will burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts. As I
the Lord have suffered, so will I put all enemies under my feet. For I the
Lord utter my word and it shall be obeyed. And the day of wrath and
indignation shall come upon the wicked.
"And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to
hinder my people from obeying the patriarchal law of Abraham, which
leadeth to celestial glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints through
the mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be
damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away
from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which
shall not return unto me void.
"And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed, and with famine and
plagues and earthquakes and the thunder of heaven and the vivid lightnings
shall this nation and the nations of the earth be made to feel the
chastening hand of an Almighty God until they are broken up and destroyed
and wasted away from under heaven, and no power can stay my hand.
Therefore, let the wicked tremble; let them that blaspheme my name hold
their lips, for destruction will swiftly overtake them.
"All that I the Lord have spoken through the mouths of my Prophets
and Apostles since the world began, concerning the last dispensation and
fulness of times, concerning my Church, which has been called out of the
wilderness of darkness and error, concerning the Zion and Kingdom of God
and concerning, Babylon the great, and what I have spoken through the
mouth of my servant Joseph shall all be fulfilled.
"And though the heaven and earth pass away, my word shall not pass
away, but shall be fulfilled, saith the Lord.
"These revelations and testimonies are before you. Let my Saints
search the word of the Lord and treasure up wisdom and be prepared for
that which is to come. As I have decreed, so shall [28] my judgments begin
at the House of God.
"There are those in my Church who have a name among you, who are
adulterers and adulteresses, and those who blaspheme my name and those who
love and make a lie, and those who revel and drink with the drunken. If
they do not speedily repent of this wickedness and abomination, they
should be severed from the ordinances of my House, saith the Lord.
"There are many who have need to repent, whose hearts are set upon
the things of this world, who aspire to the honors of men, and do not
honor the Priesthood, nor seek to build up the Kingdom of God as they
should. Neither do they learn and comprehend:
"That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the
powers of heaven and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor
handled only upon the principles of righteousness. Such should repent and
turn unto the Lord, and seek for the Holy Spirit to guide them.
"Judgments will begin upon my House, and from thence will they go
forth unto the world and the wicked cannot escape.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for my blessings await them in this
life and eternal life in the world to come.
"Thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant and Apostles who dwell in
the flesh. Fear ye not your enemies. Let not your hearts be troubled. I am
in your midst. I am your advocate with the Father. I have given mine
angels charge concerning you. Mine eyes are upon you and the eyes of your
Heavenly Father and the heavenly hosts and all justified spirits made
perfect are watching over you. Your works are manifest before the face of
my servants who have sealed their testimony with their blood, and before
all my servants of the Apostles whom I have taken unto myself.
"The veil is taken from off their faces and they know your works.
They await your coming when you have finished your testimony in the flesh.
Therefore, be ye faithful until I come. My coming is at the door. Call
upon the Lord in mighty prayer, ask and you shall receive. Whenever you
agree as touching anything and ask the Father in my name, it shall be
given unto you. Seek diligently to build up Zion and to magnify your high
calling and your enemies shall not prevail over you. Zion shall not be
moved out of her place. Zion shall prevail against her enemies. My people
shall not be hindered in the building of my temples unto my holy name, if
they will hearken unto my voice and do as I command them.
[29]
The blood of my servants Joseph and Hyrum and of mine Apostles and
Elders which has been shed for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus
Christ, cries from the ground for vengeance upon the nation which has shed
their blood. But their blood shall speedily be avenged and shall cease to
cry unto me, for the hour of God's judgment is fully come and shall be
poured out without measure upon the wicked.
"But hearken and hear, O ye Apostles, Elders and people of my Church,
to the word of the Lord concerning you, that for all the blessings that I
will pour out upon you and the inhabitants of Zion and the judgments and
destruction upon the wicked, I will be inquired of by you to ask the
Father in my name to do and to perform these things for you as I told all
the House of Israel by my servant Moses, that they should ask at my hand
for all those blessings which I the Lord have promised unto Israel in the
latter days.
"And as I the Lord ordained mine Apostles who were with me in my
ministry and promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel, so I say unto you mine Apostles, who
I have raised up in these last days that I have ordained you to bear
record of my name, and of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles
first, and then to the House of Israel. I have also ordained you to sit
upon thrones and judge the Gentiles and all the inhabitants of the earth
unto whom you have borne testimony of my name in the day and generation in
which you live. Therefore, how great is your calling and responsibility
before me. Therefore, gird up the loins of your minds and magnify your
calling in the fear of God, and prepare ye for the coming of the Son of
Man, which is nigh at the doors.
"No man knoweth the day nor the hour, but the signs of both heaven
and earth indicate His coming, as promised by the mouths of my disciples;
the fig tree is leafing and the hour is nigh. Therefore, prepare
yourselves, O ye Saints of the Most High God, with oil in your lamps, for
blessed is he that watcheth for the coming of the Son of Man.
"Again, hear ye the Word of the Lord, O ye mine Apostles whom I have
chosen in these last days to bear record of my name and lead my people
Israel until the coming of the Son of Man.
"I the Lord have raised up unto you my servant John Taylor to preside
over you and to be a lawgiver unto my church. He has mingled his blood
with that of the martyred prophets. Nevertheless, while I have taken my
servants Joseph and Hyrum unto [30] myself, I have preserved my servant
John Taylor for a wise purpose in me.
"I have also taken many others of the Apostles unto myself, for I
take whom I will take, and preserve in life whom I will preserve,
according to the counsel of mine own will.
"And while my servant John Taylor is your president, I wish to ask
the rest of my servants of the Apostles the question, Although you have
one to preside over your Quorum, which is the order of God in all
generations, do you not, all of you, hold the Apostleship, which is the
highest authority ever given to men on earth? You do. Therefore, you hold
in common the keys of the Kingdom of God in all the world. You, each of
you, have the power to unlock the veil of eternity and hold converse with
God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ and to have the ministrations of
angels. It is your right, privilege and duty to inquire of the Lord as to
His mind and will concerning yourselves and the inhabitants of Zion and
their interests.
"And whenever any one of you receives the word of the Lord, let it be
written and presented in your Councils, and whatever by united consent you
deem wisdom to be presented unto the people, let it be presented by the
president, my servant John Taylor, as the word of the Lord. In this way
you will uphold him and strengthen his hands, as all the burden should not
lie upon one man.
"For thus saith the Lord, all mine Apostles should be full of the
Holy Ghost, of inspiration and revelation to know the mind and will of God
and be prepared for that which is to come. Therefore let mine Apostles
keep my commandments and obey my voice and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against you.
"Fear not, for lo, I am with you until I come, and I come quickly.
Even so, Amen." (1:253)
The foregoing revelation to Wilford Woodruff was copied from his
journal, about 1908, by Joseph W. Musser, at the request of his father, A.
Milton Musser, than Assistant Church Historian. Elder Musser, at the
suggestion of his father, copied the revelation in duplicate, retaining a
copy for himself. The Journal of Wilford Woodruff, from which the
revelation was copied, reads as follows:
"During the month of January, 1880, I was at Sunset, Arizona, with
Brother Lot Smith and the brethren with him who were trying to establish a
Branch of the United Order at that place. At this time the government,
through its officers, were [31] using every means in its power to enforce
the Edmunds-Tucker and anti-polygamy law with the evident intent on the
part of the officers to break us up as an organized community .... On
retiring to bed on the night of the 25th of January, 1880, I found myself
wrapt in vision, and the next morning the following revelation was given
to me of the Lord which I wrote at the time."
The 1880 revelation was accepted by the Church leaders. Elder
Franklin D. Richards, Church Historian and a member of the Quorum of
Twelve, in writing the life of Wilford Woodruff, states:
"During the period of the extreme and unrelenting prosecutions under
the anti-polygamy acts of Congress, President Woodruff spent much of the
time among the Churches in Arizona and southern Utah. On January 26, 1880,
having retired for some days in the mountains fasting and praying, he
obtained important revelations from the Lord concerning the work of the
Twelve Apostles and events which would happen affecting both the Church
and the nation. These were submitted to President John Taylor and the
Council of the Apostles and were accepted by them as profitable for
doctrine, for comfort, for light as to the future and for encouragement in
the work of the ministry." (Imp. Era, 1:874)
1882
Revelation to John Taylor
"Let my servants GEORGE TEASDALE and HEBER J. GRANT be appointed to
fill the vacancies in the Twelve, that you may be fully organized and
prepared for the labors devolving upon you, for you have a great work to
perform, and then proceed to fill up the presiding Quorum of Seventies,
and assist in organizing that body of my Priesthood who are your
co-laborers in the ministry.
"You may appoint SEYMOUR B. YOUNG to fill up the vacancy in the
Presiding Quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not
meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my Priesthood;
and then proceed forthwith and call to your aid any assistance that you
may require from among the Seventies to assist you in your labors in
introducing and maintaining the gospel among the Lamanites throughout the
land. And then let High Priests be selected, under the direction [32] of
the First Presidency, to preside over the various organizations that shall
exist among this people; that those who receive the gospel may be taught
in the doctrines of my church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and
also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my Kingdom, saith the Lord,
that they may be one with you in my Church and my Kingdom.
"Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let the
Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me as I am
one with the Father. And let the High Priests organize themselves and
purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for all
other labors that they may be called upon to fulfill.
"And let the presidents of stakes also purify themselves, and the
Priesthood and people of the stakes over which they preside, and organize
the Priesthood in their various stakes according to my law, in all the
various departments thereof, in the High Councils, in the Elders' Quorums,
and in the Bishops and their Councils, and in the Quorums of Priests,
Teachers, and Deacons, that every Quorum may be fully organized according
to the order of my Church; and, then let them inquire into the standing
and fellowship of all that hold my Holy Priesthood in their several
stakes; and if they find those that are unworthy, let them remove them,
except they repent; for my Priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have
sustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, and the laws of my
Holy Priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to holy my
Priesthood, saith the Lord.
"And let my Priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not
their own will but my will; for if my Priesthood whom I have chosen and
called and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings,
and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me, I will not acknowledge
them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my Priesthood.
"And then I call upon my Priesthood and upon all of my people, to
repent of all their sins and shortcomings, of their covetousness and pride
and self-will, and of all their iniquities wherein they sin against me;
and to seek with all humility to fulfill my law, as my Priesthood, my
Saints and my people; and I call upon the heads of families to put their
houses in order according to the law of God, and attend to the various
duties and responsibilities associated therewith, and to purify themselves
before me, and to purge out iniquity from their households.
"And I will bless and be with you, saith the Lord, and ye [33] shall
gather together in your holy places wherein ye assemble to call upon me,
and ye shall ask for such things as are right, and I will hear your
prayers and my Spirit and power shall be with you and my blessings shall
rest upon you, upon your families, your dwellings and your households,
upon your flocks and herds and fields, your orchards and vineyards, and
upon all that pertains to you; and you shall be my people and I will be
your God; and your enemies shall not have dominion over you; for my words
shall go forth, and my work shall be accomplished, and my Zion shall be
established, and my rule and my power and my dominion shall prevail among
my people, and all nations shall yet acknowledge me. Even so, Amen."
(1:309)
The revelation was published in some of the early European editions
of the Doctrine and Covenants, also found mentioned by B. H. Roberts in
writing of The Life of John Taylor. The following items pertain to the
reception and consideration of the above revelation, copied from the
Wilford Woodruff Journal.
"October 13, 1882. We met in council at Pres. Taylor's office. We
heard the revelation read in which George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant were
called to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and
Seymour B. Young to fill the vacancy in the First Presidency of Seventies.
"October 14, 1882, we held a meeting with the Presidency, Twelve
Apostles and the Presidents of Stakes. Remarks were made by Pres. Taylor.
Then the revelation was read. George Q. Cannon spoke to us and said, `How
can we teach the people any law or principle that we do not keep
ourselves?'
"Joseph F. Smith spoke upon several subjects upon the Patriarchal
Order of Marriage.
"President Taylor told what Joseph Smith said to him upon the subject
....
"W. Woodruff said he was glad the Quorum of the Twelve and Seventies
were now to be filled, and said that the reason why the Church and Kingdom
of God could not progress if we did not receive the Patriarchal Law of
Marriage is that it belonged to this dispensation as well as baptism for
the dead, and any law or ordinance that belongs to this dispensation must
be received by the members of the Church, or it 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 stop.
"E. Snow said that Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus
spoke of that the man who had one talent and hid it in the [34] earth was
the man who had but one wife and would not take another, would have her
taken from him and given to one who had more."
This revelation was referred to in public address by John Taylor in
October, 1884, (1:336) as well as by Joseph F. Smith in 1904. (3:355)
From the Millennial Star, 44:732: "The revelation was submitted to
the Twelve and by them accepted and was afterwards read to the Presidents
of Stakes, First Presidents of Seventy and a few others. It has been acted
upon and the brethren mentioned have been ordained; the two first to the
Apostleship of the Twelve, and the last named (Seymour B. Young) to the
Presiding Quorum of Seventies."
The revelation of 1882 is also referred to by Apostle Matthias F.
Cowley. (3:325)
It is interesting to note that this revelation from the Lord was
given three years after the United States Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the anti-polygamy laws.
1886
Revelation to John Taylor
"My Son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting
Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people; thus saith the Lord:
"All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling
themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority,
and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; for I the Lord am
everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated, nor done
away with, but they stand forever.
"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
laws 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 [35] 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." (1:442-3, 3:230)
President Anthony W. Ivins, on February 10, 1934, stated he had seen
the original copy of the 1886 revelation and said it was written in pencil
and contained only a few paragraphs, and had no signature.
B. H. Roberts, while Assistant Historian of the Church, stated to
friends that he had seen, on more than one occasion, the original copy of
the 1886 revelation and knew that it was in the Church Archives; and in
his opinion it was genuine.
Apostle Melvin J. Ballard stated in a letter dated December 31, 1934,
"The pretended revelation of President John Taylor never had his signature
added to it but was written in the form of a revelation and undoubtedly
was in his handwriting; nevertheless it was never submitted to his own
associates in the Presidency and the Twelve nor to the Church and
consequently does not bind the Church in any sense." (See Ballard-Jenson
Correspondence, p.27)
However, the writer has had in his possession and has read the faded
writing in the Journal of Douglas M. Todd, Sr., a member of the General
Board of the Mutual Improvement Association of the Church, under date of
September 1, 1934:
"After reading some expressions in a letter ascribed to President A.
W. Ivins, in which the 1886 revelation is referred to as an unsigned scrap
of paper, a so-called revelation--the words of a man which were never
submitted to the people of the Church and are not binding, etc., I went up
and talked with my sister Nellie Todd Taylor, plural wife of John W.
Taylor, to learn what she knew about it. She says John W. referred to the
circumstances on several occasions and told how his father was in hiding
at the home of John Woolley in Centerville the night it was received.
"When President Taylor received this revelation at the home of John
W. Woolley at Centerville, he sent a messenger to Salt Lake asking those
of the Presidency and Twelve who were there to meet him at Centerville. As
extreme caution had to be observed to keep from betraying the whereabouts
of President Taylor to the officers who were hunting him, George F. Gibbs
secured a sheep wagon and took them up in the evening. The revelation was
submitted and received.
[36]
"John W. Taylor was asked to stand guard in the front room and was
not with them, but understood that the purpose of the meeting was to
receive this revelation. To have presented this revelation in open
conference in times like those in 1886 would have been fatal.
"A copy in President Taylor's handwriting was taken to the Salt Lake
Temple, and when danger of raiding and confiscation increased, it with
other sacred records, was turned over to William Salmon to be placed
somewhere to be safe. This revelation was delivered to John W. Taylor and
for a time was n the custody of Rodney Badger in a deposit box at the Utah
National Bank, but was finally returned to John W. Taylor.
"Some time before his death, John W. was in business and Ellen
Sanberg was his secretary. He married her as his sixth wife. After his
death in 1916, Ellen took possession of the document. She went to work for
L. N. Stohl at the Beneficial Life and he got the revelation and made
photographic copies of it.
"Soon after this, Nellie Taylor said one night after his death, John
W. came to her with a troubled look on his face, and it was made known to
her that he was concerned about this revelation the one given to John
Taylor. Nellie went to Mill Creek and Ellen reluctantly surrendered it.
Nellie took it to Frank Y. Taylor and asked that he deliver it to the
Church Historian. Frank delayed and some inquiry was made about it. Nellie
again saw him about it, and Frank decided to surrender it, but instead of
taking it to the Historian's office, he took it to President Grant and
asked him if it was genuine and in the handwriting of his father.
President Grant said it was. Brother Taylor asked how he could get around
it. `I am not going to try to get around it,' replied President Grant."
The opposite page contains a copy of the 1886 revelation in President
John Taylor's own handwriting. *
Douglas Todd further recorded: "This revelation could not be
presented to the Church when it was received, and by the time it could be
presented, we had already acted in a way quite opposite to its
injunctions, so it was not presented to the members in conference at all,
but that does not change the revelation."
In the Abraham H. Cannon Journal under date of March 29, 1892: "John
W. Taylor spoke in relation to the Manifesto: `I do not know that that
thing was right, though I voted to sustain it, and will assist to maintain
it; but among my father's papers I found a revelation given him of the
Lord, and which is now in my [38] possession, in which the Lord told him
that the principle of plural marriage would never be overcome. President
Taylor desired to have it suspended, but the Lord would not permit it to
be done.'"
[37]
Photo-Lithographic reprint of Exact Original Copy in President
Taylor's own Handwriting
The revelation remained binding upon the Priesthood. It was submitted
and received by those members of the Church leaders who met with President
John Taylor. George Q. Cannon was numbered among those at the time who
were with President Taylor and who had full knowledge of the revelation
and accepted the same. The other associate, Joseph F. Smith, was at the
time in Honolulu, and upon his return home, the revelation was presented
to him by President Taylor, and he accepted it also. Reasons for not
presenting it to the Church are obvious, one of the external reasons being
evidenced on the following page. But the revelation was later presented to
and discussed in the Councils of the Twelve, becoming a matter of
Priesthood responsibility.
President John Taylor's mission was to sustain and perpetuate truth.
That he did so loyally, intelligently, courageously, cannot be denied.
Under his direction, steps were taken in response to the 1886 revelation
to fulfill the mind and will of the Lord, as witnessed by the following:
Lorin C. Woolley related the following in the presence of Daniel R.
Bateman, John Y. Barlow, J. Leslie Broadbent and Joseph W. Musser:
"While the brethren were at the Carlisle residence (in Murray) in May
or June of 1886, letters began to come to President John Taylor from such
men as John Sharp, Horace Eldredge, William Jennings, John T. Cain,
Abraham Hatch, President Cluff and many other leading men from all over
the Church, asking the leaders to do something, as the Gentiles were
talking of confiscating their property in connection with the property of
the Church.
"These letters not only came from those who were living in the plural
marriage relation, but also from prominent men who were presiding in
various offices in the Church who were not living in that relation. They
all urged that something be done to satisfy the Gentiles so that their
property would not be confiscated.
"George Q. Cannon, on his own initiative, selected a committee
comprising himself, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin S. Richards, John T. Caine
and James Jack to get up a statement or manifesto that would meet the
objections urged by the brethren [40] above named. They met from time to
time to discuss the situation. From the White home, where President Taylor
and companions stopped after leaving the Carlisle home, they came out to
father's. George Q. Cannon would go and consult with the brethren of the
committee, I taking him back and forth each day.
[39]
$800 REWARD!
JOHN TAYLOR.
GEORGE Q. CANNON.
To be Paid for the Arrest of John Taylor
and George Q. Cannon.
The above Reward will be paid for the delivery to me, or
for Information that will lead to the arrest of
JOHN TAYLOR,
President of the Mormon Church, and
George Q. Cannon,
His Counselor; or
$500 will be paid for Cannon alone, and $300 for Taylor.
All Conferences or Letters kept strickly secret.
S. H. GILSON,
22 and 23 Wasatch Building, Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City, Jan. 31, 1887.
HANDBILL OFFERING REWARD FOR THE CAPTURE OF JOHN TAYLOR AND GEORGE
Q.
CANNON.
"On September 26,1886, George Q. Cannon, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin
S. Richards and others met with President John Taylor at my father's
residence at Centerville, Davis County, Utah, and presented a document for
President Taylor's consideration.
I had just got back from a three days' trip, during most of which
time I had been in the saddle, and being greatly fatigued, I had retired
to rest.
"Between one and two o'clock P.M., Brother Bateman came and woke me
up and asked me to be at my father's home, where a manifesto was to be
discussed. I went there and found there were congregated Samuel Bateman,
Charles H. Wilkins, L. John Nuttall, Charles Birrell, George Q. Cannon,
Franklin S. Richards and Hyrum B. Clawson.
"We discussed the proposed Manifesto at length, but we were unable to
become united in the discussion. Finally George Q. Cannon suggested that
President Taylor take the matter up with the Lord and decide the same the
next day. Brothers Clawson and Richards were taken back to Salt Lake. That
evening I was called to act as guard during the first part of the night,
notwithstanding the fact that I was greatly fatigued on account of the
three days' trip I had just completed.
"The brethren retired to bed soon after nine o'clock. The sleeping
rooms were inspected by the guard as was the custom. President Taylor's
room had no outside door. The windows were heavily screened.
"Some time after the brethren retired and while I was reading the
Doctrine and Covenants, I was suddenly attracted to a light appearing
under the door leading to President Taylor's room, and was at once
startled to hear the voices of men talking there. There were three
distinct voices. I was bewildered because it was my duty to keep people
out of that room and evidently someone had entered without my knowing it.
I made a hasty examination and found the door leading to the room bolted
as usual. I then examined the outside of the house and found all the
window screens intact. While examining the last window, and feeling
greatly agitated, a voice spoke to me, saying, `Can't you [41] feel the
Spirit? Why should you worry?"
"At this I returned to my post and continued to hear the voices in
that room. They were so audible that although I did not see the parties, I
could place their positions in the room from the sound of their voices.
The three voices continued until about midnight, when one of them left,
and the other two continued. One of them I recognized as President John
Taylor's voice. I called Charles Birrell, and we both sat up until eight
o'clock the next morning.
"When President Taylor came out of his room about eight o'clock of
the morning of September 27, 1886, we could scarcely took at him on
account of the brightness of his personage. He stated, `Brethren, I have
had a very pleasant conversation with Brother Joseph [Joseph Smith].' I
said, `Boss, who is the man that was there until midnight?' He asked,
`What do you know about it, Lorin?' I told him all about my experience. He
said, `Brother Lorin, that was your Lord.'
"We had no breakfast but assembled ourselves in a meeting. I forget
who opened the meeting. I was called to offer the benediction. I think my
father, John W. Woolley, offered the opening prayer. There were present at
the meeting, in addition to President Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. John
Nuttall, John W. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Charles Wilkins, Charles
Birrell, Daniel R. Bateman, Bishop Samuel Sedden, George Earl, my mother,
Julia E. Woolley, my sister, Amy Woolley, and myself. The meeting was held
from about 9 o'clock in the morning until 5 in the afternoon, without
intermission, being about eight hours in all.
"President Taylor called the meeting to order. He had the Manifesto,
that had been prepared under the direction of George Q. Cannon, read over
again. He then put each person under covenant that he or she would defend
the principle of Celestial or plural marriage, and that they would
consecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that they
personally would sustain and uphold that principle.
By that time we were all filled with the Holy Ghost. President Taylor
and those present occupied about three hours up to this time. After
placing us under covenant, be placed his finger on the document, his
person rising from the floor about a foot or eighteen inches, and with
countenance animated by the Spirit of the Lord, and raising his right hand
to the square, he said, `Sign that document--never! I would suffer my
right hand to be [42] severed from my body first. Sanction it--never! I
would suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I
would sanction it!'
"After that he talked for about an hour and then sat down and wrote
the revelation which was given him by the Lord upon the question of Plural
Marriage. Then he talked to us for some time, and said, `Some of you will
be handled and ostracized and cast, out from the Church by your brethren
because of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some of
you may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe,
unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you.' (Three of us were
handled and ostracized for supporting and sustaining this principle. There
are only three left who were at the meeting mentioned --Daniel R. Bateman,
George Earl, and myself. So far as I know those of them who have passed
away all stood firm to the covenants entered into from that day to the day
of their deaths.)
"After the meeting referred to, President Taylor had L. John Nuttall
write five copies of the revelation. He called five of us together: Samuel
Bateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, and
myself.
"He then set us apart and placed us under covenant that while we
lived we would see to it that no year passed by without children being
born in the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority to
ordain others if necessary to carry this work on, they in turn to be given
authority to ordain others when necessary, under the direction of the
worthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in the
work. He then gave each of us a copy of the revelation.
"I am the only one of the five now living, and so far as I know all
five of the brethren remained true and faithful to the covenants they
entered into, and to the responsibilities placed upon them at that time.
"During the eight hours we were together, and while President Taylor
was talking to us, he frequently arose and stood above the floor, and his
countenance and being were so enveloped by light and glory that it was
difficult for us to look upon him.
"He stated that the document, referring to the Manifesto, was from
the lower regions. He stated that many of the things he had told us we
would forget and they would be taken from us, but that they would return
to us in due time as needed, and from this fact we would know that the
same was from the Lord. This has [43] been literally fulfilled. Many of
the things I forgot, but they are coming to me gradually, and those things
that come to me are as clear as on the day on which they were given.
"President Taylor said that the time would come when many of the
Saints would apostatize because of this principle. He said, `One-half of
this people would apostatize over the principle for which we are now in
hiding; yea, and possibly one-half of the other half,' (rising off the
floor while making the statement). He also said the day will come when a
document similar to that (Manifesto) then under consideration would be
adopted by the Church, following which `apostasy and whoredom would be
rampant in the Church.'
"He said that in the time of the seventh President of this Church,
the Church would go into bondage both temporally and spiritually and in
that day (the day of bondage) the one Mighty and Strong spoken of in the
85th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants would come.
"Among other things stated by President Taylor on this occasion was
this, `I would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold the
Melchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of the
Lord Jesus Christ, at the time of the seventh president, and that there
would be thousands that think they hold the priesthood at that time, but
would not have it properly conferred upon them.'
"John Taylor set the five mentioned apart and gave them authority to
perform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the same
thing as long as they remained upon the earth; and while doing so, the
Prophet Joseph Smith stood by directing the proceedings. Two of us had not
met the Prophet Joseph Smith in his mortal lifetime and we--Charles H.
Wilkins and myself--were introduced to him and shook hands with him."
(Signed) Lorin C. Woolley, September 22, 1929. (3:225)
Lorin Calvin Woolley was born in Salt Lake City, October 23, 1856. He
became actively engaged in protecting the General Authorities and many
times delivered important messages of the brethren. He was a close guard
and messenger of President John Taylor. At the age of 13, he was given his
Endowments and ordained an Apostle by President Brigham Young, though not
as a member of the Quorum of Twelve in the Church organization. He was a
close confidant of Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo
Snow and Joseph F. Smith. President Taylor on one occasion interpreted a
vision Lorin C. Woolley had. [44] Shortly after the 1886 meeting, he was
sent on a mission to Indian Territory, from 1887 to 1889 and from 1896 to
1897. He died September 19, 1934, at the age of 77.
Continual efforts are being made to discredit the Lorin C. Woolley
testimony, though it has been substantiated and attested to by living
witnesses. That the eight hour meeting described by Lorin C. Woolley is
not found in the diaries on that date offers little support for
disclaimers. It is more to be expected than not, considering the
conditions at the time and the confiscation of many records and
properties. Caution and secrecy were as imperative upon them as upon
Joseph and his brethren years earlier.
Following the revelation of 1886 one would expect to find action
taken by the Lord, with that action supported by the mouths of witnesses.
Daniel R. Bateman, bodyguard to President John Taylor, was one of these,
having been present while the foregoing experience was related by Lorin C.
Woolley. He testified:
"I was privileged to be at the meeting of September 27, 1886 spoken
of by Brother Woolley, I myself acting as one of the guards for the
brethren during those exciting times. The proceedings of the meeting as
related by Brother Woolley are correct in every detail.
"I was twenty-nine years of age when the revelation of 1886 was given
to John Taylor, and I was permitted to make a copy of it from the original
which was written by John Taylor during the meeting held September 27,
1886. I still have the Journal with the revelation in it." (Signed) Daniel
R. Bateman.
The best evidence of a revelation is the revelation itself. The Lord
gave His word in power and with clear intent. He provided witnesses for
all proceedings, thirteen in this case. As a result of the Lord's
pronouncement through His word in 1886 to John Taylor, the organization
originating with President Taylor to keep alive and perpetuate the law of
celestial plural marriage as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, is
still intact and is functioning as the Lord intended it should.
1889
Revelation to Wilford Woodruff
"Thus saith the Lord to my servant Wilford, I, the Lord, have heard
thy prayers and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of my
spirit.
[45]
"Thus saith the Lord unto my servants the presidency of my Church,
who hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. I the Lord hold the
destiny of the courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and
the destiny of all other nations of the earth, in mine own hands, and all
that I have revealed and promised and decreed concerning the generation in
which you live shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand.
"Let not my servants who are called to the presidency of my Church
deny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children of
men. Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guide
them in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by
promise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of my
people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of my
servants, the wicked shall not prevail.
"Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts
make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without
any further pledges from the Priesthood.
"I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of government
and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.
"I, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, am in your midst. I am
your advocate with the Father. Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's
good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Fear not the wicked and ungodly.
Search the scriptures, for they are they which testify of me; also those
revelations which I have given to my servant Joseph, and to all my
servants since the world began, which are recorded in the record of divine
truth.
"Those revelations contain the judgments of God which are to be
poured out upon all nations under the heavens, which include Great
Babylon. These judgments are at the door. They will be fulfilled as God
lives. Leave judgment with me, it is mine, saith the Lord. Watch the signs
of the times and they will show the fulfillment of the words of the Lord.
Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghost
as your constant companion and act as you are moved upon by the Spirit,
and all will be well with you.
"The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off
by the judgments of God. Great events await you and this generation and
are nigh at your doors. Awake! O Israel, and have faith in God and His
promises and He will not forsake you. I the Lord will deliver my Saints
from the dominion of the wicked in [46] mine own due time and way.
"I cannot deny my word, neither in blessings nor judgments. Therefore
let mine anointed gird up their loins, watch and be sober, and keep my
commandments. Pray always and faint not. Exercise faith in the Lord and in
the promises of God; be valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ.
"The eyes of the Lord and the Heavenly Host are watching over you and
your acts. Therefore be faithful until I come. I come quickly to reward
every man, according to the deeds done in the body. Even so, Amen."
(2:223)
This revelation was copied from the Journal of Wilford Woodruff under
date of November 24, 1889. It states: "Attended a meeting with the lawyers
at the Guardo (house) in the evening. They wanted me to make some
concession to the court upon polygamy and other points, and I spent
several hours alone and inquired of the Lord and received the following
revelation."
A photostatic copy of the Daily Journal of Apostle Abraham H. Cannon
under date of December 19, 1889, Vol. II, states:
"Thursday, Dec. 19th: ... During our meeting a revelation was read
which Pres. Woodruff received Sunday evening, Nov. 24th. Propositions had
been made for the Church to make some concessions to the courts in regard
to its principles. Both of Pres. Woodruff's counselors refused to advise
him as to the course he should pursue, and he therefore laid the matter
before the Lord. The answer came quick and strong. The word of the Lord
was for us not to yield one particle of that which He had revealed and
established. He had done and would continue to care for His work and those
of the Saints who were faithful, and we need have no fear of our enemies
when we were in the line of our duty. We are promised redemption and
deliverance if we will trust in God and not in the arm of flesh. We were
admonished to read and study the word of God, and to pray often. The whole
revelation was filled with words of the greatest encouragement and
comfort, and my heart was filled with joy and peace during the entire
reading. It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue."
Revelation and Voting
It is often stated that the preceding four revelations are not
binding upon the Church because its members did not accept them by vote.
Informed Saints acknowledge that they were in reality received, for to
take any other position would be foolish. [47] The evidence and witnesses
are established. However, it is claimed that since the Saints have voting
rights, "the four revelations are not binding."
The premise is incorrect. But let us assume for a moment that the
argument is valid. Let us use that same argument and apply it to the
Manifesto of 1890.
The accepted procedure for voting to place revelations in a book, as
with the original Book of Commandments, is: 1) The revelation be accepted
unanimously by the First Presidency; 2) that it be accepted unanimously by
the Quorum of Twelve Apostles; and, 3) that it be accepted unanimously by
the Saints in Conference assembled. This is the procedure to place the
revelation in a book of scripture. (But not to vote on the validity of the
revelation.)
Does the Manifesto of 1890 pass the test? No. Even as a directive
from the Church it assumed an unusual presentation. Usually, all
directives come to the Saints over the signatures of the First Presidency,
indicating their unity. The Manifesto had one signature, with one member
of the First Presidency refusing to sign at all. It would have appeared
even less appropriate with just two signatures, so it appeared with one.
How does the Manifesto rate against the "rules?" 1) The Manifesto was
not officially endorsed by all members of the First Presidency. 2) The
Manifesto was not endorsed by all members of the Quorum of Twelve, to wit:
"If any were disposed to vote against the measure, they were awed into
silence by an overwhelming support which was recorded as unanimous. There
was, nevertheless, some dissension which in the ensuing decade and a half
resulted in disfellowshipping of two members of the Apostles' Quorum."
(Larsen, The "Americanization" of Utah for Statehood, p. 267) 3)
Additionally, the Manifesto was not endorsed by all of the Saints. From
the minutes of the conference, Deseret News, October 11, 1890: "The vote
in support of the motion was nearly unanimous." (Roberts, Comprehensive
History of the Church, 6:222)
Therefore, if the validity of a revelation from God is decided by the
outcome of votes, the Manifesto is disqualified from every standpoint and
has no place in our books as a revelation. If the four revelations cannot
be accepted, certainly neither can the Manifesto, which had even less
action in its favor.
However, the premise initially is incorrect. The stand many of the
Saints have been led to take is that they will not accept [48] revelations
from the Lord through His prophets unless that statement is first
submitted to the Priesthood and Church in general where a vote can be
taken. If the vote sustains what the Prophet has said, then it presumably
becomes binding upon the Church. We are in danger of becoming a little
self-assured in our determinations with regard to the vote privilege.
Wilford Woodruff decisively stated: "In some things, it was the law
of the church that all things should be done by the common consent of the
people; in the matter of presenting temporal business; and in the quorums,
it was. But I have no recollection of any revelation given to the effect
that all church affairs pertaining to what should or would be the law of
the church, that that course was to be pursued, that the matter should be
submitted to the body for its sanction." (Temple Lot Case, 1892; 3:259)
Elder Alvin R. Dyer in his book, The Refiner's Fire, states:
"Revelation when received by a prophet of God, is automatically binding
upon the people. They do not have the right, in democratic fashion, to
veto its content, nor to screen its possibility of ever being placed
before an assembly. God's word, given through His Son Jesus Christ, is the
law of the Church. To challenge a prophet of God with regard to his
statements places the right the member above that of the chosen servant of
God and challenges God's will." (p. 303) Elder Dyer quotes the Prophet
Joseph: "If anything should have been suggested by us, or any names
mentioned, except by commandment, or `Thus Saith the Lord,' we do not
consider it binding." (D.H.C. 3:295)
The Manifesto of 1890 does not present the merest hint of "Thus saith
the Lord." The four revelations say nothing else. Elder Dyer continues:
"The Prophet thus makes clear in his writings from Liberty Jail the fact
that when utterances are made which are not from the Lord they are not to
be considered as binding upon the Church, but when he speaks by `thus
saith the Lord' or `by commandment,' then, his utterances are binding as
coming from the Lord and need no vote of approval of the members of the
Church. The members may sustain or even vote to place such revelations in
a book as was the case with the original Book of Commandments, but not the
validity of the revelation." (p. 304)
This calls for the revising of our traditions. The four revelations
"are binding as coming from the Lord" to His Priesthood. If the four
revelations are not binding, the Manifesto is much less [49] so. However,
the four revelations were accepted unanimously by the leaders of the
Church, and resulted in policy as well as three appointments to positions
of Church leadership. Each is by way of commandment and "thus saith the
Lord."
When the Lord speaks, we cannot, in effect, vote as to whether or not
He has spoken. We do so at the peril of our eternal exaltation.
Note 1: According to a recorded talk by Reed C. Durham, Jr., LDS
Coordinator of Seminaries and Institutes in Salt Lake City and
President of the Mormon History Association, speaking by assignment
on February 24, 1974, to the High Priest Meeting of the Salt Lake
Foothill Stake: "There was a revelation that John Taylor received and
we have it in his handwriting. We've analyzed the handwriting. It is
John Taylor's handwriting and the revelation is reproduced by the
fundamentalists. That's supposed to prove the whole story because
there was indeed a revelation. The revelation is dated September 27;
that fits this account of a meeting, 1886, and this revelation is
very short. I'd like to read it to you (which he proceeds to do)."
Elder Durham then takes the position that while that was the
word of the Lord to John Taylor in 1886, it was not voted upon by the
Church and "the living oracle supercedes all that has ever been
written even in the scriptures."
While we commend his presentation of the 1886 revelation to the
High Priests and his unassailable defense of its authenticity, his
position regarding it is hard to substantiate.
The whole point of the 1886 revelation is that the Lord
emphasizes in great plainness that He has not and will not change the
law and that if men would enter into His glory they must do the works
of Abraham. Now what oracle be he man or angel would pretend to have
the authority to supercede the Lord in such an unchangeable, eternal
declaration?
[50]
[51]
SECTION FIVE
THE MANIFESTO IN REVIEW
Despite the admonitions of the Lord repeated in the four preceding
revelations to His people, as pressure continued to mount against the
Church and its practice of polygamy, the Saints on the firing line began
to waver. The mood of the times is captured in an editorial by Elder
Charles W. Penrose.
Because of tremendous pressure from within and without, the Church is
inching toward the Manifesto. The Gentiles are relentless in their
insistence upon concession, and Editor Penrose, true to his principles, is
flying all flags. We reprint his editorial in full:
Charles W. Penrose
Deseret Evening News Editorial
1885
"The flow of the tide has set in against the Saints. It looks as if
no popular movement was favoring them. The executive, legislative,
judicial and religious influences are against them, and to these is added
a more or less widespread popular clamor. The object of this furor, backed
up by threats of stripping the people of what few rights remain, of
imprisonment and family and communal disruption is to force the Saints to
relinquish a prominent doctrine of their religion. The whole reasoning of
friends, real and professed, and of bitter and relentless foes, on the
outside, takes this one and only direction.
"One of the reasons adduced more frequently than any other in favor
of the demand that plural marriage relationship be abolished is that it is
not religion. To this we have but to reply that if some one outside of the
religious professor has the power to prescribe what his religion shall
consist of, all pretensions to the existence of religious liberty are a
delusion and a snare, and a hollow and meaningless mockery. The only line
of demarcation over which the exercise of religion must not step is that
which divides its practice from the domain of the rights of others. It has
never been shown, nor is it susceptible of exhibition, that the peculiar
marital institution interferes with the rights and privi-[52]leges of any,
under the Constitution. Nobody outside of the relationship are injured,
and therefore have no reason for complaint, neither has any power the
right of interference. A remark lately attributed to General H. S.
Eldredge, on this point appears strikingly appropriate. It was to the
effect that nobody was injured by the plural marriage relationship of the
`Mormons', and if it be claimed that the women and children are, the
refutation to that insinuation lies in the fact that it is not from them
that the complaints are coming.
"It has been held by some of the Saints that if even the doctrine
against which the bulk of the opposition is hurled were abrogated or
relinquished, the clamor would not cease. The demand would still be made
for a further retreat from religious principles, until the Church as an
organized body--religious would become an entity of the past; otherwise
popular thirst for the demolition of `Mormonism' would not be satiated.
"We look upon this as an erroneous conception of the character of the
work in which the Saints are engaged. The chief object of the crusade is
to get the Church to apostatize. That arrived at, nothing more would be
necessary for the satisfaction of the enemies of the work of God. That
accomplished, they would be jubilant and all hell would rejoice.
"What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the hearts
of the opponents of `Mormonism,' more properly termed the Gospel of the
Son of God'? Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new and
everlasting covenant of marriage in its fulness. Were the Church to do
that as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body. The authority
of the Priesthood would be withdrawn, with its gifts and power, and there
would be no more heavenly recognition of the ministrations among the
people. The heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lord
would raise up another people of greater valor and stability, for his work
must, according to His unalterable decrees, go forward, for the time of
the second coming of the Savior is near, even at the doors. Therefore the
Saints have no alternative but to stand by the truth and sustain what the
heavens have established and propose to perpetuate. This they will do,
come life or death, freedom or imprisonment, and there is, so far as we
can observe, no use to attempt to disguise this fact.
"As already stated, were the step so much desired on the outside to
be taken, there would probably be but little need of [53] any further
opposition, because the Church would be shorn of its strength, having
surrendered its integrity because of earthly opposition. Its adherents
would no longer be distinctive, but would be like the rest of the world,
whose hate would turn to affection, because of the love it has for its
own. The Saints might have the meagre satisfaction of having all men speak
well of them, but it would be overshadowed by the miserable reflection
that they were subject to the woe and misery consequent upon their getting
into that lamentable situation.
"Individuals may falter and fall, as they doubtless will, when
brought face to face with the testing point. They may be ready, for
considerations connected with their personal convenience or safety, to
renounce their religion, cast away their wives and render themselves
perfidious in the eyes of their own offspring by this crouching apostasy,
but the bulk will not follow examples of that character. Having the light
of truth and manhood burning within their souls, they will, when the storm
howls about their ears, continue to stand at the post of duty at which
they were stationed when the sunshine of peace and prosperity smiled upon
them. And if any who are in jeopardy feel as if the germ of faith were not
as bright and powerful in themselves as they could wish, and they need an
example after which to follow, let them not keep close to the heels of the
craven, but tread, in the footsteps of the man who will `Do what is right,
let the consequence follow.' Many hold that it is less cruel to a man's
family to renounce them and the sacred contract by which to him they are
bound, than take the probable alternative of having to go to prison and
leave them, it may be in some instances, to face poverty. There are some
things, however, that to people of nobler instincts are worse than.
temporal hardships, and he is `poor indeed' who does not take this stand.
Poverty may be met and conquered, but the stain of the recreant can
scarcely be wiped out. Besides from the standpoint of every true
Latter-day Saint a renunciation of his religion has a blasting effect upon
his hopes of eternal happiness, the foundation of which lies in the
retention of his wives and children in the life to come. If he barters
away his birthright for a mess of pottage here, upon what ground has he
reason to believe his heirship will receive any recognition hereafter?
"It goes without saying that the crusaders are anxious to obtain
among those who are pursued by them as many examples of recreancy as
possible, not only on account of the satisfaction [54] that such cases of
themselves impart to them, but it is desired that they should have a
strong effect in influencing others to take a similar course. The good
Saints, however, can afford to suffer any species of discomfort, even to
the sacrifice of life itself if it be necessary, but they cannot entertain
the alternative of proving recreant to principle, to wives and children,
and turning their backs upon their religion and their God." (1:376-379)
The faith and zeal of Charles W. Penrose was but an extension of that
held by all the faithful in their attitude toward plural marriage and all
of God's restored laws. But talk of concession, talk of a new revelation
increased among the large percentage of suffering Mormons, most of whom
were not living the principle and who did not take too kindly to their
sufferings because of it. Some of the Saints pressed their Church leaders
for new light. The response was unyielding:
"The childish babble about another revelation is only an evidence how
half informed men can talk. The `Mormons' have either to spurn their
religion and their God, and sink self-damned in the eyes of all
civilization at a moment when most blessed in the practice of their faith,
or go calmly on to the same issue which they have always had--`Mormonism'
in its entirety, the revelation of God, or nothing at all. `Mormonism'
allowed in its entirety, or `Mormonism' wiped out in blood!" (Mill. Star,
Vol. 7, No.43, 1885)
George Q. Cannon maintained a steady, unfaltering stand: "What will
be the effect, it may be asked, of all this? Will it destroy plural
marriages? Will it crush out the belief in this God-like principle? Will
it stop the birth of children? We may ask in reply, did the decrees of
Pharaoh against the birth of the Hebrew male children and his edict that
they should be thrown into the Nile stop the increase of that oppressed
people? Certainly not; neither will it do in this instance." President
Cannon wavered not in the least: "This principle will be maintained; it
will be believed in; it will be practiced by this people in the manner
that God has commanded, and no agencies that can be brought to bear upon
them will prevent this." (Juv. Inst. p. 220, 1885)
The words and prophecies of the Mormon leaders concerning the certain
perpetuation of the patriarchal order of marriage did not vary. So certain
were they of the Lord's will in the matter that they could well cry out to
all the world, "`Mormonism' allowed in its entirety, or 'Mormonism' wiped
out in blood!"
[55]
But "Mormonism wiped out in blood" was not an issue that the great
majority of Saints not responsible for the principle were too anxious to
face. It is important to understand the extremely difficult situation in
which the Saints found themselves during those several years prior to the
1890 Manifesto. Many of us tend to view the relinquishing of a holy
principle by the Saints as a sudden moment of concession. But the
principle was all but gone from among 97% of the Church members well
before 1890. The Manifesto was an effective soother for a harried
government and a fine filler for the eastern newspapers, who, by the way,
received it by telegraph for publication in September before the Utah
Saints knew anything about it--until October. That procedure could be
considered rare treatment for a revelation from God to His Church.
It is essential to come to a better appreciation of the position the
early Saints were in, those conditions the Saints were enduring as the
Manifesto appeared on the scene. It is critical that the matter be clear
because of its direct relationship to the living of plural marriage as it
went "underground," and as it relates to the position of plural marriage
today under the direction of the Priesthood.
The fires of persecution, due largely to prosecution, were lapping at
the heels of the Mormons and their kingdom during 1885 to 1900, the
particular period we wish to consider here. We call attention to the
following as a preface to the matter under consideration: "That the Mormon
Kingdom should continue as a permanent enclave in American commonwealth
was unthinkable to a large segment of American opinion. The system of
plural marriage, though admittedly practiced by a small minority of
Mormons, was an unspeakable vice; the theocratic economy interfered with
the spread of capitalistic institutions; and the supposed church control
of political life was thought to be inconsistent with democracy. As
Congress sought to end Mormon `peculiarities' with increasingly
restrictive legislation, the Church fought back with every available
weapon. With the formal disincorporation of the church and the
confiscation of its properties under the Edmunds-Tucker Act, however, the
days of the independent exclusive Kingdom were numbered. When the Supreme
Court approved the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1890, a program of accommodation
was inaugurated. The 'People's Party was dissolved, the church sold most
of its business interests, and President Woodruff's Manifesto declared the
end of poly-[56]gamy." (Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 352)
The death knell sounded again in the form of the Petition For Amnesty
presented to the President of the United States: "To be at peace with the
Government and in harmony with their fellow citizens ... our people have
voluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believed
to be a sacred principle (2:547-9)
Plural marriage had been a major plank in the platform of Mormon
theology. It was intrinsic to their way of life. But the Gentile minority
in Utah found the practice abhorrent and an infringement upon the American
monogamous culture. From behind the curtain of protesting polygamy,
however, they cast a jaundiced eye upon the theocratic economy which
proved a fortress against their capitalistic inroads. Rather than any
single item of doctrine, the real thorn was the all-pervasive power of the
Church.
Pressure mounted on all sides to create a chink in the Mormon armor.
Strong tones were heard from the pulpit an press, demanding prohibiting
legislation against the evils of Mormonism and its practice of polygamy.
The nation's capitol was deluged with petitions and letters from crusading
editors, clergymen, women's groups, federal officials. The agitators were
astute enough to know that Washington was their only hope, inasmuch as the
lawmaking body of Utah Territory in the early 1880's was composed almost
entirely of Mormon Church officials. Through constant anti-Mormon
propaganda, the public was influenced with charges of immorality and, more
significantly, treason. The Mormons were not accepting separation of
church and state. Their cause was, without question, indefensible.
President Abraham Lincoln had signed the anti-polygamy Morrill Law in
1862, but everyone knew it had no teeth. The Mormons, regarding the Law as
unconstitutional, went about their business and defied federal
enforcement. The courts at that; time were in the hands of the Mormons,
anyway, much to the consternation of the Gentiles.
Along came the proposed Cullom Bill in 1870 (1:171), which was to
subject the Territory of Utah to federal control, denying polygamists
franchise, naturalization and the right to hold office. The Mormons were
being fettered on all fronts. Internal problems required their attention
at this time as well. Overpopulation needed immediate solution. They were
hard-pressed to find farming space. Water was in short supply, as was
employ-[57]ment. They established local industries to help the situation
redistributing wealth and income, lending to the poor without interest,
etc. But their attention to these problems became diverted under the
pressure of government as to its own particular interests.
In the meantime, Mormon collectivism came under severe and
unrelenting attack in economics and politics. The bills and laws, some
introduced, some threatened, some passed, were not only to stamp out
polygamy but were more especially designed to separate church and state
and church and economy.
The United States Supreme Court upheld the Reynolds case decision in
1879, (1:217-225) which brought the Church to its knees. The Mormons were
left with no legal basis for their practice of polygamy. The future looked
bleak indeed. Further, congressional action, was urged upon Utah by
Presidents Rutherford B. Hays in 1880, and James A. Garfield in 1881,
supported by Chester A. Arthur. This action was to leave Utah government
to non-polygamists. It wasn't long before the political machinery of the
Territory was vested in non-Mormon appointive officers, a major victory
for the protagonists.
With the help of a proviso in the Edmunds Law, the election board, or
"Utah Commission," achieved permanent status in 1882. A group of five men
was appointed by President Arthur (1:290-291). It was their position to
supervise registration of voters, conduct elections, etc. They formulated
a test oath which all were required to sign in order to register.
(1:291-292) Since the oath was to deny polygamy, it was effectively
designed to strip the Mormons of their voting power. The Mormon Church was
bruised. Enforcement of the Edmunds Law of 1882 (1:287) sent hundreds of
men to prison. The Law was enforced with an ex post facto application, and
prosecution became persecution. Because polygamous marriages were nearly
impossible to establish in court, the common charge levied against the
Mormons was unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six months
in jail, or both.
It was at this time that the President of the Church, John Taylor,
dispatched Mormon colonists to Mexico and Canada, where they were free to
fully practice their religious beliefs. (See Section Seven, page 84 &
seq.)
Referring to the hardships of the Mormons under the press of
prosecutions, a contemporary author writes: "There were 1,004 convictions
for unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds [58] Act between 1884 and
1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitude
of the effect of the Act upon Mormon society. The period from 1885 to 1890
was marked by intensive `polyg hunts' for `cohabs.' Officials of the
church made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.
Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives `for time and
all eternity,' they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert
these women in order to avoid the punishment provided in this law of
Babylon. Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that the rigorous
enforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional,
church leaders--nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives--went
`underground.' Leading out in this action was the church president, John
Taylor, whose last public appearance was in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle,
February 1, 1885. President Taylor died while in hiding on July 25, 1887
..." (Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 359)
Rather than go into hiding, President Joseph F. Smith was sent to
Hawaii to oversee church business there. He returned in 1889. President
George Q. Cannon was in constant flight and hiding and was captured in
1886 enroute to Mexico, escaped, recaptured, later surrendered himself to
nine months in the penitentiary. Much of the hiding was successful due to
an ingenious underground setup and signal system.
Life had become very nearly intolerable for the Mormons. They were
hunted and hounded and imprisoned as if they were the lowest of criminals.
"A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been
faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any
distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped
into exile. Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their
children to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prison
bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were
concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends .... Old men were coming
out of prison, broken in health." (Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 360)
In 1887, the Mormon "People's Party" made the sixth organized effort
for Utah statehood. Into the proposed constitution were adopted clauses
outlawing polygamy and the union of church and state. No amendment to the
constitution could be made without the express consent of Congress and the
President. However, Utah's memorial for statehood was rejected on the [59]
grounds that the anti-polygamy clauses in the proposed constitution "were
not trustworthy." The Church had faulted because it had come out with no
official abandonment of their polygamous practice.
There was another major influence that rattled the foundation of the
Mormon position. It came from among the Mormons themselves. Young and
aspiring Mormons, dissatisfied with conditions which imposed restrictions
upon them in political and economic circles, made the first rift in Mormon
unity. This, coupled with increased sale of property to the forbidden
"Gentiles," began to muddy the waters. Additionally, Church leaders were
receiving letters and other forms of persuasion from prominent businessmen
of the Mormon faith. They urged the yielding up of the practice of plural
marriage because of talk of heavy personal losses due to confiscation of
their own holdings, along with the Church property. Further pressure was
brought to bear from high-ranking political leaders who made certain the
Mormons understood and fully appreciated their support of the tough
federal legislation.
The real issue became clear: "We care nothing for your polygamy. It's
a good war cry and serves our purpose by enlisting sympathy for our cause;
but it's a mere bagatelle compared with other issues in the irrepressible
conflict between our parties. What we most object to is your unity; your
political and commercial solidarity; the obedience you render your
spiritual leaders in temporal affairs. We want you to throw off the yoke
of the Priesthood, to do as we do, and be Americans in deed as well as in
name." (Larson, The "Americanization" of Utah For Statehood, p. 243)
In other words, Utah was not to be granted statehood until she would
bend the knee. The political power of the Mormon Church was to be crushed,
the Church neutralized, and Utah "Americanized" and made available to
capitalistic influences. Wilford Woodruff recorded the inevitable: "Thus
ends the year 1889, and the word of the Prophet Joseph Smith is beginning
to be fulfilled that the whole nation would turn against Zion and make war
upon the Saints. The nation has never been filled so full of lies against
the Saints as today. 1890 will be an important year with the Latter Day
Saints and the American nation." (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 31, 1889;
Larson, The "Americanization" of Utah For Statehood, p. 249)
Predictably, the U. S. Supreme Court sustained the pro-[60]visions of
the Edmunds-Tucker Law, in May of 1890, and the Saints saw their Church
brought down around them. It was disincorporated, its property escheated
to the government. Any procedure was fair to force the Priesthood to
recognize national sovereignty. With almost all leaders in prison or in
hiding, businesses toppled or were sold. United Orders were discontinued,
and cooperative trade and industry was in a state of decline. Legislation
was proposed for the total destruction of home rule in Utah.
Such was the condition of Utah and the Mormons prior to the issuance
of the 1890 Manifesto from President Wilford Woodruff. With all the facts
at hand, it is still difficult to realize how intense the persecutions
were among the Mormons. Hundreds were in jail; some were in hiding as long
as seven years.
The pleas of the people were answered. The Manifesto pleased Saint
and Gentile alike. It soon encouraged Mormon-Gentile economic cooperation,
complete with mergers, which were a contributing factor in bringing about
Utah's statehood. But some who had stationed themselves on the winning
side found themselves quite disappointed, since the Manifesto also served
to remove the smoke-screen from the face of the real object--their own
personal rise to political power. They shouted charges at the Mormons of
"insincerity," but the actions and attitude of some of their own peers
favored the Mormon concession, and Utah achieved statehood in 1896.
Meanwhile, plural marriage remained underground.
In June of 1891, Utah's People's Party was finally dissolved, with
its members choosing affiliation with either the Republican or Democratic
camps. The change was not without stress. Switching over to the two-party
system in Utah caused ripples and rifts among the ranks of the Church
leaders, which resulted in instances of public censure.
In 1893, measures for statehood and restoration of personal Church
property were passed, with amnesty for Mormon polygamists granted in 1893
and 1894. Statehood in 1896 carried with it the provision that the Mormons
would get into line in abandoning polygamy, the Church would cease
fighting Gentile business claims, and the Church would also "normalize"
and leave politics and economics to the persuasions of non-religious
factions.
So Utah achieved statehood, and the Mormon Church was brought to
heel. The reader is encouraged to read the details of the events outlined
above in the volumes of the Most Holy [61] Principle, as well as the
documented history as recorded in the works of Arrington and Larson.
Our intent in citing the foregoing history which led to the signing
of the Manifesto, is to present an explanation of the situation that
existed in the Mormon society, not to present a justification. The Lord
had promised to fight their battles if they would be faithful. He would
not give them commandment impossible to obey, or law impossible to live.
The Patriarchal Order of Marriage went underground in the days of
John Taylor and, through provision made by the Lord through President
Taylor, it has remained in a similar position. The principle must be
perpetuated because God's laws are binding upon the Priesthood and are not
subject to voting away except as it involves individual free agency. The
Lord said he would not revoke the law.
The Church made a covenant which it is obligated to honor. It is
written into the State Constitution of Utah that polygamy is never to rear
its head again. Were the Church to sanction polygamy, it would be
disincorporated again, its properties confiscated again, and Utah would
cease to exist as a state. But the Priesthood made no such covenant, nor
would it dare to. It is accountable neither to man and his laws nor to the
Church and her vote. The Church faced its fiery furnace and, generally,
yielded. It has to suffer the consequences. It cannot receive blessings
for laws not lived. But the gospel remains the same, and all blessings are
predicated upon obedience to God's laws. Therefore, it is essential to
know that God's laws are available. In the light of the events as they
transpired, it "makes reason stare" far more to expect the principle of
plural marriage to be found within the framework of the Church, than to
discover that it has to be elsewhere, though under the same Priesthood of
God.
Let us now turn to the Manifesto itself and review it as a document
or directive to the Saints, and as a "revelation."
MANIFESTO
1890
Official Declaration
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
"Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt
Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah
Commission, in their recent report to the [62] Secretary of the Interior,
allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June
or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the
Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice
of polygamy-"I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that
these charges are false. 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.
"One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the
marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the
Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the
ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In
consequence of this alleged occurrence, the Endowment House was, by my
instructions, taken down without delay.
"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.
"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."
/s/ WILFORD WOODRUFF (2:443-444)
In connection with the Manifesto, several important comments from our
prophets come immediately to mind. Lorenzo Snow said, prior to serving his
sentence in prison: "The severest prosecutions have never been followed by
revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment
or martyrdom." (1:410) We have just outlined the very severe prosecutions
the Saints were enduring. Was President Snow in error? We can only
conclude that it would have been a grand contradiction for [63] the Lord
to do anything other than provide for the perpetuation of a holy law.
Further, Apostle Matthias F. Cowley said in 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." (Smoot Inv., 1904, 1:8) Was not the 1890 Manifesto to
disannul?
Joseph Smith warns: "See to it that you do not betray the revelations
of God, whether in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants,
or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in
this world or that which is to come. Lest innocent blood be found on your
skirts, and you go down to hell." (Hist. Rec. 7:468) The revelation on
celestial plural marriage, Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, was
betrayed. It was repealed as far as many Saints were concerned.
We reprint also the Petition For Amnesty which followed on the heels
of the Manifesto. It was presented to the President of the United States
on December 19, 1891:
Petition For Amnesty
SALT LAKE, December 19,1891
"We, the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, beg respectfully to represent to 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. That doctrine
was publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, forty
years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-day
Saints up to a short time before September, 1890. Our people are devout
and sincere, and they accepted the doctrine, and many personally embraced
and practiced polygamy.
"When the Government sought to stamp the practice out, our people,
almost without exception, remained firm, for they, while having no desire
to oppose the Government in anything, still felt that their lives and
their honor as men were pledged to a vindication of their faith; and that
their duty towards those whose lives were a part of their own was a
paramount one, to fulfill which they had no right to count anything, not
even their [64] own lives, as standing in the way. Following this
conviction hundreds endured arrest, trial, fine and imprisonment, and the
immeasurable suffering borne by the faithful people, no language can
describe. That suffering, in abated form, still continues.
"More, the Government added disfranchisement to its other punishments
for those who clung to their faith and fulfilled its covenants.
"According to our faith the head of our Church receives, from time to
time, revelations for the religious guidance of his people.
"In September, 1890, the present head of the Church, in anguish and
prayer, cried to God for help for his flock, and received permission to
advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended.
"At the great semi-annual conference which was held a few days later,
this was submitted to the people, numbering many thousands and
representing every community of the people of Utah, and was by them in the
most solemn manner accepted as the future rule of their lives.
"They have since been faithful to the covenant made that day.
"At the last October conference, after a year had passed by, the
matter was once more submitted to the thousands of people gathered
together, and they again in the most potential manner, ratified the solemn
covenant.
"This being the true situation and believing that the object of the
government was simply the vindication of its own authority and to compel
obedience to its laws, and that it takes no pleasure in persecution, we
respectfully pray that full amnesty may be extended to all who are under
disabilities because of the operation of the so-called Edmunds and
Edmunds-Tucker laws. Our people are scattered; homes are made desolate;
many are still imprisoned; others are banished or in hiding. Our hearts
bleed for those. In the past they followed our counsels, and while they
are thus afflicted our souls are in sack cloth and ashes.
"We believe there are nowhere in the Union a more loyal people than
the Latter-day Saints. They know no other country except this. They expect
to live and die on this soil.
"When the men of the South, who were in rebellion against the
government in 1865, threw down their arms and asked for recognition along
the old lines of citizenship, the Government [65] hastened to grant their
prayer.
"To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow
citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the
government and people, our people have voluntarily put aside something
which all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle. Have
they not the right to ask for such clemency as comes when the claims of
both law and justice have been fully liquidated? As shepherds of a patient
and suffering people, we ask amnesty for them, and pledge our faith and
honor for their future.
"And your petitioners will ever pray."
Wilford Woodruff
Lorenzo Snow
Francis M. Lyman
John W. Taylor
Anthon H. Lund
George Q. Cannon
Franklin D. Richards
H. J. Grant
Joseph F. Smith
Moses Thatcher
John Henry Smith
M. W. Merrill
Abraham H. Cannon
(2:547-9)
The Petition is embarrassing. We remember the words of Brigham Young:
"There is nothing that would so soon 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." (J.D., 10:32) The Petition says, "To be at peace
with the Government and in harmony with their fellow citizens ......
In contrast with Brigham Young, a Church President in modern times,
Heber J. Grant, said: "My greatest happiness I find in the good will and
friendship that has developed among all classes of people at home and
abroad toward the Latter-day Saints, during my lifetime; in place of
everyday persecutions and bitterness we now enjoy the high regard and
happy association with all denominations." (S.L. Trib., Nov. 22, 1938) We
have a dilemma here. Which is the sound word?
Brigham Young again: "When we see the time that we can willingly
strike hands and have full fellowship with those who despise the Kingdom
of God, know ye then that the Priesthood of the Son of God is out of your
possession!" (J.D., 10:273) How shall we view such a pronouncement, except
to know of all surety that the Lord made such arrangement as to secure the
Priesthood and [66] perpetuate His full law?
The direction of our persuasion is unquestionable. Consider James
4:4, "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?
Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
"To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow
citizens ...." The reader may judge for himself.
"THAT MANIFESTO"
In examining the Woodruff Manifesto, first let it be established that
the memory of President Wilford Woodruff is deeply reverenced. His life
and character are beyond reproach, and it is not he who is on trial. He
was a true servant of the Lord, a man of honor, integrity and deep
humility. His life was dedicated to the building up of the Kingdom of God,
and he performed a mighty work.
When John Taylor approached the Lord in 1886 about acceding to the
pressures from within and without the Church, the Lord was firm in His
unwillingness to revoke the law of plural marriage. John Taylor, after
inquiring of the Lord, said that the Manifesto presented to him by no less
a light than George Q. Cannon, and associates, was "from the lower
regions," and he refused to sign it.
As we have outlined, by 1890 President Woodruff and the Church were
against the wall. The insistence of the majority of Church members for a
move to appease the government was unrelenting. It is reminiscent of
Joseph Smith's importuning the Lord on behalf of Martin Harris to give him
part of the Book of Mormon manuscript. Having been told no, Joseph still
persisted because of the persuasion of Martin Harris. The Lord yielded,
and we know the result. But that incident no more destroyed the Book of
Mormon than did the Manifesto destroy plural marriage. President Woodruff
was "inspired" to issue the Manifesto in the same manner that Joseph Smith
was "inspired" to give up the 116 pages of the manuscript to Harris. In
the same manner, ancient Israel received a king in the stead of a prophet.
The king in modern Israel was monogamy. One can blame Wilford Woodruff no
more than one can blame Samuel.
The faith of the Saints was wavering, and the temporal salvation of
the Church was at stake. The attitude of the Saints in 1890 is both
understandable and disappointing. They had had [67] crises after crises
heaped upon them. The older Saints had known drivings and plunderings
before. They had been greatly outraged by their enemies in Kirtland and
Nauvoo. But they did not compromise principles. There was no more occasion
for making a public surrender of their principles of salvation in
President Woodruff's day than there was in the earlier days. The Lord
promised to fight their battles if they would prove faithful. The promise
is restated in the revelations of 1880 and 1889. Nevertheless, the
prospects of once again having their temporal achievements crumble around
them proved weightier than the prospects of crippling their spiritual
progress by relinquishing a holy law. Additionally, their Church holdings
would also fall into the hands of their enemies. Their assessment of the
sufferings ahead was certainly correct.
However, a better course was expected of them. Apostle Matthias F.
Cowley expressed the feelings of many of the faithful Saints. He said in
1901: "I wish to remind you of a certain revelation (1882) given you
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 had obeyed that command and
revelation given through President Taylor, there would have been no
Manifesto." (3:325) (Observation: It does not sound as though Apostle
Cowley questioned the 1882 revelation as being binding upon the Church.
And were it not binding, President Grant had no appointment. To say the
1882 revelation must have been binding but the other revelations were not,
is absurd.)
The situation was, then, that the Saints as a people assumed all
responsibility and voluntarily surrendered plural marriage. They so stated
in their Petition For Amnesty. God had nothing to do with it, only insofar
as He permitted the people to use their own agency in accepting or
rejecting the responsibility of His law. It must be admitted and taken
into account in our analysis of our standing with God, that we cannot give
up principles without suffering the consequences.
Incident to an investigation of the Manifesto, one soon learns that
President Woodruff did not write it. It was written by Charles W. Penrose,
assisted by Elder Frank J. Cannon and John White. After its preparation,
it was submitted to a committee of non-Mormons, Judges Charles S. Zane,
C.S. Varian, and O.W. Powers, none of whom were well known for their
friendship for [68] the Mormons and their institutions. A change, of
wording was insisted upon in the Manifesto, and the document was recopied
by a clerk named Green. It would seem unusual that the Lord would dictate
a statement to His mouthpiece upon the earth that required a committee to
render it intelligible.
President Woodruff, fully aware of the situation and the designs of
the Lord, signed the completed document. But he knew that the fulness of
the gospel was restored to be perpetuated, that the Manifesto would serve
to "beat the devil at his own game." (Stated by Apostle John Henry Smith,
2:375-377) The dire circumstances of the time prevented him from making a
full disclosure to the Saints, and certainly not to the government, of the
several purposes the Manifesto would serve. The Lord has often used
Satan's evil to accomplish the Lord's good. The Manifesto rendered unto
Caesar that which was his, but God's work was to go on. Diversionary
tactics have been employed by the Lord's servants since the beginning of
time. For example, Abraham led King Abimelech to believe Sarah to be his
sister. Moses had hidden motive in asking Pharoah's permission for his
people to go "three days' journey in the wilderness" to worship their God.
In 1844 Joseph Smith declared polygamy to be a "false and corrupt"
doctrine while he and his associates were living the principle, because it
was necessary to do so. (2:505. See also 1:6, 3:23) President Joseph F.
Smith on one occasion said that Joseph practiced plural marriage,
"notwithstanding their seeming denials .... Those denials can be
explained, and have been, and while they are true in the sense for which
they were designed, they are not denials of plural or celestial marriage
as taught by Joseph and Hyrum Smith ...." (Hist. Rec. 6:219-220; Des.
News, May 20, 1886) The Manifesto was another such necessity in its time
and was also "true in the sense for which it was designed." It, too, had
other purposes to accomplish.
Obviously, many of the Saints were ready to take President Woodruff's
advice. It was good counsel for the willing majority. But celestial plural
marriage was a "law of the Priesthood." For over 20 years after it was
revealed to Joseph the Prophet, the Church knew nothing about it. Being a
law of the Priesthood, plural marriage as a law of God cannot be affected
by Church vote, nor can the practice of it. It is a law to the Church, not
of it. Nothing less than direct revelation can relieve the Priesthood from
living that law. The Church leaders took that stand, and their own lives
attest to the fact that the Manifesto did not [69] "concern" them. One has
only to read the Smoot Hearings in the 1904 Congressional Record alone to
know the attitude of the brethren after the 1890 Manifesto. Public record,
however antagonistic, was made of plural marriages long after the
Manifesto among the leading church officials and others. (3:418) If plural
marriages were to stop, why didn't they?
The Apostleship embraces the right to the perpetuation of all the
revealed word of God, regardless of the opposition from the devil or man.
The privilege of participation in these blessings might, however, be
withdrawn from certain individuals or at various times from the Church, as
necessity demands, in order that God's work might be perpetuated.
President Woodruff issued his advice and then proceeded to arrange for
plural marriages to be performed outside the jurisdiction of the United
States. They could well say they were not performing plural marriages,
inasmuch as the assignment was given to others. These facts are
established. They do not sound like the actions of a man commanded by the
Lord to have the practice stopped.
With the issuance of the Manifesto, the Church had taken its first
step in making friends with the government. In its efforts toward its
honeymoon with the world, the Church added an unwritten interpretation to
its Manifesto. Samuel W. Taylor records in Family Kingdom: "The Territory
was on its good behavior, desperately trying to be admitted to statehood.
In its eagerness to pacify the world, the Church was interpreting the
Manifesto officially to mean that men shouldn't live with plural wives
taken before the Manifesto, an extremely precarious position because
everyone knew there was no intention of following this policy. It was a
matter of expediency, the sort of thing that made Father contemptuous of
the word `policy.'" (page 68) We discover that Joseph F. Smith, president
of the Church, later insisted that the Manifesto be called the "rule" of
the Church, not its "law." (3:332) He knew that the Lord did not intend
that His designs would fail.
Not all of the plans involving issuing a Manifesto went according to
schedule. Clamorings for abandonment of plural marriage by Mormons and
non-Mormons alike had to be heeded. So the policy developed under the
circumstances was: 1) Issue a Manifesto, 2) Make it binding upon the
Church, leaving the Priesthood to act independently of it, particularly
outside of the United States, 3) Obtain statehood and thereby
self-government, 4) Pass legislation favorable to resuming plural
marriage.
[70]
However, a fly appeared in the ointment in the form of the state
constitution. It was set up under the requirements of the Enabling Act of
1895, which expressly forbade plural marriages forever without the consent
of the President of the United States and of Congress. The most
heartbreaking realization of all was that so large a percentage of Mormons
themselves were prepared to abandon the principle of plural marriage.
That was the situation. The Manifesto is not a blazing issue. It was
incidental to the changing attitude of the Saints and a government
employing unconstitutional demands. "An incident but never an essential"
more aptly applies to the Manifesto. That the document was necessary at
that time is conceded. But the reason it was necessary is unfortunate,
from the standpoint of both Saint and government. The Lord gives all men
freedom to insist. His concern was to save what was savable. That was the
real issue. The Manifesto becomes obscured, and it seems senseless to
travail over it as many do.
That the document was not a revelation is easily ascertained. Its
content and presentation leave little doubt that it was formulated by man.
Joseph Smith established a key when he was in Liberty Jail: "If anything
should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, except by
commandment, or `Thus saith the Lord,' we do not consider it binding."
(3:295)
If the Manifesto were God's revelation binding all Saints, then they
are most terribly bound indeed. "And Zion cannot be built up unless it is
by the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom; otherwise I cannot
receive her unto myself." (D.&C. 105:5) Unless all laws are perpetuated,
Zion will never be built up and received by the Lord. The Lord did not
design for this people to "break the first tablets" and live under the law
of the second. The fulness of the Gospel necessary to exalt mankind was
given through the Prophet Joseph to this people, not to be yielded up
again. Orson Pratt said: "Jesus will have to stay a long time in the
heavens providing that monogamist principles are the only principles that
will be introduced. In fact, He never can come, for the scriptures say the
heavens must retain him until all things are restored." (J.D. 17:221) This
is significant.
The contemporary writer, Samuel Woolley Taylor, whose book we have
already mentioned, points to another item of truth in his writings:
"`People say something will have to be done. Plural marriages are
secret now. I've heard the Principle might be put aside [71] by the
Church. Really.'
"His stubborn jaw set. `Whatever is done officially, the Principle
will go on!'
"`I don't believe I understand, John.'
"`The Principle was a secret doctrine for years before it was given
to the world or even to our people as a whole. It may have to become one
again. That won't change it.'
"`But, Brother Taylor, we are guided by revelation. If the Principle
is put aside, it will be because of the Lord's command.'
"`It will be because of policy,' he said with blunt scorn. `Man has
his free agency. The law of God never changes. Today the Church sanctions
plurality, but only a few have the courage and faith to undertake it. The
rest of our people exercise their free agency to reject it. If the Church
abandons the Principle as official policy, it will be exercising its own
free agency in the matter. And a man `Will still have his free agency to
obey the law of God.'" (Family Kingdom, p. 40) This was precisely the
situation.
The essence of the matter has been summed up many times. President
Woodruff's action, combined with the vote of the people, had the effect of
discontinuing the practice of plural marriage as a Church rite, but it in
no sense affected the living of the principle under the authority of the
Priesthood. President Woodruff, in making arrangement for exercising the
sealing authority independent of the Church, was but continuing the acts
of President John Taylor in 1886. Again, it is unquestionable that the
Lord would provide for the continuation of plural marriage in fulfillment
of His words.
Therefore, Lorin Woolley's testimony is one that falls into its
natural place and position in the Lord's designs. It could not be
otherwise. Although there are ceaseless efforts to discredit his testimony
and witness of the eight-hour meeting referred to in preceding pages, it
takes a far greater stretch of the imagination to believe that it did not
occur, than that it did. Opponents of the Woolley testimony base their
claim on the fact that none of the participants in the eight-hour meeting
made record of the event in their diaries. The very fact that none does,
proves that not one of those men, in keeping with the confidence placed in
them, violated that trust by mentioning anything about it.
Perpetuation of the Patriarchal Order of Marriage has continued
uninterrupted until the present time, despite strange and unauthorized
factions. It is destined to continue until all [72] things are united as
one in Christ. In the Fall, 1971, edition of the Utah Historical
Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 359, we read: "President Woodruff was quoted
by Smith [John Henry] as stating at a meeting in the Manti Temple in May
of 1888 that, `We won't quit practising Plural Marriage until Christ shall
come.'" This is also found in Apostle John Henry Smith's journal under
date of 17 May 1888.
In summation, the words of the Lord are explicit. He declared in
1880, "That people or nation hindering my people from obeying the
Patriarchal law of Abraham, shall be damned." He said in 1882, "Seymour
must conform to my law." He said in 1886, "I have not revoked this law,
nor will I" He said in 1889, "I cannot deny my word. Make no further
pledges." What are we left to conclude? Without the fulness of the Gospel,
the earth cannot be redeemed. (See Section Twelve.)
It is of interest to note a conversation during the taking of
depositions in the Temple Lot Case in March of 1892, involving Lorenzo
Snow:
"Question: Well, is it not a fact that it was a rule of he Church
that if anybody should undertake to follow a principle that was not
accepted, and was not accepted as a principle and true doctrine in the
Church, that they would be violators of a law of the Church?
"L. Snow: Yes sir. But there are exceptions to all law." (3:245)
That is where the matter stands.
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE ON THE MANIFESTO
"That Manifesto" (Fri. 26 Sept. 1890)
"It seems that Pres. Woodruff of the Mormon Church has caused a
dispatch to be sent through the Associated Press to the newspapers of the
United States, giving his advice to the Latter-day Saints to refrain from
contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. It is
unnecessary to say that that is not the usual way by which the President
of the Mormon Church makes his decrees known." (2:444)
"That Manifesto" (Sat. 27 Sept. 1890)
"There is nothing, when we come to examine it closely, in this
Manifesto of Pres. Woodruff. He merely says that he advises his people not
to engage in polygamy, since the law against it has [73] been declared
constitutional. That law was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court
years ago, and since then the predecessor of Pres. Woodruff, in a
manifesto very much more imposing than this, declared that for the Saints
to abandon polygamy would be damnation. In this manifesto, Pres. Woodruff
cautiously advises the people. That is not the style in which manifestos
are given to the Mormon people by their chiefs. That law was the last time
declared constitutional prior to the meeting of last April's Conference,
and yet at that Conference the same old exactions were insisted upon, the
same discipline, the same rules; and there was not one breath of anything
that looked like giving up polygamy or of relaxing in the slightest one
tenet of their faith.
"Hence, we believe, and it is with a feeling which is conclusive
evidence on our part, that this Manifesto was not intended to be accepted
as a command by the President of the Church, but as a little bit of
harmless dodging to deceive the people of the East, and especially the men
in Congress. ..." (2:448)
Following is the testimony of a contemporary witness, who was well
known by the writer:
Salt Lake City, Utah
August 4, 1956
"Dear Brother ________________:
"In response to your inquiry as to authorship of the Manifesto of
1890, the following events which occurred on my mission to England and
Wales during 1907 and 1908, might give you a satisfactory answer. Should
anyone be interested, I have also made this statement in the form of a
sworn Affidavit, which was made and placed on file in 1935.
"The following is a true and correct statement of an occurrence that
transpired in Bristol, England, on November 16, 17 and 18, in the year
1907, while I was on an LDS mission in that country:
"By request of Charles W. Penrose, I was transferred from Nottingham
Conference to Wales, my birthplace, to finish the rest of my mission at
this time. So on the dates named above, I was with President R.J. Smith of
the Welch District, visiting Saints and investigators in Bristol during
those three days. President R.J. Smith said to me: `I am glad to have you
with me as I see that you have a strong testimony and implicit faith in
God. With our faith and prayers, Brother Rosser, I desire you to go with
me and testify of the knowledge and testimony which you [74] have of the
gospel.
"`We have one peculiar case here. The investigator believes in every
principle of the gospel but Plural Marriage. Perhaps, through the help of
the Lord, we can convince her that this is a true principle. I would like
to have her baptized before the coming conference.'
"We then went to this Sister's home, and I was introduced to the lady
by Elder Smith. After a few passing remarks, she said to us: `Brethren, I
am ready for baptism!' Brother Smith was much surprised, as well as
myself. He then said: `What has now taken place?' She then answered,
`Brethren, only yesterday while doing my washing out there on the porch, I
heard the voice of the Lord saying that Plural Marriage is true and was
instituted from before the foundation of the world. Brethren, I am 55
years old ... I don't expect to enter the Principle, but nevertheless, I
know it is true!' Upon hearing this, brother Smith and I left, rejoicing
because of the testimony she had borne to us.
"I then left for Treoracbry, Wales, my birthplace, and labored there
until May 23, 1908. Then I went back to Bristol, my headquarters, to a
conference, which was held Sunday, May 24, 1908. On Monday morning, the
25th, our Conference Priesthood Meeting was held, which lasted four hours
and a half. After the preliminary exercises, President Charles W. Penrose
asked if any of the brethren had any questions on their minds, and if so,
to present them now before he delivered his message to us.
"Up went my hand. `All right,'he said. `President Penrose,' I said,
`I have heard much discussion on the principle of Plural Marriage, some
saying that it is withdrawn from the earth and that the Manifesto was a
revelation from God. Dear President, what about this case? Then I related
to him the testimony of the Sister, which is written above, and then I
asked him, `Why should she receive this testimony if God has withdrawn
that principle from the earth, and the Manifesto is a true revelation from
God?'
"President Penrose then rose to his feet, scratched the side of his
head with his right hand for a moment or so, then stretched out his right
hand toward us and said, `Brethren, I will answer that question, if you
will keep it under your hats. I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifesto
with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. It's no revelation
from God, for I wrote it. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the Devil at
his own game. Brethren, how can God withdraw an everlasting Principle from
the earth? He has not, and can not, and I testify to you as a [75] servant
of God that this is true.'
"The reason this statement is given is because I have heard so much
discussion as to whether or not the Manifesto of 1890 is a revelation from
God, and so I wish to relate here with the understanding given to us at
the Bristol Conference by Charles W. Penrose on May 25,1908."
Sincerely your brother,
Thomas J. Rosser
[76]
[77]
SECTION SIX
"CAST OUT OF OUR SYNAGOGUES"
Marriage is one of the spires of the spirit. It is a "time of
hyacinths" for those who have recognized a former covenant in the still
center of their souls. The delicate imprint of their former celestial home
remains in heart and soul, and they know that exaltation is a family
thing.
The holiness of marriage was taught by God Himself in the Garden of
Eden. Altars and Temples where sacred ordinances can be performed are a
vital part of the history of God's dealings with man. At great sacrifice
and privation, the Saints caught the spirit of Temple work and forged
ahead to build their Temples, for man must have a holy, sacred place
wherein he covenants again with God.
Who does not rejoice in going to the House of the Lord, the ideal
place and setting to unite companions in holy marriage for time and all
eternity? Who does not rejoice before the holy altars there? But some of
the Saints have been cast out. What of them? They are found dedicated to
the full law of celestial plural marriage, and they have been cast out. It
is often said, "Those plural marriages cannot be binding because celestial
marriages cannot be performed except in the Temples." What of those
marriages?
We refer to a similar occasion in the scriptures. Approximately
seventy-four years before the birth of the Lord, a group of Nephite
dissenters, the Zoramites, were visited by the Prophet Alma. Alma found a
large group of people who had become somewhat distasteful to the majority.
In this case it was because of their "exceeding poverty," because of the
"coarseness of their apparel." Their humble cottages were no match for the
local Rameumptom which graced the center of the synagogues, presided over
by the more affluent. With the perception of his prophetic calling, Alma
saw that their hearts were poor and humbled because of their
circumstances, and he rejoiced. Here was fertile field for the word of
God.
Downcast and disheartened, the people inquired of Alma as to how they
could worship God when they were denied access to the synagogues. Alma
replied, "Behold thy brother hath said, [78] `What shall we do?--for we
are cast out of our synagogues, that we cannot worship our God.' Behold I
say unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in your
synagogues only? ... Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your
God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say unto
you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and ye
ought to search the scriptures; if ye suppose that they have taught you
this, ye do not understand them." (Alma 32:9-10, 33:2)
Alma taught them of the worship of God whether in synagogue or
wilderness, whether in the fields or in the midst of congregations. To
worship God involves more than prayer and tithing and meetings. It
involves the keeping of all of His commandments, participation in all of
the ordinances restored to man for the sanctification of his life and for
the glory of God. To cast someone out of the Lord's Church is a grievous
thing, and it may or may not have the sanction of the Lord. However,
judgment and setting in order belong to the Lord and are in His hands.
Plural marriage was ordained of God, and those living that principle under
the Priesthood of God are as much entitled to the blessings of Heaven and
the benediction of God as were any who entered into the principle since
its introduction, providing they abide in it with the intention of serving
God with an eye single to His glory.
It is not in harmony with the prophets of God to assume that such
marriages cannot be performed outside of the Temples. Our traditions have
become so ingrained, that were Lorenzo Snow, Heber C. Kimball, John
Taylor, Brigham Young and the Prophet Joseph himself to walk among us
today, they would have to be excommunicated for their actions. All of
those holy men, and others, had wives sealed to them outside of the
Temples.
Anthony W. Ivins had no Temples in Mexico, nor was there one in
Canada before 1923, and certainly none was to be found upon the high seas.
Countless lay members of the Church since its organization up to the time
of the Manifesto and subsequent to that time, had their wives sealed to
them by the Priesthood in offices or homes or in the woods or upon
mountain tops, by those holding the authority of the sealing power. Few
would undertake to dispute that fact.
We are taught by Brigham Young: "There are many of the ordinances of
the house of God that must be performed in a Temple that is erected
expressly for the purpose. There are [79] other ordinances that we can
administer without a Temple .... We also have the privilege of sealing
women to men without a temple. This we can do in the Endowment House; but
when we come to other sealing ordinances, ordinances pertaining to the
Holy Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from Father Adam
until now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our
forefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a Temple. But we can seal
women to men, but not men to men, without a Temple." (J.D. 16:186)
It must be understood that without celestial or plural marriage,
there is no eternity of the marriage covenant, for so the prophets have
stated. (See the Summary) Therefore, all of the Temples in the world will
have no influence in eternity if the full marriage law has not been
entered into. It becomes as much a state of monogamy if performed within
the precincts of a Temple as it is if performed outside of a Temple, if a
man remains with one wife. "Temple marriages" do not fill God's law of
eternal marriage, in a monogamous state. The Lord specifies that without
plural marriage, there can be no eternal sealing. We have cited references
on that issue throughout this work. The Temple, the altar, the sincerity
of the people cannot sanctify or make eternal a marriage, if it is not
performed after the order of eternal lives. If we no longer have the right
given us to perform plural marriages, then we must accept that there are
no eternal marriages performed. President Joseph F. Smith makes this
exceedingly plain in Section One, to which the reader may again refer.
Let us consider for a moment the first part of our marriage vows, the
covenant we make in the Temple. These are the words to which we listen in
our ceremony, and they are only part: "Do you, brother _____, take sister
_____, by the right hand, to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be
her lawful and wedded husband, for time and for all eternity, with a
covenant and promise on your part that you will fulfill all the laws,
rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and
everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these
witnesses, of your own free will and choice?" (Mill. Star, 15:214) The
same is then asked of the sister on her part.
If that marriage completes the covenant, if that marriage fills the
full law, why are the parties placed under covenant "that you will fulfill
all the laws, rites and ordinances" pertaining to [80] that covenant?
What, then, are "all the laws, rites and ordinances" pertaining to the
marriage covenant? Have the married partners entered into any more
covenants pertaining to holy matrimony? We promise to "fulfill" them as
they pertain to the everlasting covenant of marriage, and they
specifically involve the full law of celestial plural marriage as revealed
through the Prophet Joseph Smith and as outlined in D.&C. Section 132. It
is the law. It is the order practiced in the heavens, of which the order
on earth is a pattern. (See Section Ten, page 136) Therefore, unless the
law is fulfilled, what is a "Temple marriage" but monogamy for the very
same reason it would be monogamy on the outside of the Temple? There is
more to the law and covenant, and the prophets have made that very clear.
The Lord has given us the true order of marriage by commandment, and it is
binding upon the Priesthood of this dispensation. It is a blessing to have
marriages performed within the Lord's House. But if it is not possible,
they can be entered into in righteousness and sacredness by Priesthood
authority outside of those structures.
Apostle Charles C. Rich emphasized in 1877: "... A Temple is the
proper place in which to perform these sacred ordinances. We learn from
our past history and experience that there have been deviations from this
rule from time to time.... There are ordinances that can only be
administered in a Temple, hence the importance of completing the Temple so
that these ordinances may be administered for the living and for the dead.
In relation to this deviation from this rule pertaining to sealings and
endowments, we understand that the Priesthood is greater than the Temple,
and that which is sealed on earth by those holding the keys, is sealed in
heaven." (J.D. 19:164)
John Taylor also puts our minds at rest: "I was asked if certain
ordinances could be performed in different places. I told them, yes, under
certain circumstances. `Where,' I was asked `anywhere besides in temples?'
Yes. `Anywhere besides the Endowment House?' Yes. `Where, in some other
house?' In another house or out of doors, as the circumstances might be
.... Thus under such circumstances we perceive that our operations
elsewhere will be all correct; it makes no difference. It is the authority
of the Priesthood, not the place, that validates and sanctifies the
ordinance. I was asked if people could be sealed outside. Yes. I have told
them I was sealed outside, and lots of others .... I will say that man was
not made for Temples, but Temples were made for man, under the direction
of the Priest-[81]hood, and without the Priesthood Temples would amount to
nothing.
"I speak of these things for your information; but men are not
authorized to act foolishly about these matters. The Temples are places
that are appropriated for a great many ordinances, and among these
ordinances that of marriage; but, then if we are interrupted by men who do
not know about our principles, that is all right, it will not impede the
work of God, or stop the performance of ordinances. Let them do their
work, and we will try and do ours." (1:343-345)
Under present circumstances, the Saints desiring to abide by a
fulness of the laws of the Lord are positively prohibited from receiving
this ordinance in Temples dedicated for the use of the Priesthood in
administering the law of the Lord. The Temples do not rule, the Priesthood
does, and other places may be sanctified as Temples when necessity
warrants, as it has in the past and as it does presently.
After Alma had concluded talking to the Zoramite poor, his companion,
the prophet Amulek, spoke to them. His words are significant to every
Latter-day Saint: "This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God;
yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their
labors .... For after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for
eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then
cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed."
(Alma 34:32-35) The full law of the gospel is for here and now. (Note also
D.&C. 132:22-24)
The wheels of history seem always to grind toward a full circle. The
Nephites were cast out of their synagogues. Many in Christ's time were
also cast out. We note the attitude of a few in Christ's day of whom we
unfortunately have counterparts in our day: "Nevertheless among the chief
rulers also many believed on him; But because of the Pharisees they did
not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogues." (John
12:42) There are many among the Latter-day Saints with like fears. But
there are also many who will go forward in God's laws regardless of the
cost, for they are not willing to walk in by-paths and live at a "poor
dying rate." Therefore, many among us suffer being "cast out of the
synagogue."
But we understand that because of His insistence upon living the full
law, even the Lord lost His Temple recommend.
[82]
[83]
SECTION SEVEN
CONTEMPORARY WITNESSES
These are times of increasing peril to the Saints. It is most urgent
that the people should possess the spirit of revelation in their own
hearts. Plural marriages under the umbrella of Priesthood authority have
never ceased. The things of God are known by the Spirit of God, and we
invite all Latter-day Saints to know for themselves that our witness is
God's truth.
We present here some items of supportive evidence of the works of God
in the matter under consideration, in order to make such evidence a matter
of record. But it is a weighty responsibility. Some available evidence
must be held in reserve until a future time when it will reflect neither
upon the Church nor upon individuals who are involved, or whose family
members are still living and would suffer from untimely disclosure. We
trust it may be generally accepted that a little evidence is indicative of
more evidence, and the following is presented for consideration.
It is critical to understand that this work is not an effort against
the Church or its members, for it is folly to build up on the one hand and
tear down on the other. Rather, the intent is singular, to support and
give substance to the issue of plural marriage and its uninterrupted
perpetuation. May we note first that Dr. Hugh W. Nibley's book, Since
Cumorah, poses a position relative to the rationalists and believers of
very early days, which is definitive in its application to our present
issue. He writes of a "horizontal" and a "vertical" type of religion, or
the influences within a religion. The latter has revelation from God and
walks in obedience to His commandments. The former does the best it can
and walks in obedience to the forms and observances according to the
pressures of the world. (p. 272) This concept is, of course, not only
applicable to religions, but it applies very distinctly to every
individual. We are also, in varying degrees, rationalists or believers and
court motivation through horizontal or vertical seeking. The spirit of
revelation is the true guide to know of the things of God.
It was the privilege of the writer, together with six witnesses, now
living, to examine the Diary of President Anthony W. Ivins. Just prior to
the death of his son, Elder Stanley Ivins, [84] we were invited to his
home in 1965. Stanley Ivins assured us at that time that the diary would
be entrusted to the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. We were informed that
he, Stanley, had offered the diary to President Heber J. Grant, who said
the diary was "too hot to keep."
Upon examination, we found the recorded dates and names of several
hundred marriages performed at the Anthony W. Ivins Mansion at Colonia
Juarez, Chihuahua, Old Mexico. Elder Stanley Ivins showed us the names of
many couples, about 100 or more in number, which he said were "likely
plural marriages."
The six men, as well as the writer, were able to personally identify
many of the persons Elder Ivins thought were parties to plural marriages.
Among them were Presidents of Stakes and others of high ecclesiastical
authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some of the
couples were near-relatives to the six witnesses. Among these were the
parents and grandparents of three of the six, which was substantiated by
Elder Stanley Ivins, who also knew them. These three are the offspring of
those illustrious couples joined in holy wedlock by President Anthony W.
Ivins. The couples were married by the authority of his Apostolic
appointment, in his own Mansion. These unions were sanctioned by the
President of the Church, to their certain knowledge. Moreover, those thus
sealed were engaged in the practice of plural marriage, with the marriages
sanctioned many years after the 1890 Manifesto. Their numerous offspring
are yet to be found in great numbers among the most faithful in the
Church. Many who were listed as witnesses of these sealings were also
engaged, to the certain knowledge of the six, in the sanctioned practice
of celestial plural marriage. An estimate was given in the Improvement
Era, about 1969, to the effect that 65% of the Elders in the mission field
had polygamous parentage.
Three of the six, as stated, found verification of the testimonies
they heard from their parents that President Ivins had indeed performed
these marriages, some as late as the fall of 1903. The exact place and
dates and witnesses were in every instance fully established. We do not
feel free at this time to name these noble people. To do so would
certainly embarrass those who are ashamed of the truth. "And truth is
knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to
come." (D.&C. 93:24) Further, to do so might endanger the standing in the
Church of many of its worthy representatives. Others might [85] well be
excommunicated, as many have been, for offering proof of the existence of
such truth. Prison threatens others, as many already know, because they
were obliged to acknowledge these things as true.
At any rate, the diary is numbered among the evidence of the
perpetuation of plural marriage within the Church, in contradiction to the
Manifesto of 1890, and in support of the words of the Lord and the Prophet
Joseph. (D.&C. 112:30, 128:18)
The writer's father was a young man of 17 years in St. Charles, Bear
Lake County, Idaho, in 1887, when Apostle John W. Taylor visited the
Saints there. He took father aside on that occasion and read the 1886
revelation to him. Apostle Taylor told the writer's father that the
principle of plural marriage would never be done away and would be lived.
In 1901-2, the writer's father was in a Ward Bishopric in Star
Valley, Wyoming. The Stake President, George Osmond, came to him and read
from the 1882 revelation to John Taylor. President Osmond told the
writer's father that no man could stand in a presiding position in the
Church unless he had a family in order and was living the law of plural
marriage, in accordance with that revelation. The writer's father mulled
the situation over for a considerable time. The admonition that he had to
conform to the law compelled him finally to write a letter to President
Joseph F. Smith, concerning the issue of plural marriage. He was further
motivated to do so by the fact that his first wife had experienced a dream
in which she saw her husband's second wife, the writer's mother. No answer
was received to his letter to President Smith.
However, two months later, Louis A. Kelsch, one of the Presidents of
the Council of Seventy of the Church, came to the Conference which was
held in Montpelier, Idaho, in 1902. He contacted the writer's father after
the first meeting of Conference. Elder Kelsch told him that he had been
sent to him by President Joseph F. Smith, in answer to his letter. He had
been told to warn father that Apostle Francis M. Lyman, who was the Senior
representative from the Authorities at the Conference, was not to be told
of the matter regarding father's inquiry into plural marriage.
Father talked to him in the meeting house, along with his first wife,
and asked what he should do. After the talk they met with Dr. Arthur
Benjamin Clark, father of the writer's mother, and made arrangements to go
to dinner with them at the latter's home. At this home, the writer's
father and mother and the first [86] wife made arrangements as to how to
proceed to enter into the holy law.
The writer's mother was instructed to go to Logan to get her Temple
Endowments. The parties were informed that the President of the Temple
would be made aware of the circumstances. Then she was to meet father in
Green River, Utah, and father would be there with his first wife, ready to
go to Old Mexico where President Ivins would seal them in the New and
Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. President Ivins would have already
received a recommendation from President Joseph F. Smith, with
instructions to perform the ceremony. President Ivins did perform the
ceremony, having received a recommendation carried by father, stating,
"This is to verify that the bearer, ______, is worthy and qualified to
enter into the United Order." The sealing in plural marriage was July 15,
1903.
This same couple, the writer's parents, was at the dedication of the
Cardston Temple on August 26, 1923. President Heber J. Grant dedicated the
building. The couple had with them all of their living children, nine in
number. The mother had been sealed, as stated above, in plural marriage in
Old Mexico by Anthony W. Ivins. They had been instructed by President
Ivins that if ever they should have opportunity to go into one of the
Temples and have their sealing re-performed, that it might be a matter of
record in the Temple and on the records of the Church, that they should
take advantage of that opportunity.
Just prior to his Dedicatory Prayer, President Grant had joyously
related how Apostle John W. Taylor had been sitting "in that chair" as a
witness to all the proceedings. This because Apostle Taylor had prophecied
in the name of the Lord that this holy house should be reared and
dedicated on this exact spot. The reader should perhaps be reminded that
Apostle Taylor was dead and had long since been excommunicated from the
Church for the practice of plural marriage in the United States after the
Manifesto. Yet, this excommunicated Apostle was privileged to be present
in this holy house at its Dedication, and his presence was witnessed by
none other than the president of the Church.
After President Grant's Dedicatory Prayer, those blessed to have the
privilege of attending were slowly dispersing. The Temple President,
Edward Wood, stood near by. The couple who had been married in plural
marriage by President Ivins in Old Mexico in 1903, approached President
Grant. Their children stood by as witnesses. As the father related the
instructions of [87] President Grant called, "Edward!" President Ivins,
Wood came to his side. "Take this couple to the holy altar. Seal them as
man and wife for time and for all eternity. Then seal their children to
them" directed President Grant to President Wood. The couple are now dead,
but eight of their children still live as witnesses to this important
occurrence.
The mother of these above witnesses told us that she personally had
attended and witnessed a number of the plural marriages performed by
President Ivins. She stated she personally knew about 75 couples who had
entered into plural marriage after the Manifesto, in Old Mexico. She said
that she and Winnie Porter Jessop had attended the marriage of Guy C.
Wilson, Stake President in Juarez (who lived with three wives in Salt Lake
City), when he had the daughter of President Anthony W. Ivins sealed to
him as a plural wife in 1906. (President Ivins for some reason seems to
have escaped the normal procedure of excommunication.)
She stated that the writer's grandfather, her father, had his fifth
wife sealed to him in 1905, that at least six couples had been sealed in
the plural relationship after 1904, after the pronouncement of President
Joseph F. Smith that plural marriages had "ceased in all the world."
Both parents of the writer related that their grandfather (father's
father) had attended the L.D.S. Conference at Salt Lake City in 1890,
having traveled from Star Valley, Wyoming. Grandfather had with him his
first and second wives and a lovely young lady of about 21 years, who
desired to enter their family as a plural wife.
At the Conference, the Manifesto was presented and adopted. These
fine people were deeply concerned. They hastened to President Woodruff for
instruction, relating to him their hopes and dreams, now seemingly dashed.
He said, "As President of the Church, I cannot counsel you in this matter.
I will send you to an Apostle. Will you promise to follow his directions?"
This they promised to do. They were sent to Apostle Matthias F. Cowley. He
told them how they could realize their hopes and dreams. Subsequently, the
young woman was sealed as a third wife to Grandfather. Her children are
faithful members of the Church all of them.
The above serves to corroborate the statement made to the writer by a
grandson of Wilford Woodruff. In 1970, this son of Apostle Abraham Owen
Woodruff described his experience as a [88] lad when he rode around "on
the buckboard" with Anthony W. Ivins and Matthias F. Cowley, as they
sealed plural marriages to help keep the principle alive in the earth.
Wilford Woodruff's granddaughter presently lives in the Salt Lake
Valley. She told the writer in 1970 that her mother was sealed to her
father, son of Wilford Woodruff, in the Salt Lake Temple in 1903, by
Matthias F. Cowley. This event is indicated in the family Bible in her
possession. This history was submitted in May 1969 to the Galena Camp of
the Far South Salt Lake County Camp of Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. Her
father, Wilford Woodruff's son, died in 1960.
As formerly stated, among the plural marriages performed by Anthony
W. Ivins were those performed by the request of the Presidency of the
Church. The writer has spoken personally with a former Stake President of
a neighboring state, who is presently living in the Salt Lake Valley. As
President, he received a letter from President Heber J. Grant in 1941,
instructing him to permit a member of his Stake High Council to enter into
the principle, but it was not to be made known. We wonder if President
Grant should not have been excommunicated.
The wife of one of these six witnesses to President Ivins' Diary
wrote to ask President Heber J. Grant if her husband's father and mother
had truly, as her husband insisted, been sealed by President Anthony W.
Ivins in plural marriage in Old Mexico. This excerpt is taken from
President Grant's letter, under date of November 15, 1935: "Your letter of
October 19 came during my absence from the City. I have read it for the
first time today. For a period of time after the issuing of the Manifesto,
plural marriages were performed in Old Mexico. I have not the slightest
doubt that President Ivins performed the sealing uniting your husband's
father and mother in polygamy in Mexico before this pronouncement of
President Joseph F. Smith (1904: 3:368-369). He has performed no such
ceremony in the United States for any living person."
Again, the writer knows positively that the President of a Stake,
Heber Allen, with whom he was intimately acquainted, had a second wife
sealed to him in Canada in 1912. President Joseph F. Smith, as has been
mentioned, instructed a select group of people there to enter that
principle, and President Allen was among the number. His second wife was a
teacher in the Raymond Academy, Alberta, Canada. In his declining years he
moved to Salt Lake City and died in 1956 while residing in the [89] home
of his second wife. The writer was personally acquainted with both of the
wives of this man, as well as the circumstances which motivated their
living plural marriage.
President Ephraim Chapman, for forty years President of the Manti
Temple, died in 1954. He left three plural wives whose names were listed
in his obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune. One of the three was the
writer's aunt, who had borne President Chapman a number of children since
the year 1912.
In 1951, Nellie Todd Taylor, plural wife of Apostle John W. Taylor,
visited the writer and his family. She spoke of the revelations of 1882
and 1886 and bore witness of her marriage to John W. Taylor many years
after the Manifesto, and of the necessity to go "on the underground." She
said she had given the 1886 revelation to Frank Taylor, who took it to the
Church Authorities. Later when she went to see it, they "couldn't find
it."
Such evidences are without end, that although plural marriages were
stopped "by the Church in all the world," it did not stop God or His
Priesthood from performing such marriages. The several issuances of
"little manifestos" subsequent to 1890, had the same intent and effect as
did the original, including President Smith's necessary 1904 statement.
The government was prodding again.
There was a very efficient "underground" system in operation for
several years, particularly during 1885-1889. President John Taylor called
several trusted men around him, all of those named in the eight-hour
meeting. One of those included was Elder Samuel Bateman, trusted bodyguard
to President Taylor and subsequently, to President Woodruff. He was a
member of the Kingdom of God organization. We wish to include in this
Section some excerpts from the book, "Little Gold Pieces," written by
Samuel Bateman's daughter. Juliaette Bateman Jensen, under copyright date
of 1948. She was a sister to Daniel R. Bateman. Her writings include items
from her father's diary. We think the readers will find it of interest.
Page 101: The author of the book writes: "There were various hiding
places called by secret names; they were usually designated by initials,
such as D O, the G Q C farm, O P A's or The Half-way House ... in every
city and town of any size there were hideouts, homes of trusted men and
women who were willing to share all they had, and who ran a great risk
themselves for harboring fugitives from the law. Sometimes these hideouts
[90] were the homes of relatives .... But generally speaking, the Exiles
did not go to homes of relatives who might be under suspicion. They sought
refuge with reliable members of the Church who had little or no connection
with the polygamists."
She then writes a description of the system of guards and signals
that were effectively used.
Page 103: The author continues: "Life became exceedingly difficult
for Mother and Aunt Harriet, Father's plural wife, during the years
between 1885 and 1889, when my father fled into Exile with other men.
Fortunately he was chosen by the president of the Church, John Taylor, to
be his chief body-guard, and later his nurse in his final illness."
Chapter 17 in the book is entitled, "Our Home a Hideout For Plural
Wives."
Chapter 18, entitled "D O," records an excerpt from her father's
diary under date of August 26, 1886: "All day at D O. Reading, pitching
quoits. D. R. Bateman came to where we are. At night Pratt and Burt came.
They thought the deps were on our track."
The author continues: "According to other records, President John
Taylor went into Exile February 1, 1885, for what he considered the best
good of the Church. I think my father must have entered the Underground at
the same time because his diary shows that he was special guard of
President Taylor's person, and also his nurse and companion. I presume he
was, at that time, head of all the guards from Bountiful to Kaysville."
Page 114: In the author's words, "Every evening after dark someone,
H. C. Birrell, James Malin, or Father went with the mail to the Half-way
House. There he met the man from Salt Lake City. Mail bags were exchanged.
Sometimes C. H. Wilcken brought the mail. Often men went to Salt Lake, or
on to D O, with the mail carriers. Father frequently speaks of meeting D.
R. B., his son, who brought special letters and packages from home."
Page 117: Samuel Bateman's writings: "In May of that same year, 1887,
the 17th, they received word at D O that the deputies were `calculating to
make a general raid from Bountiful to Kaysville.' I had Bro. Rouche see
that the guards were put out promptly at night. A. M. Cannon went home.
James (Malin) went after the mail to the Half-way House. Bro. Wooley went
home."
Notice the names of those trusted by President Taylor and George Q.
Cannon. Notice also the less than exalted respect they held for the law of
the land, as it pertained to their religious [91] freedom.
Page 119: "Sunday, Feb. 27, 1887 . . . President Taylor's wife,
Sophia, died, could not attend her funeral, held Sunday services. Bro.
Wilcken, Bro. Nuttall and myself were the only ones that spoke."
Page 120: The death of President Taylor: "There were around his dying
bed, Mary Taylor, Margaret Taylor, his widows; Pres. G. Q. Cannon, Pres.
J. F. Smith (just returned from Hawaii), L. J. Nuttall, C. H. Burrell,
James Malin, Bro. Rouche and wife."
"D O" was the home of Thomas F. Rouche, in Kaysville, Utah.
Page 123: Samuel Bateman's diary states: "Went to the President's
office. Met D. H. Wells and shook hands with him and Bro. Penrose. Bro.
G.Q.C. and J.F.S. and myself went down to Bro. Cannon's home. One other of
Bro. Smith's wives was there. We remained overnight."
Notice especially the following notation made by the author. The
brethren involved in the "underground" took special care as to what was
recorded in their diaries. Page 123: "These early trips to the President's
Office had to be made before the world was stirring. While the meetings
were in session, men were on guard to warn the Church Authorities of the
approach of any man that aroused suspicion. His accounts are very
carefully recorded." Make note of that, because it is true. Shall we fall
in, then, with the multitude who say the eight hour meeting of 1886 when
the Lord and Joseph instructed John Taylor to see that plural marriage was
perpetuated, did not happen because it is in no diaries at that time, on
that date, in that year? Could we realistically expect that event to be
written out in a diary?
The author continues: "Often he leaves out names of buildings and
merely writes, `the place where we were.'"
Page 125: Samuel Bateman became a guard and driver for President W.
Woodruff and his counselors after the death of President John Taylor.
Page 134: The author again: "Some years later (after 1890 Manifesto)
new offenders were excommunicated, among them my brother, Daniel, who,
during the days of the Underground, had helped guard the lives of the
Church authorities then in hiding. He had grown up in polygamy and
believed in it sincerely, but he did not enter it until after the death of
his wife Ellen. This was some twenty years or more after the Manifesto
which he did [92] not support."
Page 241: The author writes of her visit to "D O" in Kaysville on
July 28, 1946: "Mrs. Rouche (a daughter-in-law) took us to visit Elizabeth
Bailey Smith, who lived nearly a half mile away. She was a young woman at
the time of the President's death, and she was in the room at that time
.... She said Uncle Sam (Bateman), Pres. George Q. Cannon, Big Charlie
(Wilcken), Little Charlie (C. H. Burrell), and James Malin lived there
almost constantly during the eight months. President Joseph F. Smith was
there a great deal of the time, and there were many others."
These excerpts from the book are of interest because they reflect the
conditions of those times, the attitude of the Church leaders toward the
law, and more particularly showing who the trusted men were in those days.
They were men of honor and integrity toward God and His servants upon the
earth, and toward the restored law of plural marriage. These same men were
witnesses to the events surrounding the 1886 revelation which was to
perpetuate the principle. They were close to and trusted by President John
Taylor and President Wilford Woodruff and President Joseph F. Smith. We
would have to swallow quite a camel to dispute the events of the fall of
1886.
A similar publication of interest was produced in October of 1956. It
is A Review of Draper History, published by the Draper First Ward. We
quote from pages 22-24, entitled, "The Underground."
"In 1883 and the succeeding years to 1890, there were many
prosecutions for polygamy against the Latter-day Saints. In January, 1885,
President John Taylor felt that it was wise for him and a number of the
Twelve to leave Utah until the storm had spent in fury. These brethren
traveled to settlements in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
They returned to Utah in 1886 and learned that President Taylor's arrest
was planned by the non-Mormon officers.
"President Taylor went into `retirement' and was not found by the
non-Mormon officers. He continued to direct the Church and from time to
time issued epistles addressed to the Saints.
"During the summer of 1886 or 1887, President Taylor and his party
came to Draper and lived in the home of Henry Day. Included in this party
were: President John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, John Nuttall, their
scribe--Charles Burrell, President Taylor's valets--Samuel Bateman and
Charles Wilkins, and bodyguards--Andrew Burt, Jr., Daniel Bateman and a
man [93] named Pratt.
"The Day house was favorably situated. It was quite a distance from
the main traveled roads and made an ideal retreat for the brethren. Guards
were posted along the roads and the citizens were on the alert. When
visitors came, the brethren were always out of sight. On such occasions
the men were walking in the orchard or pitching horseshoes.
"They held Sacrament meeting every Sunday and Fast meeting once a
month. Frequently the Day family would meet with the brethren for a
program.
"They sent mail to Salt Lake City every day on the Southern Pacific
Railroad. Charles Burrell carried the mail most of the time but
occasionally Andrew or George Day would change with him so people would
not wonder why a strange man should meet the train every evening.
"The mail was placed in a small basket with a tight lid and was
locked. This basket was put in a grain sack and carried to the depot. If
any strangers were around they would say to the man, `Give this to my
brother when you get to Salt Lake City.'
"This system was carried on for a short time. Then they decided it
would be safer to take it by horse and buggy to Union where they were met
by someone from Salt Lake City and the mail was exchanged. "Guards were
posted along all important roads leading into Draper. If any suspicious
looking buggies or strangers came along, certain signals were given to
warn the President and his party.
"One night a false signal was given. The men were aroused as quickly
as possible. They dressed and hid themselves in some willows along the
bank of an irrigation ditch. Their belongings were hidden and President
Taylor was taken to George Stringfellow's place, one and one-fourth miles
from the Day home. He stayed there until it was safe for him to return.
"While the brethren were living at the Day home, George Q. Cannon's
wife died. He wanted to go home to her funeral but was afraid he would be
taken prisoner. He dressed in women's clothing and put on a hat with a
heavy veil and went to the funeral.
"During their stay in Draper, President Taylor was stricken with a
severe cold and was ill for some time. As soon as his health was
sufficiently improved, he and his party left."
Most of the leaders of the Church would have sacrificed
any-[94]thing, including their very lives (some did), to live all of the
holy ordinances of the gospel and keep them alive. Little wonder that
President Taylor, when presented with a manifesto, was filled with the
Spirit of God and declared, "Sign that document, never! I would suffer my
right hand to be severed from my body first. Sanction it, never! I would
suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I would
sanction it!"
We present another interview. This was recorded on November 28, 1969,
in the Salt Lake Valley. The interview was with Douglas M. Todd, Jr., a
former Stake President:
Question: "Did your father take his two living wives after the
Manifesto?"
Answer: "The story pertaining to that is this: After my mother died
(I don't know the dates right off--how long it was), he had these two
children to care for: my sister, who is still living and is eighteen
months older than I am and lives in Farmington, and myself. His second
marriage turned out very badly for those two half-orphans, as she was very
strict and harsh in her discipline. Father was a science teacher in the
Brigham Young College in Logan at the time.
"Apostle Merrill, the father of the late Apostle Merrill, was very
close to my father, and Father always consulted him about various matters.
They were in the Logan Temple one day, and Father was pouring out his
heart to Brother Merrill, and was so distressed because of his home
conditions he didn't know what to do. Brother Merrill said, `Well, Brother
Douglas, why don't you get yourself another wife?' Now I was born in '89,
and this would be somewhere in the '90's, after the Manifesto, in about
1908. And Father said, `Well, Brother Merrill, I didn't suppose anything
like that could be done.' He said, `You use your wisdom and keep your
counsel and do it quietly and make a home for those children.'
"So not long after this he called a young lady, Hannah McMurray,
aside one day, and explained what his situation was and what he wanted,
and asked her if she felt that she could undertake a mission of that kind,
and she said yes. And they were married by Matthias F. Cowley, down here
in Salt Lake, above where the Capitol building is--up on the hill. (The
area now called `Memory Grove.') Father put her under the wing of Aunt
Nellie. So Father went into that after the Manifesto.
"I might tell you another experience that occurred. Father was a
member of the General Board of the Young Men's Mutual. [95] And in those
days the President of the Church was the superintendent of the Young Men's
Mutual, and that continued down to Joseph F. Smith, and possibly into
President Grant's administration. I don't remember just when it was
changed. But father used to attend board meetings, and of course President
Smith would have to be there. But sometimes President Smith would be so
occupied in his office, that they would have to wait in the adjoining room
for him to come in. B. H. Roberts was one of President Smith's counselors
in the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association.
"One day this circumstance occurred: B. H. Roberts was there, and my
father, and most all the other members of the Board, They got into a
discussion about plural marriage. This was a time when the agitation about
plural marriage was at its height, and it was a very common topic. So they
fell to discussing this subject. B. H. Roberts, as you know, was a very
powerful, and forceful speaker. He pounded the table and said, "There will
never be a year go by, but what in some way, somehow, children will be
born under that covenant.' Now they hadn't noticed, but just before this,
President Smith had stepped into the room, and when he heard this
discussion he just stood there; they didn't know of his presence. After B.
H. Roberts had made this declaration before all the people there, from
behind them came a resounding `Amen' from Joseph F. Smith. I got that from
my father, who was present." (3:330)
That was a significant statement from both B. H. Roberts and
President Smith at that time, inasmuch as President Smith's tenure of
office was from 1901 and 1918. It seems to lend little strength to the
1890 Manifesto.
The writer has in his possession another taped interview. This one
was on December 17, 1969, and was with Dessie Grant Boyle, daughter of
President Heber J. Grant. We give an excerpt from a highly interesting
conversation:
"There was a feeling in the Church, when Joseph F. Smith was made the
President of the Church--`cause I'm old and I can remember all this--when
Joseph F. Smith was made the President, there were a lot of people that
went around saying, `Oh well, Brother Joseph F. Smith's got five or six
wives. He's not going to stand for this business against polygamy. They'll
start polygamy up again.' And these Apostles picked that up, started
preaching polygamy up again; and they used to take these couples to Mexico
and Canada and marry them, and..."
[96]
Question: "You mean after the Manifesto?"
Answer: "Yes, And they did it themselves. They married women
themselves, and ..."
Question: "Well, you actually know this then?"
Answer: "Of course I know it. I knew some of the women that they
married, and I know now some of the children of those women. Well, when
this happened that all these men took these jobs, they didn't cut them off
of the Church, the ones that these Apostles converted to polygamy, they
didn't cut them off the Church. There was a whole string of them.
"... My mother, when she was married to father, nobody knew it ...
nobody. And when she got pregnant, her father was the President of the
European Mission, Daniel H. Wells. So father sent mother to England to
stay with grandpa so that no one would know. It was during the time of the
worst raids when they were putting everybody in jail. George Q. Cannon and
everybody else was getting put in jail for polygamy. And father didn't
want that to happen to him; so he kept his wives ... nobody knew he had
them. And Aunt Gusta lived in New York. ... And now people think that
father was too busy to bother about his family. There wasn't one of us
that he didn't know all about and everything we were doing and all about
us, and the same with his grandchildren."
Sister Dessie Grant Boyle was 83 years old at the time of this
interview. She is now deceased, but her voice is on tape.
The Salt Lake Tribune published the names of 200 plural marriages
presumably performed in 1910 and previously. (3:418-421) Many of those
listed are or were personally known by the compiler of these volumes, some
being near relatives. Living testators aver they did truly enter this holy
law after 1890.
An interesting article was printed in the August 1968 issue of the
Improvement Era. We quote from it: "No doubt most Mormons could also tell
how, with minor variations, the tale repeated itself 40 years later, when
devout believers in the divine law of polygamy gave up their homes rather
than suffer separation, and pioneered a new life in a new country, Mexico,
where they could live their religion and prepare for eternal glory
according to the pattern laid down by the Prophet Joseph Smith. These
zealous souls were forced across the border by the pressure of the United
States marshals who, with the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887,
galvanized their efforts to stamp out the practice of polygamy .... It
should be recognized first of all that the move to [97] Mexico was not
merely a private and personal affair. The Church authorities advised
polygamists to go to this new country and actively supported their
emigration. High officials were sent from Church headquarters in Salt Lake
City to precede the colonists into Mexico and look for areas where
colonies might be established. These men were instructed to help the
emigrants to organize colonization companies in order to purchase tracts
of land and lay out townsites. The whole endeavor had the blessing of the
Church." (p. 9)
Internal conflicts in Mexico during the summer of 1912 caused another
great and difficult Mormon migration back to the States. This was 25 years
after they had arrived and built up lovely communities. In 1912 President
Ivins gave them assistance from the Church. The article in the Era
continues: "... But once they had reached the border and met with Elder
Anthony W. Ivins, one of the Council of the Twelve from Salt Lake City,
the matter was talked out, and those who had felt that they might have
done better to remain in Mexico were given leave without prejudice to
return to the colonies and take up life again on their own." They had no
history of chastisements and excommunications all through those years. And
they were certainly polygamists.
The law is restored, the Lord has made plain the way. There is
neither change nor turning to the right or to the left. "For God doth not
walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the
left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore, his
paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round." (D.&C. 3:2)
The Prophet Joseph said, "We are only capable of comprehending that
certain things exist, which we may acquire by certain fixed principles. If
men would acquire salvation, they have got to be subject, before they
leave this world, to certain rules and principles, which were fixed by an
unalterable decree before the world was. The disappointment of hopes and
expectations at the resurrection would be indescribably dreadful!"
(T.P.J.S., p. 324-325)
His teaching is so self-explanatory that we need only add the
following as an extension:
"In the early part of this century, the Mormon Church colonized the
Bighorn Basin in Northern Wyoming. Byron Sessions was the Stake President
and leader of this project under Apostle Owen Woodruff. Soon after my
father's death there, President [98] Sessions called my father's family
together and gave them valuable advice and instructions. In his talk, he
explained the importance and necessity of obedience to the law of plural
marriage. Members of the family who were present at this meeting consisted
of my father's two wives and about twelve of his twenty children. We were
placed under a pledge of secrecy, and the family honored this pledge while
President Sessions was still living. As he is now dead and beyond the
power of his enemies, I am relating in this letter, a part of this talk.
"He said that he had had a dream in which he and his wife were taken
beyond the veil. A messenger, or guide met them there and gave them a view
of the marvelous workings and conditions that prevail in the place of
departed and righteous spirits. They finally came to a stairway that led
to the upper story of a large building. A guard was standing here, and
this is what he said, `This is as far as you can go as man and wife; you
can go in separately, but your status as man and wife ends at this place.'
"Brother Sessions asked why this was the case, as they had been
sealed in the Temple, and fully expected to remain together through
eternity. The guide said, `You have not obeyed all the conditions of the
law by which men and women are sealed for eternity. Because of this, your
union must cease at death, and you will not be allowed to proceed further
as man and wife.' He began to weep, and was weeping when he awoke. His
wife, who was lying beside him was also crying, and he said, `Ida, what is
the matter?' She answered, `I have just had a dream and I am glad it was
only a dream.' Their dreams were identical."
The Prophet Joseph said, "They have got to be subject, before they
leave this world, to certain rules and principles. ..."
In the November 28, 1969, interview with Douglas M. Todd, Jr., which
we have mentioned on preceding pages in this Section, a similar experience
to that of President Sessions' was related.
Interviewer: "Could you tell us about that dream you had in Denver?"
Todd: "In this dream, I was standing in a large room. It seemed like
the entrance was to the east, and you passed through this larger room and
then on to the west side, where there was a door--as I recollect the
dream. I even remember you stepped up one step to get into that room. And
there was a man standing near the door and people were coming in from the
outside of the house, and walking through to this door. Every time they'd
open that door, the most beautiful and brilliant light-beyond my
des-[99]cription--came out and just enveloped you. You not only saw the
light, but felt the spirit of it--some way, I can't describe it. And then
the door would close, and you could see the light coming under the door.
The occasion there seemed to be some sort of a banquet, or something, with
beautiful tables and you felt as if you'd give your life, almost, if you
could be there with them.
"So I worked my way up to this man at the door, and inquired about
how I might get in there. And he said, `Well, you can't come in here.
Haven't you noticed the type of people that are entering?' That was the
first time that it was forced on my mind that in those little groups that
came, there was one man and several women in each group--always just one
man, and different numbers of women--I don't remember--and they would go
in there and become a part of this. And that was the extent of the dream.
"I wanted to know what that meant, and Aunt Nellie was the person
that I felt could tell me the interpretation. So the next morning I tried
to type up that dream on my little portable typewriter. I wish I had that
copy; I'm sure it would be much better than the way I'm telling it now.
But I never had such a peculiar experience. I didn't have to think of any
words or anything--they just seemed to come right down to the ends of my
fingers and onto the typewriter. And tears were rolling down my face, and
I felt this same spirit that I did when I would see that door open and see
those people. So I sent the letter to Aunt Nellie, and she told me what it
meant, and the meaning is very obvious to you that represented the higher
degree of the Celestial Kingdom, and the only way that you got in it was
through the law of Celestial Plural Marriage."
So we have similar dreams in different spaces of time, involving
unrelated people in different locations. They simply serve to further
attest to the truth.
It is beyond dispute that many polygamous marriages were performed by
President Anthony W. Ivins, Matthias F. Cowley, Brigham Young, Jr., George
Teasdale, John W. Taylor and others, in Old Mexico, Canada, on the high
seas and elsewhere, that the covenant and commission to do so is yet
binding upon the Priesthood. But were volumes of evidence to be compiled,
it would not hold sway with those determined that plural marriage has
ceased. The Lord said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)
[100] The things of God are known by the Spirit of God, and that is the
source to which we should go for answer to the question.
We add the following to our Contemporary Witnesses, since Brother
Joseph W. Musser was in a unique position in modern history.
JOSEPH WHITE MUSSER
"O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with
all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless
before God at the last day." (D.&C.)
The life of Joseph W. Musser was a fulfillment of this scripture, for
he gave his life to God and sought none other gifts than those of the
Spirit. Nourishing the spirit of prayer and humility, Joseph cultivated a
friendship with God, and served Him with full purpose of heart.
Joseph W. Musser joins our group of contemporary witnesses as an
outstanding example of a servant of God. He was born March 8, 1872, in
Salt Lake City, Utah, to Amos Milton Musser, Assistant Church Historian
and pillar of the Church, and Mary Elizabeth White, first plural wife to
Brother Musser.
Joseph White Musser was born and grew to manhood at a time when the
Church was at war with the government of the United States. Plural
marriage had been declared a crime, and the most respected men in
Mormondom were being hunted down and cast into prison. Joseph often used
to relate to his friends his experiences of taking plural wives from one
house to another to evade the federal officers. He saw his father, with
whom Joseph's life was closely inter-woven, often driven into hiding. It
was under this environment that young Joseph was raised. He had at least
met, if not personally known, every Church president except the Prophet
Joseph Smith. He was a man of great refinement, knowledge and experience.
We name Brother Musser as a unique witness especially because of his
vantage point of close association with the Church leaders. He knew the
inner workings of that body of men.
Referring to his religious background and the reasons for his
acceptance of the principle of plural marriage, he stated: "I had been
nurtured in the Patriarchal Law. I believe it earnestly. It seemed to me I
had met Father Abraham and been taught at his knees. He had many wives and
concubines. Isaac, the son of Sarah, was Abraham's heir apparent, though
not his first born, [101] Ishmael coming before him.
"Early in life I became familiar with the Lord's revelations to His
Prophet, Joseph Smith, on the subject of marriage. My father had four
wives to my knowledge; though one, the first, I never knew in mortality.
She died before my birth. My mother was his first plural wife, and her
faith and loyalty were, to my mind, perfect.
"Coming from such an ancestry and being raised in a polygamous
atmosphere, by parents devoted to their religious conceptions, I naturally
inherited and imbibed a strong spiritual nature. From early youth I
devoted my time to the Church. I believed intensely in the mission of
Joseph Smith, and were it possible to become fanatical in accepting the
decrees of the Almighty, I have been fanatically religious, but not
obdurate toward the religion and actions of others nor offensively
dogmatic.
Personally, I was brought up in the most puritanical fashion with
reference to morality. To lose one's virtue was an offense in the eyes of
God next to murder--the shedding of innocent blood. To take advantage of a
girl, not one's wife, was a terrible act. I believed this doctrine and I
lived it completely--and I still believe it."
As to his recollection of meeting the early presidents of the Church,
he often related his experience of seeing President Brigham Young as he
lay in his coffin; also that he vaguely remembered seeing him before his
death. Later when old enough to remember and understand, his father
invited him to attend a meeting of the "Grand Council of the Kingdom of
God." He remembered this meeting, of how armed guards admitted the invited
guests. His father, Amos Milton Musser, being a member of this "Grand
Council," was free to invite him to attend. At this meeting he was
introduced to President John Taylor and heard him speak.
He remembered the placing of the capstone on the Salt Lake Temple. He
said Apostle Lorenzo Snow led the open air congregation in the `Hosanna
Shout.' A week later, April 13, 1892, he ascended the east middle tower of
the Temple and touched the feet of the golden Angel Moroni.
Joseph W. Musser's schooling opportunities in those early days were
minimal, though through self-teaching and the generous application of
sheer will and determination, he became an efficient court stenographer
and developed valuable knowledge [102] in the field of law.
At the age of 20, Joseph was married for time and all eternity in the
Logan Temple. Three years later, in 1895, he received a call from
President Woodruff to fill a mission to the Southern States. He was set
apart by Apostles Brigham Young, Jr., Heber J. Grant and John W. Taylor.
He filled his mission without purse or scrip.
While serving on his mission and in concern over the health of his
firstborn, a son, he inquired of the Lord as to the welfare of his child.
The Lord gave him a dream in which he visited his home and saw his child
in improved health, with reassurances given him from his beloved wife.
Brother Musser praised the Lord for His kindness in answer to prayer.
In 1899, now home from his mission, a wonderful and marvelous
experience came to him, which was destined to change the course of his
life for time and all eternity. Speaking of this incident, he recorded the
following in his Journal:
"Receiving a written invitation from President Lorenzo Snow, to
receive my `Higher Anointings' in the Temple, my wife and I, with four
other couples repaired to the Temple on Thanksgiving morning, November
1899, where the most glorious blessings known to man were sealed upon us.
We literally spent a few hours as in heaven 'mid the glorious calm and
quiet of our holy surroundings. We were near the Lord and Oh! how happy! I
was only 27 years of age and wondered why so young a person should be so
favored, for we were being sealed with the `Holy Spirit of Promise.'"
Following on the heels of this glorious blessing, word came from
President Lorenzo Snow which was of a shocking nature. Explaining the
situation, Brother Joseph gave the following account:
"When the Wilford Woodruff Manifesto was adopted (October 1890), I
was not married. I had been promised in the name of the Lord, by my Stake
President, some days after the Manifesto was published, that I would yet
enter the law. I believed it. And later, while courting my young lady, I
told her I expected to enter that law of marriage, that when the time came
I would take it up with her and we would make the selection of other wives
together. Although I was taking her out of a plural family, she took the
matter cooly, but she was true to her promise on that occasion.
"In December 1899, after receiving my `Second Blessings,' a [103]
messenger came to me from President Snow, stating I had been selected to
enter plural marriage and to help keep the principle alive. Apprising my
wife of the situation, we both entered into prayer for guidance. At this
time I hadn't the slightest idea whom to approach. The `Manifesto' had
been issued, and word had gone out from Bishops and Stake Presidencies
that a definite stop had been put to the practice. Those assuming to enter
the principle would be `handled.' I was placed in a peculiar situation.
God's Prophet told me to accept the law and keep it alive. His
subordinates said if I did so, they would cut me off the Church. I could
not argue with them and divulge the source of my authority. It was a time
when every man was in honor bound to carry his own burdens and yet live
every law of the Gospel.
"In answer to prayer, Mary Caroline Hill, a daughter of William Hood
Hill, a member of the Mill Creek Ward Bishopric, came within our horizon.
She was a beautiful young lady, about 25 years of age; had refused many
proposals--had been waiting for the right man. Her father had done time,
presumably with my father, in the penitentiary for polygamous living. I
was astounded, when asking Brother Hill for the hand of his daughter, to
be flatly refused. He said it could not be done; they were handling people
for proposing it. I was greatly taken back. I had been at his home, with
other Stake and General Officers of the Church on numerous occasions and
eaten at his table. I rather took it for granted that he knew my hidden
motive in being there so often and thought he was in harmony with it.
"I said, `Well, Brother Hill, it can be done, and now the
responsibility is upon you. Your daughter is agreeable to the situation.'
"The conversation took place in the office where I was employed, in
town. He left and in about one half or three quarters of an hour he
returned and assured me it was all right and that I might go ahead.
Astonished and yet grateful, I asked what had happened to change his mind
so quickly. He said after leaving me he `bumped into Apostles John Henry
Smith and M. F. Cowley'; he put the question to them. They assured him it
was all right and advised him to return to me and give his consent to the
marriage. Thus Mary entered into my family in the year 1901."
The marriage was sealed by an Apostle, a member of the Quorum of
Twelve, in good standing.
Joseph's father, having heard of his son embracing the law, caused
him much sorrow, he supposing that his son had acted [104] without the
consent of the authorities. In order to soothe his feelings, the presiding
authorities of this most honorable "conspiracy" took A. M. Musser into
their confidence and revealed to him the truth. His heart leaped for joy,
and embracing his son Joseph, he exclaimed, "God bless you, my boy, God
bless you." Shortly before his death, Joseph's father had inscribed on his
gold watch a beautiful tribute to his son, and presented the watch to him.
Engraved on the watch are the following words: "St. Joseph W. Musser--In
admiration of your devotion to a divine principle of the gospel.
Father--Zion, May 20th, 1909." Brother Joseph always considered the watch
one of his priceless earthly possessions.
Later, under the direction of President Joseph F. Smith, this man
again responded to the holy commandment and had his third wife, Ellis
Shipp, sealed to him. Again in the 1930's under the direction of the
Priesthood, he had another wife sealed into his family.
Thus, Joseph W. Musser, at the age of 27, was introduced to the holy
principle of Celestial Plural Marriage and commanded to embrace the same.
This commandment came from God, and he was duly warned that if he did not
respond, he would lose every former blessing he had received in the
Priesthood. He related that he was somewhat slow in obtaining his second
wife. Finally he was approached by President John Henry Smith and was told
that if he did not embrace the principle soon, he would lose every
blessing he had ever received in the Church. He was commanded.
Joseph recorded in his Journal: "Men other than Brother Ivins were
set apart to work in other parts of the country. Since the Church is
subservient to the Priesthood, any action taken by it against those
entering the law is null and void. A man or woman cannot properly be cut
off the Church for keeping a law of God, for the Church belongs to God and
God cannot act a lie and remain God."
He explained the situation confronting him: "I was resisting the
Church, though I love its institutions. I had always taught my children to
follow the Church, and yet I now was resisting it. My blessed children
could not understand my position, nor can I blame them, neither could I
explain to them the full picture any faster than they were prepared to
receive it." Joseph received, because of his faithfulness, further
instruction and commission:
"In the year 1915, an Apostle conferred upon me the sealing [105]
power of Elijah, with instructions to see that plural marriage shall not
die out. President Snow had said I must not only enter the law, but must
help keep it alive. This then was the next step in enabling me to help
keep it alive. I have tried to be faithful to my trust."
Here, then, Joseph W. Musser found himself in a peculiar situation.
He was the husband of three wives. He had been commanded to take the last
two of these women with full knowledge that he was breaking the law of the
land and the rule of the Church. Those members of the Church who heard of
his action branded it as adulterous, just as they do today. Those who
conspired to have him break the law, made it plain to him that he could
not depend on them for comfort or relief. Indeed, President Joseph F.
Smith often passed him on the street without a sign of recognition. Later
under the protection of darkness, this same man would step from the
shadows, and with a friendly handclasp and a pat on the back, would
exclaim: "God bless you, brother Joseph, keep the good work up!"
Joseph felt the persecutions rage around him and his family. He was
spoken evilly of and had a difficult time making a living. In 1909, the
Salt Lake Tribune selected him as an object lesson, which was also a cover
to goad the leaders of the Church for their own similar actions.
The headlines read: "JOE MUSSER HAS NOW TAKEN NO. 3--High Councilor
of Granite Stake Enters Into New Polygamy in Salt Lake:
"Joseph W. Musser is chief clerk and assistant secretary of the Utah
Light & Railway company. His father is assistant historian and political
mouthpiece of the Church. He is himself a high ecclesiast in the church,
though but about 40 years of age. He is high councilor of Granite stake
and as such passes on the differences between the Saints of his stake and
his decisions are final, save that an appeal may be taken to the first
presidency.
"The president of Granite stake, Frank Y. Taylor, and his second
counselor, John M. Cannon, are publicly known to have recently contracted
plural marriages. So have the Sunday School Superintendent and others of
this stake. In fact, Granite stake is the hotbed of new polygamy, and
Forestdale, which is a part of the stake, is oftimes spoken of as
`Polygamyville,' inasmuch as it is a refuge of those who are violating the
laws by `living their religion.'"
The Tribune then goes on to name Brother Musser's wives [106] and
children and their home locations. The article continues:
"This is the first expose' that has been made of Joseph W. Musser's
new polygamy. He will not be punished for his violation of the law because
he has the sanction of the teaching of the Church through the 132nd
chapter of the Doctrine and Covenants, and through the life of President
Joseph F. Smith, who admits that he is living with five wives and who
pleaded guilty to the charge of being the father of the last of thirteen
illegitimate children, recently being fined therefor the measly sum of two
hundred dollars!"
It may have been because of pressures as a result of that article in
the newspaper that Brother Musser was called before the Quorum of Twelve
Apostles. After a lengthy questioning session before that body, he wrote:
"The investigation along the lines it is being carried out, is
unwarranted; the Quorum is not united, and such actions as these will tend
to lose them their influence among the Saints .... My impressions were
that the brethren are not actuated by the proper spirit."
In 1929, another marvelous event came into Joseph W. Musser's life,
for the Lord spoke again.
"May 14, 1929, I was ordained a High Priest Apostle and a Patriarch
to all the world, by a High Priest Apostle, and I was instructed to see
that never a year passed that children were not born in the covenant of
plural marriage. I was instructed to give patriarchal blessings to those
applying for same, and who were denied access to a patriarch in the
Church. My calling is essentially a Priesthood calling ......
Brother Joseph related that when the Anointed of the Lord ordained
him to this higher calling that he used the following words: "I ordain you
a Patriarch and Apostle to the Lord, Jesus Christ, and I confer upon you
all the keys, power and authority, that I myself hold, together with the
responsibilities and privileges attached thereto."
After this ordination the Prophet said to Joseph, "Now you have all
that I have."
The individual thus ordaining him further instructed Brother Joseph
that he had used the same phraseology that President Taylor had used to
set him apart; and that President Taylor had informed him that Joseph
Smith, the Prophet, used the same words in ordaining him (John Taylor);
and that the Prophet had explained that Peter, James and John had used the
same words when they ordained him to the Priesthood.
[107] Interestingly, his ordination to the Apostleship partly fulfilled a
blessing given to his mother, Mary White Musser, some years before. In
that blessing she was promised that one of her sons would be ordained an
Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.
On November 9, 1930, his dear wife Mary passed away. The main speaker
at her funeral was President J. Golden Kimball. Some of his remarks were
written down:
"I am here at the request of Brother Musser, his wife and children;
and before going on with my regular remarks on this occasion I want to say
this much--that I have known Brother Musser in Church and business
activities for a good many years, and I know him to be an honest man, with
great faith and trust in the Lord, and courage in the cause of truth.
"Oh, I know we are supposed to say nothing about this thing--we are
afraid to tell the truth; it isn't always wise to tell the whole truth,
but I want to say that Brother Musser has been unjustly dealt with; he has
been persecuted. The principle of polygamy is true. Of course the door is
now closed. The Church does not sanction the practice now. I was of that
origin and I am proud of it. Brother Joseph is a better man than I am
because I cannot help resenting injustice. Justice is all right, but I
believe in the gospel of mercy, love, charity and patience. If this is not
the truth there is not truth. Thank God the final judgment does not rest
with man."
Because of his background and nearness to the presiding authorities
of the Church, Joseph Musser received much important information. Upon one
occasion, his father approached him with one of Wilford Woodruff's
Journals. His father pointed to the revelation of 1889, and requested his
son to copy it, stating: "Someday it will be necessary for you to use this
information." Years later in defense of the faith, Brother Joseph was able
to produce this very valuable revelation. (See page 44)
The anti-polygamy crusades of 1944 resulted in the imprisonment of
Joseph, serving a sentence of seven months and then being placed on `two
years' probation. He wrote in his journal:
"My father preceded me to the penitentiary by some sixty years. I was
then 13 years of age, he 55. In my youthful years, I regarded him an old
man, and yet I was placed behind the bars at 73, and would have resented
being called an old man, although the old timers there soon began to call
me `Dad.' President Lorenzo Snow was 72 years of age when he was
incarcerated. So far as I know I am the oldest man placed behind the bars
among [108] the Latter-day Saints for polygamous living. When I was
ordained a High Priest Apostle in May 1929, it was done in response to a
revelation of the Lord to the President of the Priesthood. Previous to
this, however, I was given the Priesthood of Elijah with instructions, as
I was informed from President Joseph F. Smith, to seal couples in
celestial marriage."
While in prison, Brother Joseph suffered an attack, which was perhaps
the forerunner of his final illness. Being completely exhausted from years
of work among the people, also having been the leading figure in the long
legal battle, plus discomforts of the state penitentiary, all worked
together against his health. He suffered a stroke in early 1949, and was
finally released from this world March 29, 1954, at the age of 82. He was
buried next to his father in the Salt Lake City Cemetery.
Joseph White Musser, aside from the personal effect he had for
immense good in the lives of countless others, was responsible for the
circulation of many publications, including many unpublished manuscripts
of lasting worth. He held responsible positions in six different stakes in
Zion, and preached the gospel in many of the States of the Union. He was
in charge of the East India Mission, attending to that responsibility from
his home. He traveled from Canada to Old Mexico because of his love for
and devotion to the Lord and His gospel.
Joseph W. Musser was a man of God. He received his errand from the
Lord, and he devoted his life to it regardless of the cost. In his own
words, as a stalwart witness in the latter days:
"I entered the state of plural marriage after the issuance of the
Manifesto; and I did so with the encouragement, advice and counsel of the
majority of the members of the Quorum of Apostles, and with the blessings
of the President of the Church. These facts cannot be gain said. The fact
that I have been `handled' and `ostracized' for having done my duty as I
was taught it, makes no difference to the case in hand. Indeed, I was told
at the time by one having authority that this very thing might occur, but
that it was my duty to live the law ....
"I have championed Mormonism from every angle; have accepted the
revelations of Joseph Smith on the subject of celestial and plural
marriage--must I say it--even against the body of the Church, and in
opposition to the laws of my country; and now I find myself expelled from
the Church, and a virtual outcast from its functions and benefits.
Strange, but true, and yet my heart is filled with gratitude for my wives
and my 21 beautiful [109] children. Oh!! how I praise God for His most
wonderful blessings, and how grateful I am that the invitation came to me,
as a young man, fifty years ago, to embrace the principle of plural
marriage. I was assured it was of God and that His blessings would follow
the law's acceptance.
"As God answered the child Joseph's plea for wisdom and direction, so
he is answering the prayers of the faithful today, many of them being led
to accept the fulness of the gospel, including the Patriarchal order of
marriage. These Saints uphold the authorities of the Church by their faith
and prayers, so far as it is possible to do without a surrender of eternal
life. They would like to remain with the organization and add their
strength in building it up along permanently righteous lines, but when
denied this blessed privilege they are resigned and bow to the inevitable,
leaving their case in the hands of God, who will judge all flesh.
"That truth will prevail is certain, but that it may find a speedy
lodgment in the hearts of all who have the courage and the will to seek
it, is the earnest prayer of your humble servant."
A prayer, offered on New Year's Day, 1935, by Joseph W. Musser:
"Dear Lord, continue to guide my footsteps. Help me to get my house
in order; to teach Thy children the truth; to obtain the gift of faith and
the spirit of meekness; help me to serve Thee in truth. Give unto me
wisdom, and knowledge, love and charity. Help me to teach and guide my
wives and children, and to bear up under every burden and obligation of
life.
"Let the balance of my mortal life be spent in the ministry, bringing
souls unto Thee, and when I am released from this existence, let me
continue such work of salvation until the end of all the eternities, could
there be an end.
"Father, I thank Thee for all my blessings and covenant anew with
Thee to be more diligent and valiant in accomplishing my earthly mission.
Help me remain true and faithful."
*****
"O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with
all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless
before God at the last day." (D.&C. 4:2)
Such was the heart and life of Joseph White Musser, a latter-day
witness to the work of the Lord.
[110]
[111]
SECTION EIGHT
A CONTRADICTION
Although it is good to read of evidence, or to have the opportunity
to talk personally with living witnesses to those events involving the
perpetuation of a holy law, its weight toward motivating anyone is
minimal. It is the heart that yearns to grow toward sanctification, the
soul who seeks to know the Lord's will through the light of the Holy
Spirit, who abandons satisfaction and contentment for the discipline and
blessing of higher law, who will come to know whether or not a principle
is true. True evidence seems always to come from within, so one knows how
to read the signs when it takes an outward form. Our preparedness, our
intent are known to the Lord. He can read the small print in each soul.
However, any man who seeks to know God, who seeks to purify his life
and make himself receptive to better than worldly persuasions, has
unavoidably come to grips with opposition in its varied and sometimes
alluring forms. Anyone who believes in other dimensions than this visible
world knows that the highest principles are fair game for the adversary's
fullest concentration.
The Prophet Joseph Smith placed the principle (and, of necessity, the
living) of Celestial Plural Marriage as one of the most holy and exalting.
One would, therefore, simply expect a little trouble to be brewing in the
wake of its restoration and acceptance into our lives. But man has utterly
lost perspective.
The people of our nation have just gone through two extremes. One is
the angry, militant, intolerant change-seekers who offer no replacement
values, and the other is the passive, detached, non-involved group whose
world is largely illusory. Though a little less vocal at the present time,
the two camps are still functioning. Many parents, taken in by the
overwhelming sincerity of youth ("sincerity" is as much an ingredient in
evil as it is in righteousness; Satan is sincere), have given way to a
permissiveness with their children that has become a solid foundation for
chaos.
The permissive wave has washed over our parents, and idealism has
replaced facts. The permissive wave has washed over our children, and
slogans have become solutions, The [112] permissive wave has washed over
our laws and courts and rhetoric is confused with reasoning and justice.
Our nations leaders, floating along in the wash of the wave, have become
so-called liberals, as are many parents. We seem no longer capable of
looking squarely into the strong, clear light of truth.
There are those who would storm the bastions of society with
forbidden beliefs and enslaving laws, in the name of eradicating all evil.
They receive applause. But those who would create a little order, maintain
well-proven principles such as affection and humility and integrity and
family life are extremists and warrant prosecution. Criminals receive
reverential treatment and often go free. The tangled web of law and order
is so snarled that those arrested on drug charges are long gone from
detention while law officers are enmeshed in the snarls.
When it comes to plural marriage, there are no holds barred. The
present is a reflection of the past. Witness a notation in Volume 1, page
376: "April 20, 1885--The U. S. Supreme Court sustained the decision of
the Utah courts in Apostle Rudger Clawson's polygamy case, but decided in
favor of giving the murderer, Fred Hopt, a fourth trial." Clawson was
imprisoned.
Plural marriage, taught by God and lived by the prophets since the
beginning of time, has given place to no marriage. No marriage,
accompanied by its moral looseness, is acceptable. Plural marriage, God's
law, is accompanied by prosecution and imprisonment, the breaking up of
homes and families. But no families, with no names and with diseases, are
free to increase their diseases. It is a strange, if not a disastrous
posture, a contradiction worthy of Lucifer's applause. The wary remember a
warning recorded centuries ago:
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness
for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet
for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20)
It is verily a description of our day. That which was evil, is now
good. That which was good, is now evil. Considering the frequent yielding
up of man's innate sense of virtue, one could immediately sympathize with
another Great Washing of the earth.
Strangely and sadly, Church fellowshipping is extended to those
involved in overt adultery, thievery and all manner of heinous crimes,
including that of murder and infanticide in its various forms, while
excommunication is immediately leveled against those practicing the
principle of plural marriage, a [113] commandment of God. Separation
papers also descend upon those whose insubordination is that of study and
discussion only, of the subject of plural marriage. Israel is confused.
And justice is strained. Mothers in plural marriage yearn for their
children and receive them into their arms with thanksgiving and love and
praise to God. They have a home and a loving family. But children are
taken away and parents are declared "unfit" and are imprisoned, while we
accept black laws on the books legalizing abortions, destroying life. But
that is legal. That is a more intelligent and realistic way in an
advanced, sophisticated civilization. Mothers and fathers destroy their
babies in the name of freedom. It isn't freedom. We become free from law
by obedience to law.
So our permissive society dictates that abortion is good, but
children allowed life within marriage before God, is evil. Isn't something
terribly wrong? How long can the Lord stay His hand against such
wickedness?
Moroni saw our day: "Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that
ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and
of God to be of the devil .... And now my brethren, seeing that ye know
the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see
that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye
judge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that
ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good
from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it
not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ." (Moroni 7:14, 18-19)
Those with the discerning light of Christ will see through the evil
contradiction and will know truth. We conclude this Section with the words
of the prose author, George MacDonald, which express our faith:
"This is a sane, wholesome, practical, working faith; first, that It
is a man's business to do the will of God; second, that God takes on
himself the special care of that man; and third, that therefore that man
ought never to be afraid of anything."
[114]
[115]
SECTION NINE
FOLLOW THE LIVING PRINCIPLES
A great deal of emphasis is currently placed upon the concept,
"Follow the living prophet." It is singular that such an emphasis has
become necessary. If the present laws, principles and ordinances of the
gospel were the same in all respects as those taught by Joseph Smith and
others of the subsequent prophets, there would be no need for either
distinction, explanation or emphasis. Following the living prophet would
differ in no respect from having followed Joseph Smith. Inherent in such
an admonition as "follow the living prophet" is a declaration of
difference.
The concept, however correct within proper definition, has become
strained nearly beyond recognition. We refer, for example, to a recent
statement made before a ten-stake fireside at Brigham Young University on
May 5, 1974, by the Senior President of the First Council of Seventy of
the Church, S. Dilworth Young:
"I would like to remind you, though, that if you get engrossed in the
history and how they did things in that day, do not attempt to figure out
why they do not do it the same way today. We have what is called modern
revelation, which means the living prophet always is the one who tells us
what we are supposed to do, the manner in which we are to do it, the
manner in which we are supposed to be organized, and the manner in which
the revelation is to be interpreted. Thus, the way they interpreted the
revelation in those days has no particular bearing on the way the
revelations are being interpreted today." (Author's Note: However,
President Joseph F. Smith said, "The rites of the Priesthood of the
Church, as the Lord has revealed them, and the principles that underlie
the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ, are irrevocable,
unchanging and unchangeable." Gos. Doc. p. 14) "It is sad to know that
many men have gone on the rocks of apostacy because they could not see
that point, that principle. They have said Joseph Smith did it this way
and you have to do it this way because Joseph Smith did it this way. That
is not true at all. Joseph Smith did it one way for his day, and Brigham
Young did it another way for his day, and [116] John Taylor did it a third
way for his day; and today we are doing it the way President Spencer W.
Kimball wants it to be. We listen to him. What they did in that day does
not bind us at all. If no change has been made by any living prophet, then
the original method of doing things stands. You find that true with the
doctrine of plural marriage, don't you? Wilford Woodruff changed the
method of handling marriage, and his word stood until Joseph F. Smith
enlarged it. Now his word stands. No one has changed it since then, so we
now obey the law as Joseph F. Smith promulgated it. That is modern
revelation. May I repeat? Modern revelation is what President Joseph Smith
said, unless President Spencer W. Kimball says differently."
These comments would not be so disturbing if the reference were
specifically stated as being of limited application. But the statement is
broad enough to include, and does include, ordinances and principles. This
is not acceptable and leads to serious misunderstanding. That there were
2500 young people in attendance at the fireside makes us wish it were
possible to have equal time.
Throughout the history of the world, God has given two types of
revelation. One is general revelation pertaining to all mankind in every
world and in every age of the world. Such revelations pertain to the name
of the Church, the Church organization, the duties and laws of the
Priesthood, and eternal laws, ordinances and principles. These never
change, worlds without end. The gospel does not change, and we must abide
by its principles and ordinances if we are to be saved in the celestial
glory.
The other type of revelation directs men to perform certain tasks in
order to accomplish certain purposes according to the existing conditions
and circumstances. For instance, Nephi and Jared were directed to build
ships by revelation. David, Saul and Nephi were commanded to kill other
men in order to preserve God's people. The Israelites were commanded to
place blood of a lamb upon the lintels of the doorposts of their homes to
cause the destroying angel to pass them by and not slay them. Joshua, by
revelation, had Israel's soldiers march around Jericho seven times, then
blow their trumpets, and the walls of Jericho fell. Jesus told Peter to
catch a fish and use the money found to pay their taxes. These are
revelations adaptable to certain conditions. They are not applicable to
our day or to other people. Such examples as these are in considerable
number in the scriptures.
But it should be understood by all men that the laws of God, [117]
the ordinances of the House of the Lord, the principles of the gospel, are
eternal in their application. They never change. If any people in any
period of time fail to observe eternal laws, they inevitably fail to
obtain the blessings predicated upon obedience to them. Brigham Young said
that the ordinances of the Kingdom of God upon the earth are the same to
the children of Adam from the commencement to the end of his posterity
pertaining to their carnal state on the earth. This is not in harmony with
the statement made to the B.Y.U. students. The reference made to
relinquishing the holy law of plural marriage or any other principle or
ordinance reminds us again of the words of President Lorenzo Snow:
"The purpose of God will be accomplished. What He has recommenced
will be consummated though the combined armies of the earth should rise up
and oppose .... Better suffer a thousand deaths than succumb to the force
of persecution by promising to discard a single principle which God has
revealed for our glory and exaltation." (1:404, 406)
Another differing view from the B.Y.U. statement is found in the June
5, 1965, edition of the Church News: "One of the most important things we
learn about our religion is that God is unchangeable, the same yesterday,
today and forever. Thus we may know that the principles of salvation will
always remain the same. We need not be disturbed by any new ideas or
modern innovations in the gospel which may come our way. A great mistake
made down through the ages by teachers of Christianity is that they have
supposed that they could place their own interpretation upon the
scriptures, allow their own personal convenience to become a controlling
factor and change the basis of Christian law and practice to suit
themselves. This is apostacy." This concept, too, seems to differ from
modern view.
Gospel principles, rites and ordinances are eternal in their nature.
Joseph Smith made that abundantly clear. He is the Prophet of this
dispensation. This generation until the coming of Christ shall be judged
by the word of God that came through him, which witness he sealed with his
blood. That is the word of God to us. It is not likely that there is any
mortal man who has the right or the authority to alter that pronouncement
from God in its application to our lives or to the lives of the children
of God any time, any place, or under any circumstances.
The Priesthood of God is defending holy principles which God said to
the Prophet Joseph Smith and again through John [118] Taylor should remain
upon the earth until Christ should come. As we quoted in Section Five,
President Wilford Woodruff stated in the Manti Temple in 1888, "We won't
quit practicing plural marriage until Christ shall come." He said further,
"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 ...." (1:312, 318)
Yet we are being told that some principles are not applicable, they
are not acceptable to the Church or pleasing to God. But Brigham Young
said that the principle of celestial plural marriage, supposedly dead and
buried as to practice at the present time, "would ride triumphant over all
of the prejudice and priestcraft of the day." (1:34, 3:208) Indeed it has,
under the careful direction of the Lord. President Joseph F. Smith said
that the principle of plural marriage was "particularly adapted to the
conditions of this dispensation, to its necessities and circumstances,"
(1:206) and it is an error to assume that any conditions or necessities or
circumstances arose in any period of time sine the restoration of the
gospel in its fulness that forced the Lord to change His plans or nullify
His words. Those who are determine to sanctify their lives will find for
themselves the course which, the Lord pursued.
It is the privilege and the duty of the Priesthood to be obedient to
the command of God and fulfill all His words. It is their duty to
perpetuate that Priesthood, for the Priesthood of God has been going on
forever. It never had a beginning and will have no end. It has been going
from world to world, moving from one willing heart to another, from one
ready hand to another, from one diligent foot to another. The gospel does
not float in space but reposes in the sons of God. The brethren who have
perpetuated the fulness of the gospel by special dispensation, did it by
appointment.
The concept that it is all right to receive modern interpretation of
revelations or that someone can teach differently from Joseph Smith's
teachings, is unacceptable. We support a significant statement made by
Eliza R. Snow Smith in the year 1887: "There is a test before us in the
near future that will try every soul; and who will be able to stand? Only
those who have the Holy Ghost abiding in them. The Lord is going to have a
pure people--a people that will move en masse at the bidding of the
Priesthood.
"God is at the helm, and the faithful who uphold every
prin-[119]ciple which He has revealed, and maintain their integrity to God
and to each other, have nothing to fear; but have great reason to be
thankful that they are counted worthy to suffer for the gospel's sake.
After tribulation cometh the blessing. The glorious gospel of the Son of
God, of which we are happy partakers, is worth as much today as it was
when Jesus died on the cross, and when the ancient Apostles, and many of
the Saints died for it. There is not one principle which God has revealed
that is not worth more than our mortal life. Then what has a true Saint to
fear? With God on our side, we have a great majority, although the whole
world should rise up against us." (K. Carter, Our Pioneer Heritage, March
1974)
That is the standard we raise. Whether 97% or 99% of the Saints vote
against a holy law of God, the remaining small percentage who are willing
to uphold every principle that He has revealed will be found sustaining
and living all of the restored gospel. For the Lord has made provision
that this would be possible. To those Saints, "there is not one principle
which God has revealed that is not worth more than our mortal life." No,
not one.
Following living prophets is a correct principle, and they will lead
us as far as they possibly can. But the teachings of living oracles must
not conflict with those of the dead oracles in either principle or
ordinance. This is an eternal key, a sure safeguard. It is a great
blessing to have the Lord's spokesmen upon the earth through whom He may
reveal His mind and will. The true prophets of God represent the most
noble mortals upon the earth. But recorded history verifies the fact that
man has often imposed limitations upon the prophets by their acts of
disobedience. We must bear in mind that our Church leaders were placed
under restriction as representatives of the Church pertaining to the
higher laws of the gospel. A large percentage of the body of the Saints
did not want the higher laws. But a few of the Saints did, and because of
the Lord's action relative to them, access to further laws and ordinances
is available to those who will stand upon correct principle and who follow
the Lord's admonition to ask and to seek. Truth always outlives the
succession of prophets, and Joseph Smith's revelations remain as the
standard for all Latter-day Saints who would be with Abraham and the
prophets. This necessarily includes Section 132 of the Doctrine and
Covenants.
The heart of the issue was declared by Joseph F. Smith in [120] 1909:
"The time is here when the Saints cannot come to Joseph F. Smith, Francis
M. Lyman or Charles W. Penrose, or others, for counsel. But they must go
to the Lord and not depend upon the arm of flesh for guidance." (S. L.
Temple, 1909) Similarly, the Millennial Star recorded: "The day will come
when every Saint must learn to walk by sheer naked principles alone,
without bringing either men or their individual actions into the question
at all." (Mill. Star, 20:708) That day arrived some time ago and is a key
to individual progress.
It is not our intent to say that we must walk independently of the
Lord's anointed. For it is upon the Lord's servants that we rely for
confirmations and ordinances, for counsel and advice, as well as for the
word of the Lord in the midst of our effort to seek Him. But it is not the
prophets who will sanctify our lives for us. Sanctification rests upon the
head of each individual. There is no one to tow us into celestial glory.
No man can go to heaven who has not first sent his heart there. We must
place it there ourselves; the prophets cannot do it for us. Neither can
the Lord.
That following the living prophets has its limitations was attested
to by Brigham Young: "I am more afraid that this people have so much
confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of
God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful lest they settle down in a
state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of
their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the
purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could
give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of
Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know,
by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their
leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not." (Disc. of B.
Y., p. 209)
In connection with this, the Saints needed to have the Spirit of the
Lord when Joseph Smith himself presented a contradiction in stating
publicly that the Mormon Church did not believe in polygamy (Section Ten),
all the while living the principle and teaching it privately. It was true
that the Church did not teach polygamy and it was not a doctrine of the
Church. But the Priesthood had the responsibility to perpetuate that
principle, as Joseph and others were doing. Plural marriage sealings under
the proper authority continued after the Manifesto of 1890 up to the
present day. One of many examples of disregard for Church policy in that
matter is that of B. H. Roberts:
[121] In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith issued another "little manifesto"
on behalf of the Church to meet the pressures of the outsiders. It was to
the effect that excommunication awaited those who fraternized with plural
marriage in any form. However, the case of Elder Brigham H. Roberts in
1904 represented a rather common exception to President Smith's public
pronouncement. Elder Roberts was one of the Seven Presidents of the First
Council of Seventy when he was prevailed upon to testify on April 20th
before the Senate in Washington, D.C., in the Reed Smoot Investigation.
(See Proceedings, etc., 1:704, et seq.) In the September, 1890, Manifesto,
President Wilford Woodruff clearly denied knowledge of "either one or
forty" plural marriages performed with the sanction of the Church between
June 1889 and August 22, 1890. The Deseret Evening News also invited proof
of any such marriages. But B. H. Roberts provided fuel for the controversy
when under pressure of oath he testified as follows:
"I have always known of the Manifesto of 1890, respecting the subject
of polygamy, and am familiar with the statements made by Wilford Woodruff
and Joseph F. Smith and others after the Manifesto was issued, that the
Manifesto referred to the subject of unlawful cohabitation as well as to
the taking of plural wives .... My third wife's name was Mrs. Shipp. I was
married to her in Salt Lake City in April of 1890. Daniel H. Wells, an
assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, performed the ceremony
....
"Chairman: Was it necessary to get the consent of any of the
authorities of the Church to marry a plural wife?
"Roberts: It was necessary to get those who were understood to hold
the authority to perform the ceremony.
"Chairman: Could you, occupying the position which you did in the
Church, take a plural wife without the knowledge of the authorities?
"Roberts: I did so, with the exception of Mr. Wells .... When the
authorities of the Church learned of this marriage, they took no action
against Mr. Wells for having performed the ceremony. He continued in his
position as an assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Nor was I
reprimanded for it, nor have I been at any time since.
"Chairman: In living in polygamous cohabitation you are living in
defiance of the Manifesto of 1890, are you not?
"Roberts: Yes sir. In defiance of the action of the Church on [122]
that subject." (Vol. 1:718-719)
So here we obviously have a living prophet who was not following the
living prophet. Elder Roberts continued in his position in the Church
until the day he died, neither the marriage nor his standing in the Church
ever having been challenged. Nor was the standing of Daniel H. Wells ever
challenged. He was formerly a member of the First Presidency of the Church
and had been ordained an Apostle under the hands of Brigham Young on
January 4, 1857, never having been a member of the Quorum of Twelve.
Further, President Joseph F. Smith, as we have noted, testified that
he "was living in defiance of the rule of the Church on that matter." So
the living prophet was not following himself. And it was his standard that
Elder S. Dilworth Young referred to as being the "method of handling
marriage." We don't believe there has been a modern revelation changing
the method either.
We could go on at considerable length with examples that are similar
through subsequent years. But the issue remains one of seeking the Lord
and His constituted authority upon the earth for our individual progress,
not resting upon the votes of a majority in decades gone by. George Q.
Cannon spoke regarding this matter 83 years ago. "Do not, brethren, put
your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President; if
you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong, or
seem to, and your support is gone; but if we lean on God, He will never
fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone,
their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step
aside." (Mill. Star, 53:673-4)
Many Saints do not rely upon the Lord. If they begin to search out
the facts at all as to whether or not plural marriage can be lived today
and still retain the approbation of the Lord, they invariably go about
counselling with one another or go to an Institute teacher or draft a
flurry of letters to members of the General Authorities of the Church. It
is perhaps satisfying homework, but the Lord's will concerning the
individual cannot be a blanket statement from Authorities who are bound to
covenants and agreements entered into with the government decades ago.
Mental pre-determination negatively used is a constant bar to progress;
therefore, we must seek the Lord concerning His will in our own lives. If
we are humble and submissive to His will, not privately hoping that He
will endorse our own, we will be led in due time to the necessary
Priesthood [123] sanction.
Such a course was marked out for us by the Prophet Joseph. He said,
"I advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into
the mysteries of Godliness. A man can do nothing for himself unless God
directs him in the right way; and the Priesthood is for that purpose."
(3:147) It was the Priesthood that organized the Church and presides over
the Church, which Priesthood can teach and direct in areas where the
Church presently cannot. Some of the "mysteries of godliness" fall into
this category.
Total reliance upon the arm of flesh precludes learning of the
mysteries. It is not a word with which we should become distraught. It is
true that there are the mysteries at certain points in our development
that should be left alone. But there are also many areas of, understanding
not now known to us, called mysteries, which we should and must rightfully
seek. Ammon in the Book of Mormon teaches us: "Yes, he that repenteth and
exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually
without ceasing--unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea,
unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been
revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls
to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our
brethren to repentance." (Alma 26:22)
Again, we find, "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the
mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made
rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich." (D.&C. 6:7) Verse 11
also counsels, "And if thou wilt inquire, thou shalt know mysteries which
are great and marvelous . ..." The key word, if all Israel will hear it,
is "inquire."
In Section 8, verse 11: "Ask that you may know the mysteries of God .
..." And in Section 42: "If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation
upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the
mysteries and peaceable things ...." (v. 61)
The hope of this people, those who would sanctify their lives by
living all of the restored laws, lies in humbly obeying the light we have
from God and in seeking for more. We have been counselled to cease leaning
upon the prophets in this matter. When we so live that our bodies become a
sanctuary for the Holy Ghost, the mysteries will become the light of truth
to us unto our sanctification. The gifts of the Spirit are available to
men only [124] according to their desires.
The frequent admonition to leave the mysteries alone, depending upon
which mysteries, also becomes an admonition to leave sanctification alone.
Those who do search the revelations of God and seek the Lord concerning
them, soon find it said of them that they are out of order because they
are not waiting upon the Church. We should certainly hope not.
The words of the Prophet Nephi are revelant to our day and to our
needs if we would become a holy people: "Angels speak by the power of the
Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said
unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ
will tell you all things what ye should do.
"Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot
understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock;
wherefore, ye are not brought into the light but must perish in the dark.
"For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the
way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye
should do." (2 Ne. 32:3-5)
This is precisely our point.
We have sought to analyze the concept of "follow the living prophets"
which has crept so deeply into our philosophy. Some of its earmarks are
dangerous. Joseph Smith, observing the same tendency in his day, taught
that the people were "depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in
their minds in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon
themselves ...." (T.P.J.S., p. 237-238) Additionally, the editor of the
Millennial Star knew of the precarious results of depending upon the arm
of flesh. "We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark that they
would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if
they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to
us; it is slavery in the extreme . ..." (14:594)
One wonders where test oaths and loyalty oaths in the Church fit in.
The counsel of the Lord is given in the Inspired Version of the
Bible: "Therefore, let every man stand or fall by himself, and not for
another; or not trusting another. Seek unto my Father, and it shall be
done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing
that ye shall receive.
"And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed [125]
to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend
thee, pluck him out. It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of
God with one eye than having two eyes be cast into hell fire. For it is
better that thyself should be saved than to be cast into hell with thy
brother . ..." (Mark 9:44-48)
Charles W. Penrose was also explicit: "President Wilford Woodruff is
a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him. But we do not believe
his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when `Thus
saith the Lord' comes from him, the Saints investigate it. They do not
shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Mill. Star 54:191)
Joseph the Prophet advises: "Search the scriptures ... search the
revelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of
His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it
with an eye single to His glory, nothing doubting, He will answer you by
the power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and not
for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of
God." (T.P.J.S., p. 11-12)
Yet, we read in the Ward Teachers Message for June 1945, "When our
leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is
God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When
they give direction, it should mark the end of the controversy." (Kraut,
Prin. or Pers., p. 38)
Brigham Young taught: "Those who suffer themselves to be led entirely
by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their
faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the
celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be
capable of becoming Gods .... Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired
with the true independence of heaven ...." (J.D. 1:312) Brigham Young did
not teach that the thinking should be done for us at all. It is the "true
independence of heaven" that we are speaking about, not the independence
assumed by many men and women who have forfeited the blessings of heaven
by having become a law unto themselves.
Further, we read in the October 1972 Ensign: "Brethren, keep your eye
on the President of this Church. If he tells you to do anything and it is
wrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."
We are appalled. The Lord will do no such thing, for He cannot.
Blessings are predicated upon obedience to God's law, not [126] upon
obedience to error no matter from whom it may come. The responsibility may
be upon the shoulders of the President or an Apostle or a Bishop, but who
is certain to suffer the loss? Surely we will be led to the kind of
remorse expressed by the poet, T. S. Eliot: "Where is the life we have
lost in the living?"
All men must follow the living principles in connection with the
living prophets, and in His infinite kindness, God will bless mankind
individually. The key to progress does not rest solely upon the pulpits.
There is an individual searching that must combine with all that the holy
prophets have been sent to bestow. We must shoulder our own load. When, in
the yielding up of our hearts to God, the corners of the load begin to
press, it is then that the Lord pours out His choicest blessings. We do
not hammer at the doors of the prophets; we knock at the windows of
heaven. And as much of heaven is visible as we have developed the eyes to
see.
The statement deserves repeating: "The time is here when the Saints
cannot come to Joseph F. Smith, Francis M. Lyman or Charles W. Penrose, or
others, for counsel. But they must go to the Lord and not depend upon the
arm of flesh for guidance." President Smith seemed to have been doing all
he possibly could to tell the Saints to live all of the laws because all
of the laws were available. He set the example.
Heber Bennion, son-in-law of President Heber J. Grant and a Stake
President in Taylorsville, stated the issue clearly for us: "We are told
that the living oracles take precedence over all other authority, living
or dead. We agree that the living oracles take precedence, provided that
they do not conflict with the dead oracles ... If it is true that the
living oracles take precedence over all others regardless of their
disagreements with the dead prophets, then the Saints must necessarily
change their faith every time there is a change in the presidency ... The
mention of such an attitude is so absurd as to border upon the
ridiculous." (Gosp. Prob., p. 6)
The conclusions we must arrive at, then, according to the views of
the prophets, are very clear. 1) Individual seeking is essential for the
sanctification of our lives; 2) We are counseled not to rely solely upon
the arm of flesh, for God prepares us as we prepare ourselves; 3) The
position of God's holy prophets, who are essential to our progress and
blessing, does not relieve us of personal responsibility; 4) The
revelations of God are not subject to either private interpretation or
modern innovation; and 5) [127] Principles and ordinances restored through
the Prophet Joseph Smith are worth more than our mortal lives.
But we were recently taught, "... Thus, the way they interpreted the
revelation in those days has no particular bearing on the way the
revelations are being interpreted today ... What they did in that day does
not bind us at all ... Modern revelation is what President Joseph Smith
said, unless President Spencer W. Kimball says differently."
The comparison between those conclusions outlined by the servants of
the Lord and that of the view outlined in modern times, leaves one
marvelling in unbelief at the inconsistency.
Joseph Smith's warning, "If any man preach any other gospel than that
which I have preached, he shall be cursed," is of vital significance. His
words were but the modern reflection of the Apostle Paul's Anxiety in the
first century: "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."
(Gal. 1:8-9) Both prophets recognized the tendency to fall into error as
changes creep into laws and principles and ordinances and revelations, the
error gradually transforming itself into complete apostacy. The prophets
knew the earmarks, and their warnings Were stern and unmistakable.
If we carry the unchecked concept of "follow the living prophet" to
its inevitable conclusion, we must recognize that it was this exact
procedure that paved the way for the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. It
was born from "follow the living prophet." The gradual abandonment and
change of original principles and ordinances could have resulted in
nothing else. Policy, rather than revelation, finally took over and became
subject to anybody's whim. This is a tremendously significant issue,
because it laid the groundwork for the necessary calling of the Prophet
Joseph Smith. Men had so far changed the religion of Jesus Christ that it
became a form of godliness without the power thereof. It is the contention
of some that the Christian religion established by the Lord was
perpetuated through the ages of apostasy into a pure modern form. The
thought is absurd. No possible age of reformation could sift out the
impurities, fallacy of doctrine or strained interpretations of
administering ordinances which gradually transformed the early Christian
Church into the Church of men. There is a great difference [128] between
professing religion and possessing religion. The time had come for a full
and final restoration of the gospel. It was time for the calling of the
Prophet Joseph Smith. By once more conferring divine authority upon men,
the Lord re-established His Church upon the earth, embodying every
principle and ordinance necessary to exalt mankind. The dispensation of
the fulness of times was to restore all things, gather together in one all
things in Christ both in heaven and in earth, never to be taken from the
earth again. (Daniel 2:44) The Church's mission is to prepare men for the
Father's Kingdom. She will become the Church triumphant, glorified by the
presence of her Lord and Head, Jesus Christ.
This generation has the word of the Lord through Joseph the Prophet.
The fulness of the gospel has been entrusted to us in the latter days and
cannot be added to nor taken from, in any form. Joseph said, "Ordinances
instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the
priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.
All must be saved on the same principles ... All men who become heirs of
God and joint-heirs of Jesus Christ, will have to receive the fulness of
the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the
ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory, if they do not
lose the whole." (D.H.C. 5:423-4)
Thus, all men must be saved by submitting themselves to the same,
unchanging ordinances, ordinances that must not be altered. Consider a
conflict: Said Apostle Stephen L. Richards in 1932, "I hold it entirely
compatible with the genius of the Church to change its forms of procedure,
customs and ordinances in accordance with our own knowledge and
experience. I would not discard an old practice merely because it is old,
but only after it has outworn its usefulness." He pointed out that some
changes in the ordinances, forms and methods of the Church had been made
in recent years and that these changes had disturbed some of the members.
(The temple garments had been changed at that time.) "Personally," he
continues, "I approve of those changes and hope the general authorities
will be led to make others as changing conditions warrant." (3:455-6)
We are reminded of the prophecy of Isaiah, who pointed to the latter
days: "... They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken
the everlasting covenant." (Is. 24:5)
Elder Stephen L. Richards was the living prophet at the time, not
Joseph Smith. What is truth? We remember also the [129] following
contradiction: Brigham Young firmly stated, "There is nothing that would
so soon 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 . ..." (J.D. 10:32)
But Heber J. Grant said, "My greatest happiness I find in the
goodwill and friendship that has developed among all classes of people at
home and abroad toward the Latter-day Saints, during my lifetime; in place
of everyday persecutions and bitterness we now enjoy the high regard and
happy association with all denominations." (S.L. Trib., Nov. 22, 1938)
Where shall we place our faith, since Brigham Young was a dead prophet and
Heber J. Grant was a living prophet?
Further, in 1906, President Joseph F. Smith taught: "The Lord has
given unto us garments of the holy Priesthood, and you know what that
means. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them in order that we
may follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices of
the world .... They should hold these things that God has given unto them
sacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave
them . ..." (3:401-402)
If a garment should be held sacred and unaltered and unchanged, what
should be our attitude about principles and ordinances?
Seventeen years later, President Heber J. Grant authorized extensive
changes in the garment style and pattern. The First Presidency stated in a
letter under date of June 14, 1923, "After careful and prayerful
consideration it was unanimously decided that the following modifications
may be permitted, and a garment of the following style be worn by those
Church members who wish to adopt it, namely ...." and he enumerates
changes in sleeves, legs, eliminating the collar and strings. Buttons were
readily available in Joseph Smith's day. Why didn't he authorize buttons?
Did this new pattern still constitute a garment "unchanged and unaltered
from the very pattern in which God gave it?" Was this all right because
President Smith was a dead prophet? Joseph Smith was also a dead prophet.
We have a further key from Joseph the Prophet: "Every principle
proceeding from God is eternal and any principle which is not eternal is
of the devil." (T.P.J.S., p. 181) Eternal means unchanging and unending.
Other serious alterations and modifications are to be found [130]
elsewhere in the restored gospel, and they justifiably give cause for
concern. Let us consider a reality: Since those in the Church who believe
in or teach or, worst of all, practice plural marriage (under correct
authority) are quickly excommunicated, let us assume that every last
person is identified and favored with separation papers. Let us add to
that the relinquishment of the United Order and Consecration. What then
makes the Lord's Church any different from other churches in its ability
to exalt mankind? What is salt that has lost its savor? These are serious
considerations and a basis for the assurance that the Lord provided a way
for all of His holy laws to survive in the last dispensation. We may be
sure that Satan is pleased with religion. He likes people to be content
with all the religion they want. He likes people to attend meetings and
fast and pray and go to the temple. If he can nullify it. If he can just
take the teeth out of it.
The Lord has given us a pattern in all things. It seems doubtful that
He would do so and leave us without a way to embrace that pattern unto the
fulfilling of all the law. The Lord taught: "And again, I will give unto
you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is
abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations. Wherefore he
that prayeth, whose spirit is contrite, the same is accepted of me if he
obey mine ordinances.
"He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek
and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances. And again, he
that trembleth under my power shall be made strong, and shall bring forth
fruits of praise and wisdom, according to the revelations and truths which
I have given you. And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth
fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me. Wherefore, by this
pattern ye shall know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens."
(D.&C. 52:14-19)
That is the word of the Lord. We are unquestionably in a state of
paralysis if the saving ordinances are no longer available to us. If they
are in a state of suspension, so are we.
Further emphasis on this point is given by the Lord: "Therefore, in
the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without
the ordinances thereof and the authority of the Priesthood, the power of
Godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; for without this no man
can see the face of God, even the Father, and live." (D.&C. 84:20-22)
Therefore, those saving ordinances and principles must be [131]
available to us by God's authority or we are as the people of Moses,
wandering in the wilderness under less than saving laws. The Lord has
restored all things, together with the necessary keys of authority. The
Prophet Joseph Smith said that it was necessary to know where the keys of
authority are. Not only must we know where they are, but we must
understand the nature of those keys and that authority. There are keys and
authority within the Church sufficient to bear off its work triumphantly.
There are also keys, there is authority, there is Priesthood sufficient to
seal the sons and daughters of Adam up to their eternal exaltation.
We must live up to every principle of the gospel. There is not one
single principle of the gospel that we can change or alter. We cannot
change the principle of faith for hypnotism. We cannot replace the
principle of repentance with pretension. We cannot change the principle of
baptism by immersion for sprinkling. We cannot partake of the holy emblems
of the Sacrament and believe in transubstantiation. We cannot violate the
Sabbath day without displeasing God. We cannot break the Word of Wisdom
and expect health and strength. We cannot replace the law of celestial
plural marriage with monogamy and expect exaltation with the gods who are
living it. We have the same unchanging, unchangeable gospel that God has
revealed unto the children of men since the days of Adam, with the
accompanying promise that that same unchanging, unchangeable gospel would
be upon the earth when Christ came in His glory. And it is up to you and
to me to see that these ordinances without exception are fulfilled if we
anticipate remaining upon the earth when He is here.
Joseph the Prophet said that one of the things that haunted him about
the resurrection was the look upon some of the Saints when he gazed into
their faces and saw that they had fallen short of the glory they thought
they had obtained. He said that they did not obtain it because of the
cares of the world. They sought after the honors of men and neglected the
weightier principles of the gospel, without which they could not receive a
fulness of exaltation. If we fail to look at root causes, we will
inevitably fail to look at ultimate consequences.
We can prepare ourselves increasingly by the devotion of our lives to
that faith which is within us, which will grow like a seed unto that
perfect day when it shall no longer be faith, but knowledge. For the Holy
Ghost will give us a knowledge that will overrule any knowledge we can
secure by miracles or by the [132] testimony of others or by the external
evidences that now prove that all the scriptures are true. The still,
small whispering of the Holy Ghost can let us know these things are true.
But that is a spiritual gift. It is a gift directly from God. It is the
foundation upon which you and I must develop our spiritual abilities until
that time when, through the grace of God and absolute meekness and
humility within ourselves, this spiritual gift can prepare us for a more
tangible evidence than all earthly evidences. And that is the personal
visitation of angels and the eventual companionship and joy of seeing the
face of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and having spiritual existence
become as real and as tangible to our eyes and ears and our touch as are
the physical evidences of our physical existence now. This is God's will
concerning His Saints. There is not one principle that is not worth more
than our mortal lives. No, not one.
On the following page is a reproduction of an Editorial in the
Klamath Falls, Oregon, newspaper, The Herald and News, October 11, 1974.
A. We are bewildered by their bewilderment of our "concepts of baptism and
sacrament." We baptized by immersion and partake of bread and water. Don't
most other churches?
B. There is no forceful rule of any kind by the Twelve. The Church was
founded upon the principle of free agency and common consent in the
Church, which free agency allowed every member is constantly guarded.
1. If a man with only one leg is accepted into the Church with his one
leg, but he was told he must do as best he can, are we denying him
privileges belonging to all mankind?
If a man has a black skin and God has decreed he cannot hold the
Priesthood now but may at God's appointed time, then is the Church obliged
to say God is wrong and men are right and therefore the negro must be
given the Priesthood because he clamors for it (very few do)? Yet he
cannot use it anymore than the man with one leg could use his amputated
member until by God's power and mandate the leg or the Priesthood has been
restored.
No man can receive the Priesthood and exercise it except he is
obedient to the provisions given by God. Any white man who has a black
soul is denied that privilege. There is no discrimination by God in these
matters. We receive the blessing we merit by obedience to God's laws and
by living. in compliance to His ordinances in the past, in the present,
and in the future.
[133]
Latter-day Saints Face Many Problems
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has just opened a
glistening new temple in Washington, D. C. Four soaring spires reach into
the sky, perhaps symbolic. of the high goals of the Mormon community, here
and overseas. For most of this century, the focus of concern and public
relations has been at Salt Lake City and the famous Tabernacle that has
become a western landmark, with its first-rate choir.
The new center is clearly a move by the Church of Latter-day Saints
to reach the millions of Washington visitors with their message of Joseph
Smith and the Book of Mormon. In this era of fascination for the strange
and bizarre in religion (witness the two-hour sermon in Madison Square
Garden by Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church) the Mormons may
indeed be looking to a major breakthrough and acceptance in Western
culture.
In Christian circles, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
has never gained approval. The theological differences have been too vast
(and early Mormon practices unacceptable) for mainline denominations to
admit much common ground. Most Christians admire the high values on family
life prized by the followers of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but are
bewildered by the concepts of baptism and sacrament as expressed in Mormon
practice.
Presently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is facing
some serious questions within its own ranks. In a church completely
dominated by, "The Twelve" and ruled forcefully by the most senior of
citizens, younger members are expressing quietly these concerns:
1. The racism of their theology--that black people have no true
participation in the life of the church or in the teachings of their
faith. There is no way that this doctrine can be justified in contemporary
life. Until this religious group has a "reformation," the stress and
inherent conflict of this point will be sure to grow.
2. The place of women. In a male-dominated church Mormon women have
been placed in a secondary role. Joseph Smith preached and practiced
plural marriage. This was finally outlawed by an act of Congress, and
abandoned by the church in 1890. Yet today the leadership of women is
nowhere to be found in key positions or posts. It is hard to imagine
significant growth in this century for a denomination that has no
opportunity for women.
3. The soaring divorce rate in Utah. Younger Mormons are alarmed at
the apparent high rate of divorce for the Zion state of Utah.
Reprint from The Herald and News, October 11, 1974.
[134] 2. To this we only vehemently assert that the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints grants to women a suffrage never accorded any other
religion on earth. They preside and hold office in women's organizations
under the direction of the Priesthood. The Church through the Priesthood
offers them a glory of motherhood impossible to other faiths, that of
Queenhood and Godhood.
The Editor pleads a cause for the Mormon women with which Mormon
women would completely disagree. It is rather reminiscent of the raids on
homes and families by the well-meaning to save the women in polygamous
homes from a fate they have freely chosen and from which they have no wish
whatever to be saved. God never reveals a program or a law which in any
way is designed to harm women.
3. The soaring divorce rate is the inevitable result of our having adopted
the ways of the world in preference to the laws of God. We must repent and
return to God and God's laws.
We have inserted this news article into this Section as a matter of
interest and as an item for comment. The article exhibits an obvious lack
of understanding of both doctrine and organization of the Latter-day Saint
Church. But more significantly, Eliza R. Snow Smith's statement, `There is
a test before us in the near future that will try every soul; and who will
be able to stand?" can very well be levelled at contemporary young
Mormons. Are the young men and women prepared to stand for every
revelation in the gospel? Shall they surge against the gates of God's laws
and press for innovation and modification?
Shades of 1890. A contributive part of the ingredients that made up
the pressures for giving up plural marriage came from the young Mormons
themselves. They desired to hold office as well as to succeed in their
businesses in an antagonistic gentile society who had cut them off. If
they pressure today for reforms and changes in the gospel of Jesus Christ,
they shall surely have them, to their ultimate desolation.
The question each must ask is, "Where do I stand when the issues are
squarely before me?" For that question will have to be answered by every
Latter-day Saint as surely as God lives. The hour is upon us. Are the
principles and ordinances, the revelations of the Lord worth more than our
mortal lives?
[135]
SECTION TEN
"ONE ON EARTH AT A TIME..."
When God revealed His will concerning the patriarchal order of
marriage in this last dispensation of time, it was in answer to a query
made by the Prophet Joseph Smith as to how the Lord "justified Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, as touching the
principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." The
Lord told him He would answer him as touching "this" matter. Therefore he
must prepare his heart "to receive and obey the instructions" which God
was about to reveal unto him. "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an
everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye
damned." (D.&C. 132:1-4)
The Lord was talking about justifying Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in
having many wives and concubines. He was specifically talking about that
subject and specifically said that He would answer Joseph as touching that
particular matter. It is not a revelation solely on the matter of the
sealing of marriages for time and eternity. It is a revelation on
celestial plural marriage. There is a, tendency to slide over the real
issue of that revelation. God is explicit in telling us that we must obey
this commandment, for it is according to His will. Included in the
eternity of the marriage covenant is the necessity of righteous men living
the order of celestial plural marriage. We are clearly taught that this
order has to be obeyed in this life if men are to rise above the order of
angels and be gods in the world to come. "For these angels did not abide
my law; (The law in Section 132 is specifically the keynote of the
revelation, the law of plural marriage in which God justified David and
Solomon.) therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and
singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and
from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (v.
17) Such is the future condition of those who will not abide that law.
The Lord stated in verse 11 that this law was instituted by Him and
His Father before the world was, and that no man could come unto the
Father, "but by me and by my word which is my law." (v. 12) We call
attention again to the words of President Joseph F. Smith, whose entire
talk is found in Section One. This [136] is cited to remind us that our
complacency in having fulfilled only part of the law is not only
unfounded, but presumptuous. The law was instituted before the world
was--the full law--and that means that the law always was and always will
be. "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 ... is fulfillment of the
celestial law of marriage in part ...." (J.D. 20:24-31) Therefore, the
full law of marriage, which is plural marriage, is binding upon the Saints
who would receive a fulness of the Father's glory.
In connection with this, we are surprised to note a paragraph in the
latest publication of Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus. He said on page 457 of
Doctrines of the Kingdom, "The basic law of eternal marriage was that of
monogamy." On the contrary, monogamy has never been eternal marriage.
There are no Gods living in the monogamous state. It is a grievous thing
to find attempts being made to sink plural marriage out of existence or to
present plural marriage under God's law as a watered-down concept, or as
one with rarified application in preference to monogamy. This is a false
assumption, and it tends toward apology for God's holy law.
Monogamy is not God's basic law of eternal marriage. The fact of the
matter is that God's system of marriage is the same yesterday, today and
forever. God's system of marriage that runs down through the worlds is
patterned after the order of marriage that exists in the heavens and has
never changed. Orson Spencer writes in his Letters, 1891 edition: "When
God sets up any portion of his kingdom upon the earth, it is patterned
after his own order in the heavens. When he gives to men a pattern of
family organization on the earth, that pattern will be just like his own
family organization in the heavens. The family of Abraham was a transcript
of a celestial pattern. The likeness was drawn by a master artist, who was
perfectly familiar with the celestial pattern .... This family order of
Abraham was spread out before God, and met with his entire and full
approbation. And why did God approve of it? Because it is the only order
practiced in the celestial heavens, and the only peaceful, united and
prosperous order that will endure, while man-invented orders and devices
will utterly deceive and perish with the using." (p. 192-193)
Further evidence of that system in heaven was made very [137] clear
by Brigham Young: "When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he
came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with
him." (J.D. 1:50-51) Obviously, that represents plurality. Monogamy is not
the basic system in heaven or on earth. The order in heaven finds its
pattern upon the earth. We find the friends of God, Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, all living plural marriage. All scripture, it may be added, has
been written by polygamist prophets. If monogamy is the basic form of
marriage and polygamy is something of an incidental, why do we not find
Christ in all His teaching saying something against polygamy and branding
it as secondary or wrong or perhaps transitory?
Instead, we find the writings of Aurelius Cornelius Celsus, the great
physician of the first century, teaching a great truth: "The grand reason
why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ,
was because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth and Mary, and a
host of others that followed him." (JMG, J.D. 1:345) Was not Christ the
great Exemplar? In all things He led the way.
Joseph F. Smith taught: "Jesus Christ never omitted the fulfillment
of a single law that God has made known for the salvation of the children
of men. It would not have done for him to have come and obeyed one law and
neglected or rejected another. He could not consistently do that and then
say to mankind, `Follow Me.'" (Mill. Star 62:97) Though He was holy, yet
he was baptized. Can we safely assume He did not fulfill the highest law
of marriage? He was the Word of God.
Polygamy, not monogamy, was the basic form of eternal marriage.
Brigham Young gave the background for monogamy as it evolved into the
substitute for the true form of marriage. "Monogamy, or restrictions by
law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a
system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire. That Empire was
founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these
robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their
success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbors, depended on
introducing females into their body politic, so they stole them from the
Sabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcity of women gave existence to
laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the
world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was
acknowledged. Thus this monogamous order of marriage so esteemed by modern
[138] Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing
but a system established by a set of robbers." (J.D. 9:322) So we have
Brigham Young's opinion of monogamy as the "basic form of eternal
marriage."
The eternity of the marriage covenant comprehends plural marriage.
Charles W. Penrose spoke to the Saints in Centerville: "He showed that the
revelation that had been the subject of attention (See. 132) was not the
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 indissolubly interwoven with each other." (Mill. Star
45:454)
The order of marriage is again set forth: "Why do we believe in and
practice plural marriage? Because the Lord introduced it to His servants
in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always
practiced it. And is that religion popular in heaven? It is the only
popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and unless we
do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according to
the promise." (B. Young, J.D. 9:322) President Young states that the
Lord's servants have always practiced it. The Lord's servants, then, ought
not to be found diluting a holy principle and encouraging substitutes as
better or more basic doctrine.
Apostle Erastus Snow said, "Joseph Smith said that the parable that
Jesus spoke of that the man who had one talent and hid it in the earth was
the man who had but one wife and would not take another, would have her
taken from him and given to one who had more." (Journal of W. Woodruff,
Oct. 14, 1882, meeting of acceptance of the 1882 revelation.)
Brigham Young understood the parable similarly: "Now where a man in
this Church says, `I don't want but one wife, I will have my religion with
one,' he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets
there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has
had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, `Here is
that which thou gavest me. I have not wasted it, and here is the one
talent,' and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those
who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself
without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever." (J.D.
16:166)
Eternal marriage and monogamy are unquestionably incompatible. As a
concept of eternal marriage, monogamous marriage has no more substance to
it than does it to say that baptism is all [139] that is necessary for the
fulness of the Holy Ghost.
As an interesting matter of fact, the monogamist state was rather
repugnant to Heber C. Kimball: "I have noticed that a man who has but one
wife and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up.
For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business." (J.D.
5:22) We find Apostle George A. Smith speaking from the same platform:
"They are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men who chain
themselves down to the law of monogamy and live all their days under the
dominion of one wife." (J.D. 3:291) We can safely assume that monogamy is
not the "basic law of eternal marriage." Rather, we would agree that
monogamy is the basic law of the world.
Let us now consider a more significant statement made in Dr. Hyrum L.
Andrus' otherwise commendable publication. On page 441 of Doctrines of the
Kingdom, it is stated: "In a revelation, the Lord announced that there was
`never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of
this priesthood are conferred.' That man was the Prophet and President of
the Church of Jesus Christ .... All things within the divine system,
therefore, were to be directed by the eternal law and inspiration of God
through a living prophet." This particular issue is the crux of our
concentration in this Section, since many Saints become quite nervous when
considering the possibility of Priesthood functioning independent of the
Church. A statement of J. Reuben Clark comes to mind in connection with
this: "The Priesthood is essential to the Church, but the Church is not
essential to the Priesthood." (Imp. Era, Mar., 1936, p. 134)
We agree that God directs His word through a living prophet, for
"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his
servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) It is true that Joseph as Prophet and
President of the Church received the keys for the perpetuation of all of
the gospel. It is true that in the early days of the Church he taught the
principle of celestial plural marriage to a few trusted friends in whom he
felt he could place his confidence. He, himself, entered into it and
instituted all of those who could abide it in righteousness into it also.
But it was not a doctrine of the Church at that time. The Prophet, very
properly under the direction of God, took action against any who justified
themselves in living that principle unless they did it under his direct
command. Consequently, we find seemingly contradictory positions on his
part, the Prophet teaching it privately for a number of years to trusted
individuals, [140] while openly declaring that it was not practiced by the
Church and was not a tenet of the Church, which, in both instances, it
wasn't. It was a doctrine under the direction of the Priesthood, as it is
today. As an example of Joseph's position:
"I answered the questions which were frequently asked me, while on my
last journey. . .`Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?'
No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies,
they have a right to marry again. But we do disapprove of the custom,
which has gained in the world, and has been practiced among us, to our
great mortification, in marrying in five or six weeks or even in two or
three months, after the death of their companion. We believe that due
respect ought to be had to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of
both friends and children." (1:6-7) This was recorded in 1838, and Joseph
was living the principle at the time.
Again, Joseph records in February of 1844: "As we have lately been
credibly informed that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching
polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer,
State of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that
he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further
notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to
make answer to these charges. Signed Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidents
of the Church." (3:132)
The contradiction here is obvious, but there is a position assumed by
the Prophet in this that we must understand. He knew the difficulties
under which he would have to establish that principle. He saw well in
advance that because of the traditions of men, all of the troubles they
had formerly experienced would be compounded upon them. He knew it was the
disposition of the wicked to enter into the principle as a justification
of their wickedness. He intended under God's direction to keep it a pure
and a holy principle. With these things in mind and with a view to the
future and the danger that it would invite upon the very establishment of
the Church itself, he was very, very careful.
Had God not directed him to take the steps necessary to conceal the
principle where necessary and to teach it where possible, it would have
been impossible to establish the Church in its fulness and keep it alive.
Joseph also said, "I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife
at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise." (D.H.C. 6:46) That is true.
But the Lord has directed [141] otherwise. Joseph received the
commandment. Monogamy was the established system of the time, and he knew
that if he let everyone go around freely entering into plural marriage,
they would abuse the law, and great havoc would be the result. But that it
was very definitely established by the Prophet in his lifetime and lived
by him and his associates, is impossible to deny. It is also very
definitely functioning today, under the Lord's command, and is binding
upon His Priesthood.
Brigham Young gives us insight as to an item of procedure. Said he,
"The Keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph to build up the
Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or
in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by
the voice of the people, though he held the Keys of the Priesthood
independent of their vote." (J.D. 1:133) Joseph could have lost his
position as President of the Church, had the people so voted. The Church
is democratic in function and is persuaded by the vote. But the Priesthood
is theocratic in government, directed by and accountable to God. It was
the power of the Priesthood that established the Church. The Church did
not and does not preside over the Priesthood. Priesthood directs as to the
will of God, whether the people choose to obey or not. God cannot be
bound--unless it be through our righteousness. "I the Lord am bound when
ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."
(D.&C. 82:10)
We mention these things because much is made of the issue that the
principle of plural marriage cannot be perpetuated except through the
President of the Church. But that is to say that the people can tie the
hands of the Lord for all mankind, and that is incorrect. A different
procedure was adopted by the Lord when the Church's majority decided to
vote the principle of plural marriage into obscurity. The Lord made
arrangement to fulfill His word in the last dispensation in order that the
fulness of His gospel would remain and accomplish its holy design. That
the Lord should do so isn't too surprising, if one ponders the question
inevitably placed before us:
If the keys for perpetuating plural marriage are Church-held but have
been suspended, how do you suspend keys without losing them? When a
generation passes without an ordinance being perpetuated, how, then, can
it be perpetuated? Who has lived the law? Can you hold the keys and
perpetuate an ordinance you, yourself, have never received? Can you
baptize if you have not been baptized? Can you confer Priesthood if you
haven't [142] received Priesthood? Or, if the keys to an ordinance are
perpetuated on the earth, can that be so without perpetuating the
ordinance? And without all of the keys alive and active, can we have the
"winding-up scene"? If keys are lost by being "suspended" so that no one
is authoritatively living the principle, can they be dispensed again?
Would that not require another dispensation? Was this not declared by the
Lord Himself to be the last? If the keys were taken from the earth or were
suspended and no one is living the principle, the keys are lost in the
impossibility of perpetuating an ordinance no one has received. We can
only build up to making liars out of the Lord and Joseph Smith, for we
would need another angel from heaven to restore "suspended" keys that no
one could activate.
Brigham Young provides another clue: "Does a man's being a Prophet in
this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! A
man may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do
with his being the President of the Church." (J.D. 1:133) The Lord can
accomplish His work through any worthy man He chooses, and indeed must, if
the Church President is bound by the people.
Another statement worth our contemplation: "As to a person not
knowing more than the written word, let me tell you that there are keys
that the written word never spoke of, nor never will." (Times and Seasons,
5:667)
We have outlined in Section Four the manner in which he Lord chose to
ensure the continuation of plural marriage, which was through President
John Taylor. We hear and read of protests that there are no "secret
ordinations" sanctioned by the Lord. This is covered more completely in
Section Eleven. It is an uninformed stand, for unpublished and unannounced
ordinations are not unheard of in the early Christian Church as well as in
the latter days. For instance, it is recorded in the Life of Joseph F.
Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 225: "He was ordained an Apostle and
Counselor to Pres. Brigham Young--the ordination kept secret." On page 227
is the account of that secret ordination, and it was kept secret for 14
months. Heber C. Kimball, the other member of the First Presidency, was
himself unaware. This was not a one-time exception. The same was true of
George A. Smith, the Prophet's cousin. Common consent is not always
sought, nor should we assume that it would be necessary in all things.
Joseph F. Smith, by the way, was an Apostle for 20 years before he was a
member of the Quorum. The Church cannot bind the Priesthood, [143] and the
Priesthood is never instructed from below.
Further "secrecy:" "There are men here, brethren, who have got
authority, but we don't want to mention their names, for the enemy will
try to kill them." (B. Young, Times and Seasons, 5:663) Death may not
presently be the issue, but that necessity can demand secrecy if
necessary, or require extra measures as events may suggest, should not be
questioned or cause us to waver in our faith. The Manifesto brought about
the necessity of "re-routing" God's law of plural marriage. Judging such a
thing impossible and insisting that the Lord hold to our ideas of
procedure indicates an unyielding tendency to counsel the Lord. Surely it
isn't in our hearts to do that.
The president of the Church under the direction of God can instruct
any man to function as the Lord sees fit. John Taylor's action tended to
disannul an unfortunate covenant with the government, independent of the
Church. Subsequent Church presidents carried out the policy. It is very
apparent that the presidents of the Church had no intention of allowing
the Manifesto, offered to the government and to the petitioning Saints, to
stop plural marriages in this last dispensation. There is no question that
we cannot have the fulness of celestial glory unless we have the fulness
of celestial law. And the fulness of the celestial marriage covenant of
necessity includes plural marriages, for so spoke the prophets. There is
no revelation in our Standard Works on monogamy--unless it is an exception
and a limiting edict to an unworthy people. From the Millennial Star: "We
cannot be married ... for eternity without subscribing to the law that
admits a plurality of wives." (5:15) That the Lord in His tender mercy
would find means for making everything available to us necessary for our
exaltation, ought to fill us with gratitude, not shock.
Therefore, if there is a president of the Church who is not
advocating that law either because he will not or he cannot, and he is not
living it, then God must choose another prophet from among His Priesthood
to perpetuate the principle, who is living it. This is a key: If you
desire to seek after the man who holds the keys, look for the man who is
living all of the laws. "For it is not meet that men who will not abide my
law shall preside over my Priesthood." (1:336) We are reminded of Daniel
2:44 again: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up
a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be
left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and [144] consume all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Whatever its hardships and
buffetings, the Kingdom yet stands. It is the Kingdom of God. It should be
understood that because the "Gentiles rejected the fulness of the gospel,
God took it from them and drove it into the wilderness again, among His
Priesthood. (See Section 12.) It could no longer be under the direction of
the Church presidents, and they were the first to proclaim that very
thing.
Consider a scripture: Quoting from Doctrine and Covenants Section
130:14-17: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the
coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou
shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and
trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to
decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the Millennium or
to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that
time."
That would put us into the fall of 1890, Joseph having been born in
1805. Orson Pratt, when writing his footnotes for the Doctrine and
Covenants, wrote as a footnote for the scripture just quoted: "Near the
end of the year 1890. See the prophecy of Joseph uttered 14 Feb. 1835,
Millennial Star (Vol. 15, No. 13). `Even fifty-six years shall wind up the
scene.' Whether this has reference to the coming of Christ, or the
`fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles' is unknown." Joseph prophesied
in 1835, according to the minutes recorded in the Millennial Star, that
"Even fifty-six years should wind up the scene," which again puts us into
1890-91.
It becomes very evident that the fulness of the times of the Gentiles
was fulfilled in the rejection of the principle of plural marriage. "At
that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel ... and shall
reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring
the fulness of my gospel from among them." (3 Ne. 16:10) Obviously, who
had the fulness of the gospel and were in the position to reject it? Only
the Latter-day Saints. It is evident from the Prophet Joseph, cited above,
that the end of the year 1890 or the beginning of 1891, was, by the word
of the Savior, to witness some remarkable event, either the coming of Lord
to usher in the Millennial reign, the redemption of Zion, or the "fullness
of the times of the Gentiles." The Savior came to [145] John Taylor in
1886, as well as to others, but we are well aware that the Millennium is
not yet. And certainly Zion has not yet been redeemed. It is not living
celestial law as stated in D.&C. 105. Therefore, we must conclude that
Joseph had reference to the "fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles," as
suggested by Orson Pratt in his footnotes.
Further, it is in fulfillment of prophecy. Doctrine and Covenants
45:28-30: "And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall
break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness
of my gospel; But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light,
and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men. And in
that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
The Lord said He would not revoke the law of celestial plural
marriage in 1886, though the Saints would have their free agency to accept
or reject it. They rejected it in large number, forfeiting their
opportunity to the fulness of the gospel. Thus, the "times of the
Gentiles" was fulfilled. The Savior did not come to redeem them because
they failed to keep their covenants. Therefore, the fulness of His gospel
was indeed taken from among them, into the arms of the Priesthood. Yet we
still have many Saints presuming to state that plural marriage cannot be
lived or perpetuated because the president of the Church has to be the one
activating the keys. Thus we seek to counsel the
Lord even when rejecting His law.
Brigham Young would have allowed the Church to do as it chose, taking
the power and authority of the Priesthood with him to organize under God's
direction elsewhere if necessary. After Joseph's death in 1844, he said:
"I do not care who leads the Church, even though it were Ann Lee." Brigham
Young knew who held the keys. He said further, "I know where the keys of
the kingdom are, and where they will eternally be." (D.H.C. 7:230-233) We
are reminded, "Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he
shall be the President of it? I answer, no!" Plural marriage cannot be
perpetuated through the Church president under the circumstances imposed
upon the Church in 1890. The Church is presently fulfilling all of the
mission that it covenanted to do. It is God's true Church. May we
emphasize the fact that the fulness of the gospel is not held out as a
substitute for the Church. Indeed not. The fulness of the gospel
comprehends all of the gospel restored through the Prophet Joseph.
It is essential to emphasize that the president of the Church [146]
on a number of occasions has commissioned men to act in his behalf, and
has made it clear that he does not want to know when they perform
marriages. The president of the Church has that authority. For example,
here is part of the examination of the witness, President John Taylor,
before Judge Zane in the 1884 polygamy trials:
Mr. Dickson: Give me the names, if you can, of the priests or
ministers, or whatever name they are known by in the Church, in this city,
who were authorized to perform plural marriages within the past three
years.
Taylor: I could not give you these names.
Q: Can you give me any of them?
A: No sir.
Q: Can you not give the name of any person in the Church who was
authorized to celebrate plural marriages within this period of time?
A: I will state in relation to these matters, that I have nothing to
do with the details.
Q: I understand it is you from whom the authority comes?
A: Yes, sir; but I have nothing to do with the details of the matter.
Q: But you are the person who confers the authority?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Then you do know upon whom you do confer authority?
A: There are hundreds of people who have authority ....
Q: You do not know at any time who is authorized to celebrate plural
marriages?
A: No, sir, I do not know ....
Q: There is no records kept?
A: Don't have any such records.
Q: Then if you don't know the names of the persons who celebrate the
rites, and there is no record of it known to you, how can you tell whether
a marriage is celebrated?
A: I have nothing to do with details ....
Q: Is there any record of marriages?
A: I am not acquainted with the records.
Q: Do you know whether a record of marriages is kept?
A: It is very probable there is.
Q: Can you say whether there is or not?
A: I think likely there is.
Q: Did you ever see it?
A: I do not know that I have.
[147] Q: If you wanted to see it, is there any means of ascertaining where
it is?
A: I could find out by inquiry.
Q: Will you be good enough to do so?
A: Well, I am not good enough to do so." (3:210-224)
To follow up and make clarification to the Saints, President Taylor
spoke of this interview to them. The entire reference on the above-cited
pages should be read. It is pure entertainment. He said, "I was lately
called upon as a witness--perhaps you may have seen some account of it in
the papers--and I want to make some explanation in relation to the matters
that I then presented, because they are not generally understood. I was
required to divulge certain things. I did not know them to divulge.
Perhaps some of you have had people come to you with their confidences. I
have. But I don't want to be a confidant. Why? Because if they made a
confidant of me and I was called before a tribunal, I could not, as an
honorable man, reveal their confidences, yet it would be said I was a
transgressor of law; but no honorable man can reveal confidences that are
committed to him. Therefore, I tell them to keep their own secrets, and
remember what is called the Mormon creed, `Mind your own business.' I
don't want to know the secrets of people, those that I cannot tell. And I
could not tell very much to that court; for I have studiously avoided
knowing any more than I could possibly help about such matters."
(1:343-344)
Surely we can understand that the president of the Church was in a
position where he made it his business to give the right to perform these
marriages, but did not know what was going on so they could not pin him
down and get him and the Church into trouble. For example, the writer's
father's plural marriage after the Manifesto was with the knowledge and
consent of the First Presidency, though they did not perform the sealing.
Further, when the writer's grandfather went to President Wilford Woodruff
about entering into plural marriage after the Manifesto had just been
ratified, President Woodruff said that as President of the Church he could
do nothing for the parties. "But if I send you to an Apostle, will you do
what he tells you to do? (See page 87) They went to the Apostle, and that
marriage was performed. The Apostle did not ask President Woodruff for
permission. In fact, President Woodruff made it very apparent that he had
nothing to do with it. Yet it was certainly under his authority that it
was [148] done.
Though President Joseph F. Smith did everything in his power to keep
from becoming personally involved, he did permit many marriages to be
performed during the entire time of his administration. For example, the
irritated Salt Lake Tribune drew a bead on President Smith on October 11,
1910: "President Joseph F. Smith said that he was the only one authorized
to permit the ceremony of plural marriage and that he is not making this
authorization. The Tribune has repeatedly called attention to the fact
that he is the only man authorized to permit these marriages and that
because this is so, his profession of ignorance of such marriages or of
irresponsibility for them on behalf of the Church, is a falsehood. Nothing
can be more certain than that under the Mormon doctrine and laws he is the
sole one responsible for the new polygamous marriages .... This being so,
his denial of complicity in the new polygamous marriages is futile. If he
has quit authorizing these new polygamous marriages, how long since is it
that he quit?
"He himself performed the marriage ceremony for Abraham H. Cannon and
Lillian Hamlin, one of the first of the transgressions against the
Manifesto. He has been silent with regard to this, sustaining polygamists,
favoring them, rewarding them in every way, giving the aid and comfort of
his position to those who entered into new polygamy, and thus defied the
law of God and man as he himself clearly confessed that he was doing."
(3:428)
The Tribune was more clear-eyed than were many of the Saints. We
ought to understand that the president of the Church in most instances
could honestly say he was not giving any authority to anybody to perform
plural sealings, because he had already caused authority to be given. When
he said that there was no authority in all the world to perform plural
marriages, he was correct at that particular time. He was in complete
control of when that authority would have to be briefly quiescent, and
when it was to be activated.
Furthermore, in 1909, President Joseph F. Smith called Elders Nathan
Clark, Bishop McKean and Joseph W. Musser and gave them commission to keep
celestial plural marriage alive in this last dispensation. It was a
command.
The president of the Church also commissioned presidents of Temples
to exercise this authority, and the Church has not known in each instance
of all the marriages that they were performing. He trusted them as being
one with the president to [149] act in accordance with the whisperings of
the revealing Spirit of the Holy Ghost to do that which is right in the
sight of God. And they acted under his authority and his keys.
Presidents of temples, including Ephraim Chapman of the Manti Temple
and Edward Wood of the Cardston Temple, entered into the practice of
plural marriage after the Manifesto. They received that right and that
authority from the president of the Church, though there is no evidence of
what time or when or where. God doesn't intend that the world should know
how He and the Priesthood act concerning these matters.
In 1912, President Joseph F. Smith went into Canada and got a select
group of faithful brethren around him and instructed them to go ahead in
that principle. Among those men was the president of the stake in Raymond,
Heber Allen. We know of this personally.
When the Church took the position that they could no longer
perpetuate the principle, which position started in 1886 and not in 1890,
only those who sought out where the keys were held, could live the higher
law. Some did seek it out. Angus M. Cannon, a stake president, was
instructed by President Taylor to tell people when they came to him that
the Church was no longer performing the ordinance. In the suit of the
United States against the Church in 1888, the following was Angus M.
Cannon's testimony:
Q: "Then it is a cessation because you could not safely perform these
marriages; is that the idea?
A: It is a cessation because the law declared we could not do it; out
of honor for the law.
Q: It was what?
A: Out of honor for the law.
Q: Why was it that when the law made these marriages penal that out
of honor for the law they were not stopped twenty-five years ago?
A: I will state that upon persons applying to me for recommends to
go, when I believed such was their object, I have told them the
consequences.
Q: And gave them the recommend ... ?
A: I approved the recommend after explaining to them that if they
performed them they must endure the penalty as Daniel did when he prayed
contrary to law, and when they insisted that they preferred to endure the
penalty to forgoing the promised blessings of God in that direction, I
have signed the recom-[150]mends." (2:77)
There is a basic teaching in that interview, which ought to be
apparent to the reader. The interview was before the Manifesto, and
despite the law, marriages still went on. The principle of seeking out the
keys still holds. Any man who desires with all his heart to live that
principle and is willing to comply to it, the law is binding upon him.
(J.F.S. 1:213) Satan fosters many delusions. We must remember that no
matter what the delusion may be, the earmarks are the same, one of which
is that everything is hopeless. Our intent is to stipulate that this is
not so.
Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus joins the host of others who hold the common
concept that plural marriages were stopped in all the world in 1904 by
virtue of the public pronouncement of President Joseph F. Smith. On a
Church basis, they certainly were. However, the actions of our leaders
were far more explicit than their words, as we have noted.
Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus stresses also that the living of plural marriage
under the Priesthood must be by commandment, or it is not acceptable to
God. (See Doctrines of the Kingdom, pp. 457-462) We entirely agree. The
permission of the servant of God in whom the keys for this work reside
must be granted, for it is his position to know the mind and will of the
Lord in the matter.
We wonder, however, that a question should even arise as to the
principle being a specific commandment to this dispensation, and therefore
binding upon the Priesthood. We can produce no revelation countermanding
the commandment to Joseph Smith. Rather, the Lord declared in 1886, "I
have not revoked this law, nor will I." President Woodruff taught the same
truth when he said that we will live the law until Christ comes again.
Certainly there is overwhelming evidence of that fact, as brought forth in
the Summary to this volume.
The present living of plural marriage is because of commandment, and
we dare not do otherwise. Joseph said the revelation on plural marriage
was "given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (1:26-27)
"We have got to observe it," he said. It was obviously regarded as a
commandment by the Church leaders through and beyond the Manifesto, and it
is yet a commandment binding upon all who would enjoy a fulness of
celestial glory. Said Brigham Young in connection with this: "The only men
who become Gods, even sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."
(J.D. 11:268-269)
The necessity of the principle in the lives of the Saints has [151]
been made evident over and over again. Elder Samuel A. Woolley, associate
of Joseph Smith, is an example. He had been ill in October of 1843. He
records: "One afternoon in the month October, A.D. 1843, I think on a
Tuesday, about 2 o'clock, (I cannot explain just how I knew it was 2
o'clock, but I knew it), found myself in the sitting room downstairs, and
walking to the door leading into the store. I saw my brother Edwin D.
putting up the shutters of the store as though it was night. I turned
around, saw Mary, his wife, putting down the blinds of th windows in the
sitting room. I stood and looked and wondered what was to be done. I saw
two or three other persons there; and presently some others, including
Patriarch Hyrum Smith, came in.
"The fireplace was in the north end of the room, and Hyrum sat down
at the east end of the grate, with his face turned to the northwest.
Presently I saw him take a paper out of his coat and, as he opened the
paper, I read, `A Revelation on Eternal Marriage and Plurality of Wives,'
etc. He then commenced to read what is now known as the revelation on
plural marriage. I also read it myself as fast as he did. He stopped and
explained as he went along. There was a sister present by the name of
German, who, when he had read to a certain point, went to the southwest
window, raised the curtain, looked out, then turned around and said,
`Brother Hyrum, don't read anymore, I am full up to here,' drawing her
hand across her throat. It was there told me by the same power that
informed me it was 2 o'clock, that that revelation was of God, and that no
man could or would receive a fulness of celestial glory and eternal life,
except he obeyed that law, and had more than one living wife at the same
time. From this time I commenced to get well and did so very speedily."
(1:24-25, 3:128)
We add also the witness of Abraham Hunsaker, whose record is in the
L.D.S. Biographical Encyclopedia by Andrew Jenson, Assistant Church
Historian (3:415-416): "When the law of celestial marriage was first
whispered to him, he opposed it exclaiming, `It is of the devil,' but God
knew his heart and in open day a messenger from heaven with three women
clothed in white raiment stood before him several feet from the ground,
and addressed him thus: `You never can receive a full and complete
salvation in MY kingdom unless your garments are pure and white and you
have three counselors like me.' Thus he was convinced that principle was
right, and he subsequently married five [152] wives, two of whom survived
him, and he became the father of 50 children."
The command was reiterated by Joseph F. Smith in 1878: "It is a law
of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all
gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither
acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment, not only
so given in this dispensation, but particularly adapted to the conditions
and necessities thereof, and to the circumstances, responsibilities, and
personal as well as vicarious duties of the people of God in this age of
the world ...." (1:206)
Apostle Samuel W. Richards also stated: "In ancient Israel, polygamy
was regularly practiced in accordance with the Law of the Lord. If it were
a true and righteous principle then, what renders it false and unrighteous
now? If it met God's approbation then, why should it not now? The Jewish
Scriptures contain no record of His prohibiting it. Three or four thousand
years make no difference in the truth or validity of the eternal laws and
institutions of God." (1:38) The Gods have become exalted on the basis of
the same, unchanging eternal laws as are placed before us for our
requirements.
We turn to Orson Pratt in the matter of the commandment that has been
placed before us: "... The Lord God who gave revelations to Moses
approbating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day Saints, not
only approbating it, but commanding it." (1:183)
Joseph F. Smith adds: "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 mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of
Jesus that it does mean that .... This law is in force upon the
inhabitants of Zion, and he that is qualified to obey it cannot neglect or
disregard it with impunity." (1:214)
Those among the Saints whose efforts are directed to sink the
principle of plural marriage out of existence or to minimize its necessity
as part of God's eternal plan, are in danger of losing all hope of eternal
exaltation for their whitewashing, for their teachings are a delusion.
Heber C. Kimball said, "That which He revealed He designs to have
carried out by His people." (J.D. 5:203) The Lord will prevail despite the
weaknesses of men. Apostle Daniel H. Well [153] made a significant
prophecy: "If we as a people do not hold ourselves on the altar ready to
be used, He will pass on and get somebody else; because He will get a
people that will do it. I do not mean to say that He will pass on and
leave this people; no, there will come up from the midst of this people
that people which has been talked so much about." (Des. News, Dec. 9,
1882) Similarly, Heber C. Kimball said, "But the time will come when the
Lord will choose a people out of this people upon whom He will bestow His
choicest blessings." (Des. News, Nov. 9, 1865) Other similar references
are cited in the Summary.
That the principle of celestial plural marriage would be hindered in
its perpetuation because of contending Saints or because the Church
president would be placed under covenant to cease teaching it, was never
the intention of the Lord or His prophets. To assume we cannot live all of
God's restored laws because the Church president is handicapped, is not
and was not the intent of the Lord. It is misinformation that is
perpetrated upon the Saints in many forms. For this reason, we are
dwelling upon it at length.
The Lord God knows the end from the beginning. He was not foolish
enough to establish a holy and exalting principle only to have to give in
to pressures and remove it from the earth. He was fully aware of the
conditions into which the Church and its holy laws were moving. It is
unlikely that the encroachment of a Manifesto took Him by surprise.
God tells us He is the same unchanging God yesterday, today and
forever, and that His word changeth not, neither doth it vary in the least
degree. If some of the Saints are trying to sink plural marriage, one of
God's holy laws, out of existence, it is our responsibility to stand firm
for truth. The hearts of the righteous yearn to obey God and become like
Him. And none but the righteous should have the privilege of having a
marriage that continues for time and all eternity. And those who have an
eternal marriage that continues forever, if they are righteous and they
hold God's Priesthood and are one with His prophet, they will be given the
privilege of living that law or will be commanded to live it. It is
singular that those who seek so desperately to convince the Saints that
plural marriage is an "untouchable" right now and has been sunk out of
existence, will find that for them, it is.
Suppose that through tremendous pressure the president of the Church
and the Quorum of Twelve were put into the position where they had to
abandon the work for the dead on pain of going [154] to jail and the
confiscation of their properties. They would also, of course, have to
suffer disfellowshipping or, more likely, excommunication and wearing the
brand of "unfit parents." Assume that the government was using this
pressure as a means to stop the autocracy of the Church, the Church's
affairs in politics and its influence in Utah. The Church president holds
the keys of authority in the ordinance work for the dead. The majority of
Church members petition the president to cease the work so their
prosecutions will be abated. The president then issues an edict that work
for the dead must cease in all the world.
Under such circumstances, do we have a problem? Could the dead be
redeemed and the Saints be relieved of the responsibility for that work?
Or again, suppose baptism was the source of difficulty with the government
and with our neighbors, and we are seized upon to cease performing the
unpopular baptisms. Under the president's edict, would we therefore be
obedient because he held the keys to the ordinance, and doing so, would we
be justified before God? Would the Lord make no move to perpetuate
baptism? Could we receive the blessings predicated upon baptism and the
laying on of hands to enjoy the Gift of the Holy Ghost? Have we ever been
forbidden to stand up and claim our blessings, in righteousness?
Does the color change in applying the same act to baptism that we
have so willingly accepted for plural marriage? Parley P. Pratt said that
they might just as well pass a law against baptism and the laying on of
hands for the Holy Ghost as to do so against plural marriage. Why have the
Saints embraced the delusion?
What is our attitude with respect to baptisms into the Mormon Church
in other countries? Have we been hindered in most cases? We seem to urge
upon ourselves the obedience to the laws of our land, but have a different
measuring stick as to some laws of other lands. The "Forum" column in the
Salt Lake Tribune spelled out instances where baptism was forbidden by law
in Germany during World War II, but our Elders went about, mostly by
night, performing the baptisms. The same has been done in Viet Nam. But we
stumble over plural marriage and think it is acceptable to do away with
that particular holy law, while we would never consider relinquishing the
ordinance of baptism. It is a conundrum more than passing strange.
We sympathize with Orson Pratt's position: "If one portion of the
doctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If the
doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, [155] is not
true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came
through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them."
(1:185)
Consider Apostle John W. Taylor's case. He fell victim to Church
pressure. The President said that those who were living the principle
would have to be removed from their positions because it was embarrassing
to the Church. (A strange stand to assume, inasmuch as he himself had five
wives.) So Apostle Taylor was unChurched, which was his position at his
death in 1916. We find on record of May 21, 1965, that under the direction
of President Joseph Fielding Smith, acting on instruction from President
David O. McKay, with the consent of the Quorum of Twelve, that President
Smith "performed the ordinance of restoration" for John W. Taylor, Apostle
in polygamy. He died branded an "apostate" in some quarters for living the
principle of plural marriage. But he was reinstated later. Why? Is there
repentance in the grave? We would like to assume, as to reinstatement,
that his case is more the rule than the exception.
So important is the principle of plural marriage because of its
inherent design to ennoble and enlarge the character of man, that
President Joseph F. Smith told of a learned Jew who visited him on one
occasion. The Jew told President Smith that he had, with the consent of
his first wife, another wife, and that he was raising two families because
he was justified in it, in those things which were written concerning the
ancient prophets. President Smith said that there was a man who didn't
know the law of God, yet because of his largeness of heart and because of
his acceptance of the ancient scriptures, which give us no prerogatives,
he accepted that law and lived it. President Smith said he was going to
get along and go farther than many of the Saints will today who will not
live the celestial law restored through Joseph.
We have the warnings from the scriptures: "O ye pollutions, ye
hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker,
why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take
upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value
of an endless happiness than the misery which never dies because of the
praise of the world?" (Mormon 8:38) "Why have ye transfigured the holy
word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls?" (Mormon 8:33)
It is true that the holy word of God has been transfigured, and the Saints
have the praise of the world now. "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak
well of you!" (Luke 6:26)
[156] Those who are inclined to dilute the law of plural marriage, will
join the nation of the United States in the manner described by Wilford
Woodruff:
"The Congress of 1862 and the Supreme Judges of 1879, in their acts
and decisions have taken a dangerous and fearful step; their acts will sap
the very foundation of our government and it will be rent asunder, and the
God of heaven will hold them responsible for these things .... The
Constitution once broken by the rulers of the land, there will be no
stopping place until the nation is broken in pieces, and no power beneath
the heavens can save this nation from the consequences thereof." (Mill.
Star, 41:243)
A cloud hovers over our nation, and all is not well with the Saints.
There are those among the Saints, however, who feel, in the quietude of
peace with the world, that "All is well in Zion," who have the idea that
they can get into the fulness of celestial glory by just paying their
tithing and attending their meetings. But Paul sounds the note pertaining
to such a deception "... Because they received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie." (II Thes. 2:10-11) Again in the
Book of Mormon: "... For God hath taken away his plainness from them, and
delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they
desired it. And because they desired it, God hath done it, that they may
stumble." (Jacob 4:14) Many Saints are certain that all is well, and in so
doing, believe a lie. They are giving substance to Satan's deception
perpetrated against the Saints of the Most High.
All is not well in Zion. We are literally fulfilling prophecy.
Everyone knows about II Nephi 28 in the Book of Mormon, but we tend to
assume that it refers to another people, another time, another place. It
is not so. "Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught
and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth!"
(II Ne 28:16) Plural marriage is sometimes considered of no worth, with
the United Order and the law of Consecration considered unsuccessful
episodes of history long since laid to rest. The attitudes that have
stolen upon us are widespread. But the issue is before us. "And others
will he pacify and lull them away into carnal security, that they will
say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus the
devil cheateth their souls and leadeth them away carefully down to hell
.... Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo [157] be unto
him that crieth: All is well! Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the
precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy
Ghost!
"Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no
more! And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because of
the truth of God! (Is this not typical?) For behold, he that is built upon
the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy
foundation trembleth lest he shall fall. Wo be unto him that shall say: We
have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for
we have enough! ... for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from
them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even
that which they have." (II Ne. 28:21, 24-30) Is this not a perfect
description of many among us who have rejected the fulness of the gospel
and who are content with the portion they have? How often we have heard
from many friends those very words from the scripture in reference to the
fulness of the gospel. Who, after all, is Zion?
Heber C. Kimball was directed three times to practice plural marriage
and then commanded in the name of the Lord that he obey. One can
understand his reticence. Joseph the Prophet was finally commanded by an
angel with a drawn sword on pain of destruction, to enter into that
principle. (1:210) It is the nature and disposition of a good man to not
do anything that would be offensive to the Lord or to himself because of
the traditions of his parents and of the world. The good men in the Church
who are honorable and who magnify their Priesthood would be reticent to go
ahead in this principle under the present circumstances. So it is not
sought out generally. The leaders of the Church speak for the Church and
tell them they do it under certainty of excommunication. It is a fearful
pronouncement.
But we are definitely lulled away into carnal security upon that
basis, feeling all is well in Zion, and we do not have to worry because
these things are upon the shoulders of our leaders. We are reminded of the
fact that the 76th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants tells us that the
Terrestrial world is made up of those who are not valiant on earth, who
were deceived by the craftiness of men. So if the honorable men of the
earth can be deceived, it is just barely possible that the honorable men
of the Church can be deceived also, if they have leaders who are telling
them they don't have to live God's laws in order to receive the fulness of
His blessings. It may partially be the responsibility of the leaders,
[158] but it is your loss. Where are the latter-day souls who will
separate themselves from the multitude and seek the Master beyond His
parables?
A further significant scripture applies to our day: "The earth also
is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed
the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." (Isaiah
24:5) President Joseph Fielding Smith remarked on that passage: "Are we
not too much inclined to blame the generations that are past for the
breaking of the new and everlasting covenant, and to think it is because
of the great apostasy which followed ... the Apostles in primitive times
...? Perhaps we should wake up to the realization that it is because of
the breaking of covenants, especially the new and everlasting covenant
which is the fulness of the gospel that the world is to be consumed by
fire and few men left. Since this punishment is to come at the time of the
cleansing of the earth when Christ comes again, should not the Latter-day
Saints take heed unto themselves? We have been given the new and
everlasting covenant, and many among us have broken it." (Des. News, Oct.
17, 1936) The change of ordinances by our people has been noted and even
extolled, as we outlined in Sections Two and Nine.
One other question that we must ask ourselves. Are the gifts of the
Spirit of God more manifest among us since the Manifesto than they were
before? The Book of Mormon promises further writings of the prophets for
us to read and study. Have we received the rest of those works? Have we
received the extension of all those things which were written concerning
the life of Christ upon this continent? Have we received the writings of
Enoch the Lord promised us in the Pearl of Great Price, to be restored in
these last days after we have proven ourselves? The only answer is that we
have not proven ourselves, or those records would now be among us for our
edification and instruction. Again, has the Lord appeared to the Saints as
a body in the Rocky Mountains as Joseph said He would? So despite all of
the justifying of ourselves in our position and saying all is well, there
is something very wrong. Why are not the gifts more apparent among us? Why
so little speaking in tongues, healing, prophesyings, the gifts of the
Holy Ghost that were so manifest among the early Saints? Why are they not
so evident now?
It is true that they are about us in a limited way. But so are they
in certain degrees among the sectarian world, through faith. [159] We are
not the light that God wants us to be. The Lord says we should be as a
light on a hill that can be seen afar off, and men seeing it would be led
to glorify God. We might well have the miserable commendation that all men
speak well of us. There was never a people generally spoken of who are
more well spoken of than the Mormons today. That is not to our glory
before God. It is an undeniable fact that if the Saints were walking in
obedience to all of the commandments of God, the wicked would be fighting
against Zion with all the power of their forces. We have shaken hands with
the world and are at peace. We were warned by Brigham Young.
Though we are teaching the First Principles abroad in the land, our
light is not shining as it should, and the condemnation spoken of in the
scriptures is coming upon us because we have become very slothful. We are
literally in our day fulfilling the prophecies concerning the kind of
people who would be in Zion in the latter days, having lamps without the
oil of righteousness, saying all is well.
Another sad prophecy has come to pass and is fulfilled to
overflowing. Heber C. Kimball spoke to modern Israel: "You men and women
that lift up your voices against that holy principle that has been
introduced among this people, the time will come, when your daughters will
walk these streets as common harlots, and you cannot help yourselves."
Apostle J. Golden Kimball said: "I think some have been guilty of
lifting up their voices, and if there is any one thing that some people
are glad and happy is done away with, it is that principle." (Des. News,
Mar. 1, 1902)
Soon after the comment of J. Golden Kimball, Matthias F. Cowley said:
"You know President Kimball once prophesied to this people, and especially
to the mothers, that if they spoke disrespectfully of a certain principle
of the gospel and fought against it, the day would come when their
daughters would turn aside and lose their virtue, and become objects of
immorality upon the streets of Salt Lake City. I want to say that that
prediction, sorrowful though it may seem, has had its fulfillment." (Des.
News, August 9, 1902) In 1902? How heartbroken would they be in viewing
the greatly worsened conditions of the present permissive day?
It is critical to understand that every man must stand on his own
feet and be responsible for his own doing. Seek the Lord. Seek His keys
within the Church, and of necessity, independent [160] of its framework.
We must know the truth for ourselves. When President Joseph F. Smith told
the Saints in the Salt Lake Temple in 1909 to cease calling upon the arm
of flesh, no matter who they were, how much more plainly could the man of
God encourage the Saints to seek out the truth for themselves? The Church
was and is bound in these matters.
We remind our readers of the Lord's words in D.&C., Section 84: "And
your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and
because you have treated lightly the things you have received. Which
vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And
this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they
shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the
new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I
have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have
written. That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father's kingdom;
otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the
children of Zion. For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy
land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay." (D.&C. 84:54-59) We encourage a second
reading of the above counsel, given to modern Israel.
Finally, the words of Orson Pratt: "Now, if you want to get into
darkness, brethren and sisters, begin to oppose this revelation. Sisters,
you begin to say before your husbands, or husbands you begin to say before
your wives, `I do not believe in the principle of polygamy, and I intend
to instruct my children against it.' Oppose it in this way, and teach your
children to do the same, and if you do not become as dark as midnight,
there is no truth in Mormonism." (1:187) We must forsake our vain
traditions if we are to come out into the light of the gospel of Jesus
Christ.
We close this section on the above note of warning, because our
decisions and our actions are so critical. That which we choose to do and
to profess will echo throughout eternity. We wish to add that we know that
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's true Church upon
the earth. Our hearts are bound together forever in testimony of her
restoration and mission. We understand the feelings of the good people of
the Church. They have a testimony of that Church, and since the Church is
true, how can anything independent of the Church be right? Many Saints
have wrestled with the question out of devotion and singleness of loyalty.
But the Lord directs, and it does [161] not require divided loyalty to
seek out and live all of God's laws. On the contrary, those who accept
part of it and will not seek out or accept the fulness of the Gospel, are
those with divided loyalty.
Our intent here is to encourage those with the Spirit of God who wish
to know that the Lord has made provision for those who would travel the
straight and narrow way to His presence. We must go forward and make our
calling and election sure. We wish to firmly establish that monogamy is
not God's "basic law of eternal marriage." God's basic law of eternal
marriage is plural marriage. We wish to make it clear that plural marriage
is not a principle dependent upon the president of the Church for
perpetuation, when conditions make that impossible. We wish also to
establish the fact that celestial plural marriage was given to this
dispensation by way of commandment, re-emphasized in 1886, and is binding
"and in force upon the inhabitants of Zion." We also wish to add that we
cannot take the right to Gospel law and ordinances to ourselves. But God
has prepared a way. When the Church took the position that they would no
longer live the law, God's Priesthood took the position that it would be
lived, under God's direction through His Priesthood. Hear it, all Israel!
The Priesthood did perpetuate the principle independent of the Church, and
it is still being perpetuated independent of the Church. Any man who is
righteous, whose heart is right before God, can find out where those keys
are.
[162]
[163]
SECTION ELEVEN
POLICY OF RETICENCE
Have you ever been unexpectedly blessed by a spiritual experience
given to you by the Lord, and you were so thrilled with it and excited
about it that you wanted to run right over and tell your friend next door?
Maybe you did manage to stop long enough to think it over. You wondered if
the sacredness of the experience would be diluted by the telling of it.
But mostly, you wondered if your friend would believe you. "Sure he will
believe me; we've been friends for years," and off you go. Your friend
listens to you and then looks at you and says, "Aw, come on, Joe, not you.
Why, I've known you all of your life. Your family is just like mine; your
income is the same as mine; your garage is a mess like mine. Come on, Joe.
You've gotta be kidding!" And you wished you hadn't said anything.
Many of us go through a similar uncomfortable experience before we
finally learn that there are some sacred things not to be generally
shared. It is also true with regard to the acts of Priesthood. Many things
are secret because they are sacred, and many things are secret out of
sheer necessity for preservation. Since many of the Saints have had their
own personal experiences that are considered holy in nature, we can
understand and accept that the Lord's Priesthood also has its own sacred
processes. Such has always been the case. The Priesthood, as well as
individuals, is under solemn covenant:
"It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless
they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only
according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children
of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
...." (Alma 12:9-11) This should develop in our minds an understanding of
"the tradition of reticence." We call to mind the scripture which states,
"He will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and
I will try you and prove you herewith." (D.&C. 98:12)
Certainly the soundness of this process is unquestionable. The Lord
is not concerned with giving us the highest teachings in one large
package. The spirit is not too much different from the body, and we all
know what happens if we stuff our stomachs [164] with more than they can
hold. This is a valid principle. In His wisdom the Lord grants unto His
children those things that can be accepted and understood and,
importantly, that will lead them to the next step.
Because we have been given the "fulness of the gospel," we become a
little too assured, thinking that all things are revealed and we need only
to understand more deeply. But the Lord has revealed teachings that are
neither written nor spoken, and which are available only to the earnest
seeker after truth. The Priesthood has never moved completely openly for
the eyes of all to see. It is a delusion to believe otherwise. The
scriptures teach us, "And this greater Priesthood administereth the gospel
and boldeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the
knowledge of God." (D.&C. 84:19) Simple, elementary reasoning will tell us
that the reason we have "mysteries" to unveil is because all is not known.
Nor do we have the right to presume to tell the Priesthood that it must do
all things before all men.
We refer to the early Christian Church in the Lord's day. It becomes
immediately clear in our study that the Lord adhered to the "tradition of
reticence" (rationing of information) in His dealings with both the
uninitiated and the initiated. To His disciples He said, "It is given unto
you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not
given." (Matt. 13:10-15) Certainly the higher and holier a teaching is,
the fewer there are who come under the qualifications to hear it. The Lord
discussed the "mysteries of the kingdom" only with his disciples behind
closed doors, and selected only a few chosen Apostles to share in the
still greater mysteries.
Secrecy in the Church was strictly adhered to. "In the Dead Sea
Scrolls the people of the community are instructed not to discuss their
doctrines and doings with `the people of the pit,' i.d., the outside
world; but aside from that they are put under specific oaths of secrecy
regarding certain specific things." (Nibley, "Since Cumorah," p. 101) So
we see that the most sublime and sacred teachings were kept from the
unbelieving and the vulgar. "During the whole three months which He spent
at Caesarea for the sake of teaching, whatever He discoursed of in the
presence of the people in the daytime, he explained more fully and
perfectly in the night, in private, to us, as more faithful and approved
by Him." (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, III, 74)
While "secrecy" is an unacceptable word in many circles, the early
Christians did not use the word to bespeak a mystical air or [165] give
the impression of craftiness to delude or ensnare. There were those
principles and ordinances of the gospel which simply were safeguarded and
made available only to those who sought for them, for those whose
spiritual and mental processes resulted in the desire to seek, to ask.
That was the condition attached. It is true today. The gospel is a holy
matter, containing many pearls not to be "cast before swine" to be
trampled, or to be given to those who would only be harmed by it, or who
might only turn and harm the giver.
The "tradition of reticence" is also a vital part of the Latter-day
Kingdom of God. It is just as necessary today. The Lord said, "Behold here
is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that
which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them and they
receive not the light." (D.&C. 93:31) He said further, "A light shall
break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness
of my gospel; But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light."
(D.&C. 45:28-30) When a people give up a holy law and receive not that
light, shall they expect to know the proceedings and designs of God and
His holy Priesthood?
That the principle has been perpetuated and that ordinations have
taken place without general knowledge, is often disputed by reference to
D&C 42:11: "Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to anyone to
go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be
ordained by someone who has authority, and it is known to the church that
he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the
church."
The scripture is certainly true. That which is done on behalf of the
Church, should be known to the Church members. Those representing the
Church should be known to them and sustained by them. But we repeat that
the Priesthood, with its acts under God's direction, is not accountable to
the Church and does not have obligation to submit itself to the vote of
that body. There were Apostles and members of the Kingdom of God
organization in the early days of the Church, unknown to the general
membership.
With regard to those ordinations into the Kingdom of God, Brigham
Young said: "The Prophet gave a full and complete organization of this
kingdom the spring before he was killed ... The Kingdom of God will
protect every person, every sect and all people upon the face of the whole
earth in their legal rights; I shall not tell you the names of the members
of this kingdom, [166] (Shall we tell President Young that he can't do
that?) neither shall I read to you its constitution, but the constitution
was given by revelation ...." (J.D. 17:156-7) We have "secret" ordinations
here. Did the Church vote on those proceedings and those men? Was the act
valid? The action, the concept, the necessity, the privilege applies
today.
A further quotation referred to by the objectors is, "Surely the Lord
God will do nothing but he reveal his secrets unto his servants the
prophets." (Amos 3:7) The only trouble with that is that we insist upon
being let in on all the secrets. President John Taylor was the Lord's
prophet. He acted under the Lord's direction in his capacity as the
prophet of the Lord and president of Priesthood. The act of perpetuating
the principle of plural marriage in the face of virile and vicious
opposition met all of the requirements for doing so. The First Presidency
and others of the Twelve Apostles accepted the 1886 revelation and
supported the subsequent procedure. Men may froth at the idea of the eight
hour meeting, but how do you do away with a revelation that is available,
in the President's own handwriting, for all to read? It is such futility
to attempt to set aside the workings of the Lord.
Ordinations to authority in "secret" are not unusual, whether they
were due to necessity or whether they were simply because there was a need
for secrecy. Joseph the Prophet said, "In the meantime we were forced to
keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our
having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already
manifested itself in the neighborhood." (Pearl of G.P., J.S. 2:74) Were
John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff or Lorenzo Snow or Joseph F. Smith free
from similar circumstances? They were not only hounded in the
"Neighborhood," but in the entire United States.
We have already mentioned in other pages the secret ordination of the
Prophet's cousin, George A. Smith, to the Apostleship. Counselor Heber C.
Kimball of the First Presidency was himself unaware of that ordination for
some time. (Church News, Jan. 7, 1961, p. 16) But he didn't quit the
Presidency for their secrecy. Nor did he set the scene for their
excommunication.
Further, Joseph the Prophet did not climb upon a hill and proclaim
the doctrine of celestial plural marriage to all the Church. He taught the
principle secretly and quietly for a long time, not always teaching the
same thing. Note the following:
Joseph said to William Marks, president of the Nauvoo Stake, as
recorded by Marks: "I met with Brother Joseph. He [167] said that he
wanted to converse with me on the affairs of the church, and we retired by
ourselves. I will give his words verbatum, for they are indelibly stamped
upon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk with
me on the subject of polygamy. He said it eventually would prove the
overthrow of the church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the United
States, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it was
a cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put it
down. He said that he would go before the congregation and proclaim
against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the church
unless they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but this
was the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a few
days after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it." (Smith, Was
Joseph Smith a Polygamist?, p. 15; 3:148) This was June of 1844. The
Prophet had many wives at the time. These volumes of The Most Holy
Principle record similar conversations by the Prophet to other men. Why?
Joseph the Prophet, however, spoke much differently to others.
Erastus Snow recorded in April of 1843: "The Prophet Joseph Smith first
taught me the doctrine of celestial marriage, including a plurality of
wives, in Nauvoo, Ill., in April, 1843." (Hist. Rec. 6:232; 3:116) There
are also many such examples on this side of the coin.
The Prophet was simply following a wise policy of reticence, and was
not making all things known to all people. He taught one thing in private
and another in public, which was the same policy followed by subsequent
Church presidents.
The principle was not a part of the Church from 1830 until 1852. It
became openly taught in the Church from 1852 until 1890. From 1890 to the
present day, it went back into its former position, being perpetuated by
the Priesthood until the Savior comes again. John Taylor, in 1886,
exercised the "tradition of reticence" pertaining to ordinations necessary
to keep the principle alive. In doing so, he was not accountable to the
Church.
The need for caution and secrecy in those days was mentioned by
Samuel W. Taylor in Family Kingdom: "To enter the Principle, serious
enough in the best of times, now promised in addition to its ordinary
demands a lifetime of subterfuge, secrecy, uncertainty and terror. The
Mormons had based all their hopes on an appeal to the Supreme Court. That
august body soberly ruled that the Church was an organized rebellion, and
[168] therefore any law, constitutional or not, was justified in curbing
it. With the constitution thus neatly repealed, the Church met fire with
fire by a policy of double-talk. It attempted to pacify the world by
pretending that no more plural marriages would be performed. And it
quietly passed the word to the faithful." (p. 35) Thus, not only has the
principle been perpetuated, so has the need for caution and secrecy, where
and when necessary.
If the sacred ceremonies within our Temples are not for the ears of
the foolish of the world, we can safely assume that there are those
further sacred things withheld from the foolish among the Saints also.
There are teachings "hidden from our view," even "treasures of knowledge"
which the Lord has kept in reserve for those who qualify to learn.
The Prophet Joseph said, "Brother Brigham, if I was to reveal to this
people what the Lord has revealed to me, there is not a man or woman would
stay with me." (J.D. 9:294) He also said, "Many men will say, `I will
never forsake you,' but the moment you teach them some of the mysteries of
the kingdom of God that are retained in the heavens and are to be revealed
to the children of men when they are prepared for them, they will be the
first to stone you and put you to death." (D.H.C. 5:424)
Was Joseph not killed because people "couldn't bear" his teachings?
We are very presumptuous to choose to do away with a holy law of God, and
then insist that there are no "secret" ordinations or teachings. There
have always been and there will always be, so long as there are "three
degrees" of mortals.
It is not the Lord, but man who "walks in crooked paths" and "in the
shadows." The Lord does not have to account to man or let the left hand
know what the right hand is doing. But those who have ears to hear, will
hear. For those who will not, Orson Pratt has these words:
"There will be many who will not hearken, there will be the foolish
among the wise who will not receive the new and everlasting covenant in
fulness, and they never will attain to their exaltation, they never will
be counted worthy to hold the scepter of power over a numerous progeny,
that shall multiply themselves without end, like the sand upon the
seashore. (Mill. Star 15:31-32)
We cannot tell the Priesthood that it must do things before the eyes
of all men, or before all Latter-day Saints.
[169]
SECTION TWELVE
A "RAM IN THE THICKET"
"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a
ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram,
and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son." (Gen.
22:13)
Great symbolism is attached to most events in the world's history.
The offering of the ram was a prototype of things to come. The ram offered
his life in the stead of Isaac. The Savior was a ram in offering His life
for all mankind, that they might be saved. Similarly, the position of the
Priesthood group who are living all of the laws of the restored gospel, is
as a ram offering.
We will explain that position as it involves the designs of the Lord.
As expressed by Peter, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man
that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you in meekness and fear."
(I Pet. 3:15)
In 1829, the Lord restored the Priesthood of God to the earth. Joseph
Smith became the man with the Priesthood in the last dispensation, through
Peter, James and John. A year later, the woman was taken from the side of
the man, and the Church was organized. The scriptures refer to the Church
as the "woman," as in Revelations, Chapter 12. It was intended that the
woman be one with her husband--or the Church one with the
Priesthood--though she had free agency to unite with her husband as much
or as little as she chose.
In 1844, a manchild, the Kingdom of God, was born. The Kingdom is not
the Church. (See. B. Young, J.D. 17:154-157) The Kingdom comes out of the
Church as an issue or offspring, and is the Kingdom spoken of in Daniel
2:44, and is "to stand forever." So we have the man (the Priesthood), the
woman (the Church), and the child (the Kingdom of God), the three
comprising the House of God.
As we know, Joseph Smith prophesied that the child and his mother
would go into the West. (Also Rev. 12:6) So the Church and her son, the
Kingdom of God, fled into the desert where that child was to grow in
strength and become a man in order to protect his mother. It is a fact
that when the Prophet Joseph was killed, it was the Kingdom of God
organization that brought the [170] Saints across the plains, not the
authority of the Church. It was the Priesthood authority in operation. It
was the political body of the Kingdom of God that organized tens and
fifties, etc., and brought the Saints across the plains.
It was in the West that Brigham Young brought plural marriage out
into the open, and he really got after the Saints to accept it. But the
prophecy that they would not receive the light came to pass, Brigham Young
was not successful, and most of the Saints rejected the fulness of the
gospel. It was a tragedy, for when the Lord gives us a law particularly
suited for our times and designed to give us exaltation, He expects us to
live it.
We next come to John Taylor's day, and the government is hovering
over the Church to crush it. President Taylor, rather than relinquish holy
law, went into the "underground" in 1885, as we have outlined in previous
pages. In 1886, he set men apart to continue the principle of plural
marriage in a private way, the commission at the time being quiescent in
nature. They were to hold the authority until the Church gave the
principle up. It was not until President Joseph F. Smith's tenure that
John and Lorin Woolley were called to function in the calling they had
received under the hands of John Taylor, Joseph Smith, and the Savior.
There was close association between President Smith and the Woolleys.
Later, Joseph W. Musser took direction from Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F.
Smith, and he honored them.
It should be very clear in our minds that when the Lord gives His
word upon a true principle, it is established as true regardless of
favorable or popular sentiment. A law of the Priesthood must be obeyed by
those who preside over the Priesthood. "For it is not meet that men who
will not abide my law shall preside over my Priesthood." (Rev. of 1882,
Section Four) Priesthood laws are obligatory upon those who bear that
Priesthood and honor it. Common consent or democratic vote will never
change such a law. If men revolt at anything which comes from God, the
devil takes power. The Church, in conference assembled, revolted in 1890.
We have to make moral judgments in our lives. We have to make
decisions. We must decide whether we're going to accept the gospel or not,
whether we're going to live it or not. Whatever our choice, the work of
God will not stand still. God will get a people who will live His laws and
accomplish His works. Orson Pratt had this in mind when he said, "I do not
know but that it would be an utter impossibility to commence and carry out
some [171] principles pertaining to Zion right in the midst of this
people. They have strayed so far that to get a people who would conform to
heavenly laws, it may be needful to lead some from the midst of this
people and commence anew somewhere in the regions round about in these
mountains." (J.D. 15:361)
From Brigham Young: "God will preserve a portion of this people, of
the meek and the humble, to bear off the Kingdom to the inhabitants of the
earth, and will defend his Priesthood; for it is the last time, the last
gathering time." (Contributor 10:362) It is a poor defense of the
Priesthood to be living only a portion of the laws restored by "thus saith
the Lord."
One has a price to pay when going contrary to policy or law. But some
of the Saints believe that the price for not obeying God's laws is far
higher and more lasting than the price exacted for obeying them,, which
price pertains only to this world. Whatever the consequences, God's holy
laws must be embraced by those who would honor the Lord. Lorenzo Snow
voiced the standard in 1901: "Those of you who intend to continue living
in plural marriage, there is no sin in it, but you will have to carry your
own burdens. The church can do nothing for you."
We recall John Taylor's prophecy in 1886: "Some of you will be
handled and ostracized and cast out from the Church by your brethren
because of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some of
you may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe,
unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you." (4:42)
It is not becoming to any servant of God to annoy or harrass or to
persecute. The people of God cannot be held guiltless if they trouble
those living the commandments. While it is true that these offenses must
come, "woe unto them through whom they come." (Luke 17:2) As the Saints
receive of the holy Spirit of God, they receive also an increase in the
hostility of the world. Those who persecute and imprison or even take
lives will think they are doing God a service. Witness: "These things have
I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out
of your synagogues; yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will
think that he doeth God a service. And these things will they do unto you,
because they have not known the Father, nor me." (John 16:1-3) These words
of John have come to settle upon the latter days.
We are appreciative of the words of the writer Roger Williams: "The
Christian Church doth not persecute no more [172] than a lily doth scratch
the thorns, or a lamb pursue and tear the wolves, or a turtledove hunt the
hawks and eagles."
The good man, Gamaliel, comes to mind. "Ye men of Israel, take heed
to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men .... Refrain from
these men and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men,
it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest
haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:35, 38-39)
If any suppose that the Kingdom of God in the last days is to be
established with less difficulty than formerly, they are quite mistaken.
If we do not endure the things that have and that shall come to pass, we
will not be prepared to stand before the Son of Man. The mightiest
struggle against the powers of evil is yet to come. The trial of our faith
and patience will be an absolute necessity to prepare us for the
sanctification of our lives before God. Said the Lord, "Therefore, be not
afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord,
that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my
covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. For if ye will
not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." (D.&C. 98:14) We must
abide in His covenant, no matter the cost.
Therefore, we cannot give up principle. The Saints should be able to
say with Paul, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." (Rom. 1:16)
No Saint should be ashamed of plural marriage. It is the life our Heavenly
Father lives. Not one of us on earth is a descendant of any other form of
marriage. Without that holy principle made available in the Lord's
infinite kindness to God's children, we cannot expect to be exalted to the
highest realms of Celestial glory.
As we have stated, those of the Saints who are living authoritatively
the principle of celestial plural marriage are fully aware that they are
fully amenable to the punishment that is affixed for having broken a rule
of the Church. They know that no man is justified before heaven for
breaking a law, unless in doing so he is obeying a higher law. And even
though he is obeying a higher law and will receive the reward accompanying
it, he is also liable or subject to the penalty affixed to breaking the
lesser law. Witness Father Adam being driven from the Garden as his
penalty, though he broke a lesser law involving the forbidden fruit to
live the higher law of multiplying to replenish the earth. Some Saints
feel they cannot obey the law of man in [173] preference to the law of
God. But all those who will choose to live God's law are fully aware of
the Church's action toward them. There is no antagonism for the Church
among those who understand. President Woodruff is sustained in the signing
of the Manifesto as a necessity, in view of the persecutions and
prosecutions heaped upon the Saints, who had had enough.
But this does not alter what God expects the Saints to do, which is
to keep alive the fulness of the Gospel as He restored it. It must be
done. Even as the scriptures laud the three Hebrews and Daniel for their
refusal to obey the law of the land and do not condemn Israel, neither do
we condemn the Saints who will not live the principle, while we laud those
who will. These Volumes are to establish as clearly as possible the reason
for the position of the Priesthood group living God's laws. Vindication is
in the hands of the Lord. If God sees fit to deliver us at times from
unrighteous men, so be it. If He does not, then we must go ahead and serve
the Lord anyway. We do not wish to bring reproach upon the Church, but we
wish to keep the gospel alive in its fulness. We are under covenant to
obey God at any cost. So we will have to bear our own burdens. The Church
can do nothing for us. It may take action against us, but our Father in
Heaven has not rejected the Church, and as children of the Church, we
cannot reject our "mother," the Church, any more than our Father has. So
we sustain the Church in its righteousness.
It is true that the majority of the people in the Church do not and
would not want the celestial law, and it is not our position to urge it
upon the people. The leadership of the Church today is very well aware
that the average Latter-day Saint does not want these things, and they are
acting very properly when they do not give them more than what that people
choose to accept.
Further, they ought to cease worrying about whether there is more
than one prophet upon the earth. (See Section Ten) Of course there is. In
Jeremiah's day there were three or four different prophets. The Book of
Mormon tells us that. All through the history of Israel there have been
many prophets at the same time. They are not necessarily linear. Sometimes
they are co-linear. And that is our present situation. We cannot say to
God, "You can't do that!" because He has.
We have outlined that President John Taylor, under command of the
Lord and Joseph, gave the Apostleship to several men whom he called in
1886, not to exalt them, not to appoint them to set the House of God in
order, not to be critical of the [174] Church, but to have sufficient
Priesthood to administer the ordinances of the gospel where the Church
gave them up. With that calling and Priesthood authority, the Church could
not pressure the work out of existence. The men called to perpetuate the
principle and the authority to do so, were not set up as a competitive
body. When the Savior comes, those men who are leading the work today will
be more than happy to lay down their commission before the Lord and say,
"We have done our work " and they will be prepared to re-enter into the
framework of the Church. They have been called to bear the burden of the
Priesthood group and of the Church, not to be lifted up themselves. This
special calling was inaugurated to save the Church from its digression, to
provide a scapegoat that would receive the `reproach and save the Church,
to provide a ram in the thicket. It might be an ungrateful Church at the
present time, but one which we sustain in its righteousness as God's true
Church upon the earth. The fact of the matter is that the Church cannot be
saved unless we are living saving principles, the fulness of God's laws.
That is why He gave them. That is our calling and position.
The day will come when the Church will be glad to have those living
plural marriage back into the Church, together with their records, for the
reason that they will have maintained saving and true principles. From the
biography of Joseph W. Musser:
"We refer to Church Bulletin No. 222, in which children of parents
excommunicated for living in plural marriage are denied baptism until they
are old enough to and do repudiate the principle that gave them birth, and
which instructions in a communication from the Presiding Bishopric under
date of August 1, 1939, were extended and made also to apply to the
blessing of children. Under ordinary circumstances these orders may appear
harsh measures, but the Lord evidently anticipated the difficulty and
amply provided for the emergency.
"The writer recalls instructions given at the close of a prayer
circle meeting held in the Salt Lake Temple in the early part of 1902.
President Anthon H. Lund, a counselor in the First Presidency, was
President of the Circle. We asked President Lund for a private audience
after the close of prayer. Among those remaining were George M. Cannon,
John M. Cannon, James Hendry, myself and a few others whose names I do not
now recall. All these brethren, it was understood, were involved in
entering into and living the principle of plural marriage since [175] the
Manifesto.
"We made known to President Lund that children were being born to
some of the Saints in the plural marriage relation and that they were not
being recognized by the Church. We asked what should be done in such
cases. His instructions came clear and emphatic:
"`Brethren, you hold the Priesthood and stand at the head of your
families. As your children are born, you should give them a father's
blessing and a name. When they reach the proper age for baptism, you
should baptize them, confirm them members of the Church and confer the
Holy Ghost in the usual manner. Be sure and keep the record, and when the
Church will receive it, hand it in.'"
We wish to make note of the fact that the Church's covenant with the
government was in fulfillment of scripture. Our modern day was well
defined by Isaiah. Speaking of the last days, he said: "As for my people,
children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they
which lead thee, cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."
(Is. 3:12) Who can dispute his accuracy?
As to the covenant with the government: "Woe to the crown of pride,
to the drunkards of Ephraim whose glorious beauty is a fading flower,
which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with
wine!
"But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are
out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong
drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through
strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment."
The erring vision and judgment is described in the next verse:
"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell
are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it
shall not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under
falsehood have we hid ourselves:
"Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a
foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure
foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I
lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall
sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding
place."
The Lord will override the covenant: "And your covenant with death
shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell [176] shall not stand;
when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden
down by it." (Is. 28:1, 7, 15-18)
Though Ephraim through erring vision and judgment would make a bad
covenant, the prophecy states that the act would be disannulled. The Lord
worked through President Taylor.
Heber Bennion has an interesting observation: "When men are cut off
the Church for wickedness, they become reprobate and go from bad to worse.
But when cut off without good cause, the Lord will not forsake them.
Nothing but our own sins can cut us off, or come between us and the Lord.
The Priesthood has no power in unrighteousness.
"Therefore, cutting people off the Church for believing that
President Woodruff fulfilled the prediction of Isaiah regarding the
covenant `with death and hell,' with the Manifesto, is equal to cutting
people off the Church for believing that Joseph Smith fulfilled prophecy,
and sinned, by letting Martin Harris have the 116 pages of manuscript of
the Book of Mormon. As well cut people off for believing Adam sinned in
listening to the pleadings of his wife. The cases are parallel. As Martin
persuaded Joseph to do wrong, so drunken Ephraim persuaded President
Woodruff to sign that document." (Gosp. Prob., p. 45-46) Heber Bennion, we
note, died in the 1930's in good standing and full fellowship in the
Church.
Despite the pronouncement of the Manifesto, reinforced by some of the
Saints, despite the brilliant books and articles expounding the reasoning
of men, the vital question after all is not what man has said, but what
has God said? That is the heart of the matter. He has marked the course,
and He has not changed.
It is absurd to suppose that the Lord would command men to lay aside
their opportunity for exaltation. He has not done so, for it was He who
declared our day to be the last. The Manifesto was the work of men, and
they have surely perpetuated that document far better than they ever
perpetuated the law of plural marriage. Having done so, this decree falls
upon their shoulders:
"The Priesthood in the last days has to be manifested in sufficient
power to bear off the Kingdom of God triumphant, that all Israel may be
gathered and saved. If all Israel will not be sanctified by the law which
their Moses first offers them, they will peradventure receive a law of
ordinances administered to them, NOT according to the power of endless
life. Men will be saved in the last days, as in former days, according to
their faith [177] and willingness, to receive the Word of God AND WALK IN
IT." (Mill. Star 16:36)
It was the Biblical Peter who said: "For it had been better for them
not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it,
to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." (2 Peter 2:21)
We turn also to Albert E. Bowen, latter-day Apostle: "That which is
right does not become wrong merely because it may be deserted by the
majority .... Principles cannot be changed by nor accommodate themselves
to the vagaries of popular sentiment." (Conference Report, April 5, 1941)
It seems noteworthy to consider that Lucifer was one who was very
high in celestial realms before this world. He was the first who tried to
change an everlasting covenant. He fell. So if the obedient can be bound
by the act or vote of the disobedient, then fallen Lucifer can bind
Christ.
Said President Joseph F. Smith: "No one of these commandments of God,
these gifts that have been bestowed, these keys of knowledge and of
principle that have been restored and revealed unto us, through the gospel
of Jesus Christ and its ordinances, should be violated in the least by the
Latter-day Saints .... And by neglecting, slighting, and putting them
aside, by turning away from the course which the Lord has marked out for
us to pursue, we weaken ourselves of the light needed to make us more
efficient in the discharge of our duties as the children of God." (3:401)
Again, "And there are none that doeth good except those who are ready
to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto this
generation." (D.&C. 35:12)
It is a strange thing to change covenants and ordinances, abandoning
some entirely, and still, years later, urging that it cannot be done. "The
gospel is divine truth, it is all truth existent from eternity to
eternity. The laws contained in the gospel are God's laws. They are not to
be changed or modified to suit the whims of individuals and are designed
to develop our inward souls through proper observance of and respect
therefor." (H.B. Lee, Des. News, Jan. 13, 1945)
From the Deseret News: "One of the most important things we may learn
about our religion is that God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, today
and forever. By this we may know that the principles of salvation will
always remain the same, and that we need not be disturbed by `new ideas'
or `modern innovations' [178] in the Gospel which may come our way.
"The heaven we hope to achieve is eternal and unchangeable.
Therefore, to bring the same human nature to the same goal, regardless of
the time in which a person lives, requires the same steps and procedures.
For that reason the saving principles must ever be the same. They can
never change." (Des. News, June 5, 1965) It ought to give us pause.
When we break a law of the land, we are criminals. When we break the
Constitutional law which is the highest law of the land, it makes us
criminals of the highest order. But when we break a law of God, ....!
The Lord declared, "And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the
principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive
her unto myself." (D.&C. 105:5)
Since an understanding of that principle is paramount to our study,
we quote a section of a discourse delivered by Apostle Orson Pratt in
1874:
"Now, why is it, Latter-day Saints, that we have been tossed to and
fro and smitten and persecuted for these many years? It is because we have
disobeyed the law of heaven, we have not kept the commandments of the Most
High God, we have not fulfilled his law; we have disobeyed the word which
he gave through his servant Joseph, and hence the Lord has suffered us to
be smitten and afflicted under the hands of our enemies.
"Shall we ever return to the law of God? Yes. When? Why, when we
will. We are agents; we can abide his law or reject it, just as long as we
please, for God has not taken away your agency nor mine. But I will try to
give you some information in regard to the time. God said, in the year
1832, before we were driven out of Jackson County, in a revelation which
you will find here in this book, that before that generation should all
pass away, a house of the Lord should be built in that County (Jackson
County), `upon the consecrated spot, as I have appointed; and the glory of
God, even a cloud by day and a pillar of flaming fire by night shall rest
upon the same.' In another place, in the same revelation, speaking of the
Priesthood, he says that the sons of Moses and the sons of Aaron, those
who had received the two Priesthoods, should be filled with the glory of
God upon Mount Zion, in the Lord's house, and should receive a renewing of
their bodies, and the blessings of the Most High should be poured out upon
them in great abundance.
"This was given forty-two years ago. The generation then [179] living
was not only to commence a house of God in Jackson County, Missouri, but
was actually to complete the same, and when it is completed, the glory of
God should rest upon it.
"Now, do you Latter-day Saints believe that? I do, and if you believe
in these revelations you just as much expect the fulfillment of that
revelation as of any one that God has ever given in these latter times, or
in former ages. We look just as much for this to take place, according to
the word of the Lord, as the Jews look to return to Palestine, and to
rebuild Jerusalem upon the place where it formerly stood. They expect to
build a temple there, and that the glory of God will enter into it; so
likewise do we Latter-day Saints expect to return to Jackson County and to
build a temple there before the generation that was living forty-two years
ago has all passed away. Well then, the time must be pretty near when we
shall begin that work.
"Now can we be permitted to return and build up the waste places of
Zion, establish the great central city of Zion in Jackson County,
Missouri, and build a temple on which the glory of God will abide by day
and by night, unless we return, not to the `new order,' but to that law
which was given in the beginning of the work? Let me answer the question
by quoting one of these revelations again, a revelation given in 1834. The
Lord, speaking of the return of his people, and referring to those who
were driven from Jackson County, says--`They that remain shall return,
they and their children with them to receive their inheritances in the
land of Zion, with songs of everlasting joy upon their heads.' There will
be a few that the Lord will spare to go back there, because they were not
all transgressors. There were only two that the Lord spared among Israel
during their forty years' travel--Caleb and Joshua. They were all that
were spared, out of some twenty-five hundred thousand people from twenty
years old and upwards, to go into the land of promise. There may be three
in our day, or a half dozen or a dozen spared that were once on that land
who will be permitted to return with their children, grandchildren and
great-grandchildren unto the waste places of Zion and build them up with
songs of everlasting joy.
"But will they return after the old order of things that exists among
the Gentiles--every man for himself, this individualism in regard to
property? No, never, never while the world stands. If you would have these
revelations fulfilled, you must comply with the conditions thereof. The
Lord said, concerning the building up [180] of Zion when we do return,
`Except Zion be built according to the law of the celestial kingdom, I
cannot receive her unto myself.' If we should be permitted, this present
year, 1874, to go back to that county and should undertake to build up a
city of Zion upon the consecrated spot, after the order that we have been
living in during the last forty years, we should be cast out again, the
Lord would not acknowledge us as His people, neither would He acknowledge
the works of our hands in the building of a city. If we would go back
then, we must comply with the celestial law, the law of consecration, the
law of oneness, which the Lord has spoken of from the beginning. Except
you are one you are not mine. Query, if we are not the Lord's--who in the
world or out of the world do we belong to? Here is a question for us all
to consider. There is no other way for us to become one but by keeping the
law of heaven, and when we do this we shall become sanctified before God,
and never before.
"Talk about sanctification, we do not believe in the kind of
sanctification taught by the sectarian religion--that they were sanctified
at such a minute and such an hour and at such a place while they were
praying in secret. We believe in the sanctification that comes by
continued obedience to the law of heaven. I do not know of any other
sanctification that the Scriptures tell about, of any other sanctification
that is worth the consideration of rational beings. If we would be
sanctified then, we must begin today, or whenever the Lord points out, to
obey his laws just as far as we possibly can; and by obedience to these
laws we continually gain more and more favor from heaven, more and more of
the Spirit of God, and thus will be fulfilled a revelation, given in 1834,
which says that before Zion is redeemed, let the armies of Israel become
very great, let them become sanctified before me, that they may be as fair
as the sun, clear as the moon, and that their banners may be terrible unto
all the nations of the earth. Not terrible by reason of numbers, but
terrible because of the sanctification they will receive through obedience
to the law of God. Why was Enoch, and why were the inhabitants of the Zion
built up before the flood terrible to all the nations around about? It was
because, through a long number of years, they observed the law of God, and
when their enemies came up to fight against them, Enoch being filled with
the power of the Holy Ghost, and speaking the word of God in power and in
faith, the very heavens trembled and shook, and the earth quaked, and
mountains were thrown down, rivers of water were [181] turned out of their
course, and all nations feared greatly because of the power of God, and
the terror of his might that were upon his people.
"We have this account of ancient Zion in one of the revelations that
God has given. What was it that made their banners terrible to the
nations? It was not their numbers. If, then, Zion must become great it
will be because of her sanctification. When shall we, being Latter-day
Saints, to carry out the law of God, and enter upon the process necessary
to our sanctification? We are told by the highest authority that God has
upon the earth that now is the accepted time and now is the day of
salvation, so far as entering into this order which God has pointed out is
concerned. Shall we do it? Or shall we say no? Shall there be division
among the people, those who are on the Lord's side come out and those who
are against the law of God come out? I hope this division will not be it
present. I hope that we shall take hold with one heart and with one mind.
The time of the division will come soon enough. It will be in the great
day of the Lord's power, when his face shall be unveiled in yonder
heavens, and when he shall come in his glory and in his might. Then the
heavens will be shaken and the earth will reel to and fro like a drunken
man. `Then,' saith the Lord, `I will send forth mine angels to gather out
of my kingdom all things that offend and that do iniquity.' That will be
time enough for this great division. Let us not be divided now, Latter-day
Saints, but let us manifest our willingness to comply with the word and
law of the Most High, and be prepared for the blessings which he has in
store for us. Amen." (Des. News, July 21, 1874, Vol. 9, No. 50)
Every word and admonition is equally valid to the Latter-day Saints
of the present day. Zion (Jackson County) cannot be built up unless the
Saints are living celestial law. Therefore, it is not up to the Church to
steady the Ark, with regard to those Saints who are willing to live the
fulness of the gospel. Similarly, it is not up to those living the fulness
of the gospel to steady the Ark with regard to the Church. There are many
who are inspired in their work and missions in the Church. There are also
many who are inspired in their work and mission in the fulness of the
gospel, who know that the Lord has made intervention in their lives to
make that privilege possible, and who is blessing them beyond measure for
it.
Plural marriage is holy. It was designed to bless the home. We insert
a paragraph from John J. Stewart's Glory of Mor-[182]monism: "Plural
marriage is a pattern of marriage designed by God as part of His plan of
eternal progress to further His kingdom and exalt His children. It is
marriage characterized by pure love for God and pure love between a man
and his wives, and among his wives. Plural marriage is the pattern of
marriage which, lived under the approval and blessing of God, and with a
determination to do His will and glorify His name, can most fully develop
in men, women and their children those attributes of charity, virtue,
humility, patience, selflessness, brotherly and sisterly kindness, and
other divine traits to help them qualify as candidates for the Celestial
Kingdom, on the road to godhood and goddesshood.
"This then is the sacred order of marriage revealed by God to the
great latter-day prophet, Joseph Smith, as an integral doctrine of the
Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, in which was to be `a restoration of
all things.' This is the order of marriage which the Prophet Joseph taught
and lived, and for which he died. This is the doctrine against which
apostates and other ungodly men and women have most viciously fought,
under the evil goadings of Satan, the father of all lies, because darkness
can never endure light; because plural marriage is the diametric opposite
of all the cheapness, tawdriness, hypocrisy, filth and perversion of
sexual relationship which exist and always have existed throughout the
world generally." (p. 102)
That is well said. The experiences of love, harmony, spiritual
blessings, faith and devotion to God and His Priesthood and Church, are
not the marks of apostates. It remains true that the fulness of the
gospel, not merely one facet only, is not for the doubting or faithless.
Ogden Kraut states, "Truth is a pursuit too difficult for most men to
accept, and the sacrificial demands at its altar will almost extinguish
their numbers." (Prin. or Pers., p. 239)
We can sanctify our lives, we must sanctify our lives and prepare to
build a sanctified city, through observance of the vital laws and
ordinances of the gospel, without exception. We cannot be caught without
the oil of righteousness in our lamps when the Savior comes among men. All
men may know for themselves the proper course to pursue to please God:
"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if
it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how
merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of
Adam even down unto the [183] time that ye shall receive these things, and
ponder it in your hearts.
"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye
would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things
are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,
having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the
power of the Holy Ghost.
"And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
things." (Moroni 10:3-5)
We truly need to be as familiar with these words in our actions and
efforts, as we are with our ears.
We conclude with the issue set forth at the beginning of this
Section. Those called by the Priesthood who are permitted to live the
fulness of the restored gospel, are "the ram in the thicket." The Church
must keep the covenant into which it entered with the government. The
Church cannot relieve itself of that agreement. Ultimately, it will take a
higher authority than the Church to relieve it of that covenant.
God gave the Church opportunity to live certain principles having
life in them. They were rejected, and a group of people from within the
Church were chosen to keep and obey all of the gospel. It is their
responsibility to save the Church from its digression, or the Church would
be utterly rejected of God for having turned from His high and holy laws.
We hope we have been clear as to the position of lawful polygamists
in contemporary times. In order to perpetuate a principle that was
offensive to the nation and to many Saints, those chosen people accepted
the position of becoming unpopular and of bearing the responsibility of
doing that which is, unpopular. They assume the position of "ram in the
thicket" to the Church. For whenever God reveals a principle and it is
rejected, that people or Church or nation who reject God's laws will be
damned. They will also find that invariably a delusion in some form
follows that rejection.
The Church would come to an end were it not for the "ram." Christ was
a scapegoat for the world in order to save the world. Those living the
fulness of the gospel under proper authority are the scapegoat for the
Church, so that the Church might be redeemed by bringing the rejected
principles back to the Church. The principles have been kept alive by
those willing to take that responsibility. Since there is order in all
things, that position was probably agreed to before the foundation of the
world.
[184] Christ did not sin in being the scapegoat for the sins of the world.
The Priesthood group living the fulness of the gospel has not sinned in so
doing. But they are willing to be called "apostate" and take upon
themselves the burden that the Church should have shouldered so that the
Church might be redeemed.
Monogamy and monogamists will not save the Church. Monogamy is not
God's law. Orson Pratt makes a pertinent statement. He quotes Isaiah 7,
"seven women shall take hold of one man," and states: "Now will this
prophecy ever be fulfilled, unless this great restoration or restitution
shall take place? It cannot. If this great restitution does not take
place, Jesus will never come, for it is written in the New Testament, in
the 3rd Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that `the heavens must
receive Jesus Christ until the times of the restitution of all things
which God has spoken by the mouths of his holy prophets since the world
began.' Jesus will have to stay a long time in the heavens providing that
monogamist principles are the only principles that will be introduced; in
fact he never can come, for the Scriptures say the heavens must retain him
until all things are restored." (J.D. 17:221) It is important to
understand that fact.
George Q. Cannon gave inspiring counsel to the Saints. It is the
truth:
"There is one thing that I wish to refer to; it is a delicate
subject, still I feel to touch upon it. The idea was suggested to me a
short time ago, while in conversation with one or two of the brethren who
were speaking about the influence that is now being brought against the
Church, how fortunate it was that there were some who had not obeyed the
law of God in regard to plural marriage.
"There was, as I thought, a spirit of self-gratulation among some who
have not obeyed that law, because they could now act as they appeared to
think, in some sort, as saviors to the people. I hope there never will
enter the minds of the Latter-day Saints, a feeling of that kind, or
division of feeling upon this point. I believe there are very excellent,
very worthy, very true and very faithful Latter-day Saints of both sexes
who have not entered into the practice of plural marriage; and it is not
for me to cast reflections upon any of my brethren or sisters about not
having obeyed that principle, unless there has been positive,
disobedience. It is not for me to judge the circumstances, the feelings
and the motives, and the hearts of men and women, my brethren and [185]
sisters in the Church. God will do this; that is his province.
"But, on the other hand, I hope there never will be a feeling grow up
in the midst of the Latter-day Saints to congratulate themselves because
of their reluctance, or their refusal, to obey the command of God, and to
think that they have done more wisely in refraining from obeying that
command, and that their position is a better one because of their lack of
obedience; or, because circumstances have been such that they have not
obeyed or been required to obey that law. I hope, I say, that no such
feeling will ever be known among us--to judge each other and to comment
upon each other, and to indulge in self-gratulation because of anything of
this kind,
"The Lord has said: `Again I say unto you, if ye observe to do
whatsoever I command you, I the Lord will turn away all wrath and
indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.
"Now, I want to say for myself personally, if I had not obeyed that
command of God, concerning plural marriage, I believe that I would have
been damned. That is my position; but I do not judge any other man .... Do
I believe that God will bear those out who have thus embraced that
principle; do I believe that He will sustain them? I know that He will
sustain those who have obeyed it; I know that He will sustain this people
....
"Whatever men's laws may be we cannot deny the truth of God, the
revelations of God. I cannot do it, I would be damned and go to hell if I
were to do it. There is no alternative for me but to suffer all the
penalties that man may inflict upon me; and I cannot evade them only as
God shall preserve me. That is my position today. Whatever man may do, I
must be, I hope to be, true to myself and to my convictions, and to my
God. I must endure all things; I cannot evade them. And there are hundreds
in the same position, hundreds of men, hundreds of women ....
"Now, my brethren and sisters, you who have not entered into this
covenant, do not imagine, do not let the adversary instill into your
hearts that you are now saviors to the Latter-day Saints. Do not do it.
Let me warn you against it; it is a dangerous thought. You will find it
delusive, for it is not true."
If we may interject a thought here, we have mentioned that when we
give up God's laws or reject His word in any way, that act is usually
followed by a delusion. President Cannon states a prime example above, for
many Saints do indeed feel that they as monogamists will save the
Priesthood and the Saints, looking [186] upon polygamists as a sort of
rare breed apostates. It is not true.' It is delusive. Here is a key: The
Lord will not allow a person to be deceived unless he has previously
rejected a truth offered to him. If we reject a truth, we are asking for a
delusion to fill the void. The Lord has said that He will send them.
(4:156) The Lord will let us be tried and proven in life--many times. But
Satan cannot touch our testimony or deceive us unless we have previously
rejected a truth. We tend to believe that if we live the law of tithing
quite well, we can some day live the law of consecration. We believe that
if we live a good monogamous life, some day the Lord will let us live
polygamy. This is a deception. We ought to be able to discern that, from
the history of the world and its prophets since Father Adam. So if we have
rejected a truth sometime in our lives, we are then under the power of
deception and must study and change our lives so that we can have the
Lord's Spirit with us.
We might also mention here that the Prophet Isaiah promises those who
have been "cast out": "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his
word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake,
said, Let the Lord be glorified; but He shall appear to your joy, and they
shall be ashamed." (Is. 66:5)
To conclude with President Cannon's remarks: "If God saves this
people, as I firmly believe he will, it will be through those men and
through those women whom men have placed under a ban; whom men have said
shall have no power because of the laws that are enacted against them. I
tell you, the salvation that will come to this people, will be through the
faithfulness of the men of God and the women of God who, in the face of
opposing world, contrary to their traditions, to their education, to their
preconceived notions and to the popular prejudices of the day who have in
the midst of all this, stepped forward in the vanguard and obeyed the
command of God, and have dared to endure all the consequences, and been
willing to endure all the penalties.
"Mark it. It is true." (J.D. 23:278-280)
[187]
SECTION THIRTEEN
"LABOR TO OBTAIN THE SPIRIT"
On the front of the Nicholas Murray Butler Library at Columbus
University appear the words, "It depends upon him who passes by, whether I
be tomb or treasure house, whether I speak or remain silent; it is up to
you alone, friend, enter not without desire."
The words are beautifully true. Upon searching the scriptures to
obtain more of the Spirit of the Lord, we can find either a tomb or a
treasure house, depending entirely upon our desires. "Yea, even if ye can
no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye
believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words."
(Alma 32:27)
If we would enter the house of sanctification, if we would mingle
forever with the holy ones in the house of God in eternity, we must set
our hearts upon obtaining the Spirit of God while in mortality, our
desires must become single, whole-souled, purified.
God requires a whole heart, for exaltation is not a leisure time
project. We obtain the Spirit of God increasingly as we labor to know and
accept all of the laws of heaven. The Lord cannot cleanse a soul that
rebels against the law, for without law there would have been no life.
Through a divine portion of faith we yearn toward godly things and never
cease laboring to perfect ourselves in righteousness. Righteous men yearn
for more righteousness. That is the operation of their agency.
Before man can obtain a concentration of the Holy Ghost to reveal to
him the peaceable things of God, he must cast off every wickedness, every
abomination, every tendency toward fear or rebellion. These are not of
God; they offend the Spirit. When men fully obey and fasten their desires
to Christ, harmonizing their will with that of God, then their hearts
yearn with power for the Holy Ghost. They cannot rest until they are
blessed of heaven, that they may, in turn, glorify God.
This is our prayer for all of God's children, that they labor to
obtain the Spirit of God. It will purify the flesh, throw open the
shutters, and help them to grow heavenward. They will become clean,
because through the expanding of love as it is enriched by [188] the
Spirit, men become humble, and they recognize truth.
President Wilford Woodruff has spoken well on this subject: "One
morning, while we were at Winter Quarters, Brother Brigham Young said to
me and the brethren that he had had a visitation the night previous from
Joseph Smith. I asked him what he said to him. He replied that Joseph had
told him to tell the people to labor to obtain the Spirit of God; that
they needed that to sustain them and to give them power to go through
their work in the earth.
"Now I will give you a little of my experience in this line. Joseph
Smith visited me a great deal after his death, and taught me many
important principles. The last time he visited me was while I was in a
storm at sea. I was going on my last mission to preside in England. My
companions were Brother Leonard W. Hardy, Brother Milton Holmes, Brother
Dan Jones and another brother and my wife and two other women. We had been
traveling three days and nights in a heavy gale and were being driven
backwards. Finally I asked my companions to come into the cabin with me,
and I told them to pray that the Lord would change the wind. I had no
fears of being lost; but I did not like the idea of being driven back to
New York, as I wanted to go on my journey. We all offered the same prayer,
both men and women; and when we got through we stepped on to the deck and
in less than a minute it was as though a man had taken a sword and cut
that gale through, and you might have thrown a muslin handkerchief out and
it would not have moved it. The night following this, Joseph and Hyrum
visited me, and the Prophet laid before me a great many things. Among
other things he told me what the Twelve apostles would be called to go
through on the earth before the coming of the Son of Man, and what the
reward of their labors would be; but all that was taken from me for some
reason. Nevertheless I know it was most glorious, although much would be
required at our hands.
"Joseph Smith continued visiting myself and others up to a certain
time, and then it stopped. The last time I saw him was in heaven. In the
night vision I saw him at the door of the temple in heaven. He came and
spoke to me. He said he could not stop to talk with me because he was in a
hurry. The next man I met was Father Smith; he could not talk with me
because he was in a hurry. I met a half a dozen brethren who had held high
positions on earth and none of them could stop to talk with me because
they were in a hurry. I was much astonished. By and by I saw the [189]
Prophet again, and I got the privilege to ask him a question. `Now,' said
I, `I want to know why you are in a hurry. I have been in a hurry all
through my life but I expected my hurry would be over when I got into the
kingdom of heaven, if I ever did.' Joseph said, `I will tell you, Brother
Woodruff, every dispensation that has had the Priesthood on the earth and
has gone into the celestial kingdom, has had a certain amount of work to
do to prepare to go to the earth with the Savior when He goes to reign on
the earth. Each dispensation has had ample time to do this work. We have
not. We are the last dispensation, and so much work has to be done and we
need to be in a hurry in order to accomplish it.' Of course, that was
satisfactory with me, but it was a new doctrine to me.
"Brigham Young also visited me after his death. On one occasion he
and Brother Heber C. Kimball came in a splendid chariot, with fine white
horses, and accompanied me to a conference that I was going to attend.
When I got there I asked Brother Brigham if he would take charge of the
conference. `No,' said he, `I have done my work here. I have come to see
what you are doing and what you are teaching the people.' And he told me
what Joseph Smith had taught him in Winter Quarters, to teach the people
to get the Spirit of God. He said, `I want you to teach the people to get
the Spirit of God. You cannot build up the Kingdom of God without that.'
"That is what I want to say to the brethren and sisters here today.
Every man and woman in this Church should labor to get that Spirit. We are
surrounded by those evil spirits that are at war against God and against
everything looking to the building up of the kingdom of God; and we need
this Holy Spirit to enable us to overcome these influences. I have had the
Holy Ghost in my travels. Every man has that who, has gone out into the
vineyard and labored faithfully for the cause of God. I have referred to
the administration of angels to myself. What did those angels do? One of
them taught me some things relating to the signs that should precede the
coming of the Son of Man. Others came and saved my life. What then? They
turned and left me. But how is it with the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost does
not leave me if I do my duty. It does not leave any man who does his duty.
We have known this all the way through. Joseph Smith told Brother John
Taylor on one occasion to labor to get the Spirit of God, and to follow
its dictation, and it would become a principle of revelation within him.
God has blessed me with that, and everything I have [190] done since I
have been in this Church has been done upon that principle. The Spirit of
God has told me what to do, and I have had to follow that ....
"... I refer to these things because I want you to get the same
Spirit. All the Elders of Israel, whether abroad or at home, need that
Spirit. When I was on my way east at one time I drove into a man's yard in
Indiana. Brother Orson Hyde had driven in and set his wagon on the
dooryard, and I set mine by the side of it. I turned my mules and tied
them up to an oak tree. I had my wife and two children with me in my
carriage. We went to lie down, and the Holy Spirit told me to get up and
move my carriage. I got right up. My wife asked me what I was going to do.
I said I was going to move the carriage. She wanted to know what for. I
told her I did not know. I moved the carriage about fifteen rods, looked
around, and then went to bed again. The Spirit told me to get up again and
move my mules. I did so. In twenty minutes there came up a whirlwind that
blew that oak tree down and laid it right across where my carriage had
been. By listening to that Spirit our lives were saved.
"Now, it was not an angel that pointed out these things to me; it was
the Holy Ghost. This is the Spirit that we must have to carry out the
purposes of God on the earth. We need that more than any other gift. I
felt impressed yesterday to teach this principle to the Latter-day Saints.
We are in the midst of enemies, in the midst of darkness and temptation,
and we need to be guided by the Spirit of God. We should pray to the Lord
until we get the Comforter. That is what is promised to us when we are
baptized. It is the spirit of light, of truth and of revelation, and can
be with all of us at the same time.
"Brethren and sisters, God bless you. I am glad to meet with you.
There are very few of you as old as I am. How long I shall tarry in this
country I do not know; but while I do stay I want to do what good I can.
These are principles that have rested a great deal upon my mind. If we
labor for this Spirit, we will have no quarrelling and no difficulty, so
long as that is dwelling within us. God bless you. Amen." (Des. News,
November 7, 1896, Vol. 53, No. 21)
Two scriptures come to mind for inclusion, because they cause us to
look upward:
"Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and
stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ,
unto the filling their souls with joy and [191] consolation, yea, even to
the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification
cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God." (Hela. 3:35)
"And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be
filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body
which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. Therefore, sanctify
yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come
that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall
be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will."
(D.&C. 88:67-68)
[192]
May 1898, B.H. Roberts:
"Therefore, I conclude that since God did approve of the plural
marriage custom of the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and kings of Israel,
it is not at all to be wondered at that, in the dispensation of the
fulness of times, in which He has promised restitution of all things, that
God should again establish that system of marriage. And the fact of God's
approval of plural marriage in ancient times is a complete defence of the
righteousness of the marriage system introduced by revelation through the
Prophet Joseph Smith.
"Joseph Smith received a commandment from the Lord to introduce that
order of marriage into the church, and on the strength of that revelation,
and not by reason of anything that is written in the Jewish scriptures,
the Latter-day Saints practice plural marriage.
"Polygamy is not adultery, for were it so considered, then Abraham,
Jacob, and the prophets who practiced it would not be allowed an
inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, and if polygamy is not adultery,
then it can not be classed as a sin at all. It appears to the writer that
modern Christians must either learn to tolerate polygamy or give up
forever the glorious hope of resting in Abraham's bosom. That which he
approves, must be not only not bad, but positively good, pure, and holy."
(3:282, Imp. Era, May 1898)
[193]
SUMMARY
In summation, we wish to draw from the crux of the previous pages and
focus for a moment upon the basic issue. While the following may appear to
be an ambitious intent to highlight a single aspect of the principle of
celestial plural marriage, and while redundancy seems obvious in this
commentary, it is purely and wholly intentional.
One comes up with neither definition nor application of, say, the
principle of Faith, with just one or two references from the Scriptures.
Faith, cast through the magnificent prismatic structure of the Scriptures,
is broken into many component parts scattered throughout the whole.
Compiled and studied, Faith then becomes more easily understandable and
applicable to life and motivation.
Similarly, that celestial plural marriage was restored through the
Prophet Joseph Smith, never again to be taken away, nor held in abeyance,
nor frightened into obscurity, becomes more clearly apparent as an
overview of nearly all statements concerning this particular aspect of the
question is made available. This is really the crux of the whole issue.
Therefore, little restraint was employed in the use of available comments
from those in unquestionable positions to know the mind and will of the
Lord. The reader is invited to search out the sources and read entire
speeches.
Even the semi-alert, when made aware of the following, view the
principle of plural marriage in a richer light than the gray-toned, "...
an incident but never an essential."
Said the Prophet Joseph's secretary, William Clayton, "From him
(Joseph) I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is
the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth,
and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain to
the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory." (1:12-13) This statement
with its obvious, numerous ramifications, ought to stir the most benumbed.
The road to Godhood is strait, narrow, highly conditional. But all of
the ingredients for achieving that exalted state have been outlined and
restored through Joseph the Prophet, perpet-[194]uated through Divine
provision and by Divine command. Fully understanding the importance of the
principle of celestial plural marriage, Brigham Young stated, "Without the
doctrine that this revelation (D.&C. Section 132) reveals, no man on earth
ever could be exalted to be a God." (1:35) If it were true that plural
marriage has been removed, the Saints ought to be on their knees night and
day, without ceasing in prayer to God, for the privilege and opportunity
to live every law the ancients lived. And for the same reason. Further,
one is struck by overtones more than casual in Brigham Young's one-liner,
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter
into polygamy." (1:160)
These are significant statements. The principle of plural marriage,
and the living of it, can never be considered a "nonessential." It was not
a casual attitude that caused Joseph himself to remark, "We have got to
observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment
and not by way of instruction." (1:26-7, 3:137) Nowhere is the intimation
found that this "most holy principle" was to fulfill its eternal purpose
and exhaust itself in approximately 40 years. For God's intent will be
accomplished as He purposes in Himself, and His gospel in all its fulness
was restored for the last time in the Dispensation of the Fulness of
Times. Plural marriage is an integral part of the whole, and that must be
remembered.
A. Milton Musser was rather outspoken in this very direction: "If the
Mormons were ever so unwilling to become polygamists, they have no choice
in the matter. God has commanded and they must obey. If there was not a
single word or example to be found in the Bible in its favor, still they
must observe its practice. It is in no sense optional with them. It is as
much an integral part of their faith as baptism for the remission of sins,
or the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost. It holds
precisely the same relation to the gospel plan of salvation, redemption
and exaltation ... as the arms and legs sustain to the human body."
(1:198) It is probable that one would never accept the situation were we
constrained to relinquish baptism to the demands of the government and
persecuted Saints. But should we relax in comfort at giving up any portion
of the restored gospel? Why should celestial plural marriage be the
acceptable exception? If it is as much a part of the gospel as arms and
legs are to the body, then we have to admit to having a maimed gospel in
our midst with the absence of plural marriage [195] or any other
principle.
In other words, in terms of perfection, can one jot of principle or
ordinance be abandoned? One can lose a finger and have adequate body
function. But in terms of perfection, is the finger less important than
the leg? Abandoning celestial plural marriage, were God to have allowed
it, would be tantamount to lopping off one's head. In terms of perfection,
or a fulness, everything must be represented and functioning. The Prophet
Joseph Smith and the Lord Himself have designated our day as the fulness
of times. And they do not lie.
Samuel W. Richards caught the vision: "And the principle of plurality
of wives, in connexion with the eternity of the marriage covenant by the
seal of the Lord, is one of the greatest and most important, enobling and
sublime doctrines that has emanated from the heavens, elevating man to
Diety." (1:36) One cannot honestly feel passive when contemplating such a
sublime statement.
Attempt is obviously being made here to focus briefly first of all on
the eternal weight and merit of the principle of plural marriage itself.
(That it is to be within the confines of divine law as restored through
Joseph the Prophet, is assumed.) Yet not so much focus that the intent of
this Summary is obscured. Our desire here is to uncover a picture
unmistakable in its message: celestial plural marriage was restored, not
to experience cessation even unto the second coming of the Lord. And the
prophets knew it.
Resuming, Joseph F. Smith also placed the principle in enlightened
perspective, saying that it was, "... particularly adapted to the
conditions of this dispensation, to its necessities, and circumstances,
responsibilities, and personal as well as vicarious duties of the people
of God in this age of the world." (1:206. See pp. 4-14 for full
discourse.) To this may be added the similar understanding taught by
Wilford Woodruff: "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." (1:312, 318)
Here we have a doctrine absolutely essential to man's exaltation,
belonging specifically to, this dispensation, but it appears to be no
longer true after 1890. That seems to put God on the spot. Consider the
dilemma: As all informed people know, the [196] Church leaders, according
to their own testimonies, continued to live in plural marriages well after
the 1890 Manifesto. Does this give the Lord a calendar problem? Shall
Saint and sinner be judged on the basis of date, some guilty after such
and such a date when it was suddenly no longer essential to this
dispensation, and others not guilty who fell under the right time zone?
And all having lived the same principle in its last restoration. It is an
absurdity. The nation and its government did not put something over on the
Lord and His Prophets, whose declarations were specific.
Wilford Woodruff seemed unaware of any future calendar problem: "God,
our heavenly Father, knowing that this was the only law ordained by the
Gods of eternity that would exalt immortal beings to Kingdoms ... to a
fulness of celestial glory, I say, the God of Israel knowing these things,
commanded Joseph Smith the prophet, and the Latter-day Saints, to obey
this law, `or you shall be damned,' saith the Lord." (1:225)
Nor was John Taylor considering the calendar: "It was a revelation
given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants
.... Joseph Smith told others, he told me, and I can bear witness of it,
`that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and Kingdom could
not proceed.' When this commandment was given, it was so far religious,
and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church, that it was told them
if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of
opposition that would come in consequence of it, the Keys of the Kingdom
would be taken from them." (1:155)
So we have Wilford Woodruff stating that the Church cannot progress
without the principle, reaffirmed by John Taylor who says without it, keys
would be lost. Even the most casual thinking leads to the conclusion that
all is not well in Zion. Opposition to the principle was certainly
oft-anticipated. The torrent of opposition could have been stemmed through
faith in the Lord's promises, rather than accepting the substitute of a
lesser law for a higher, exalting law. The Petition to the government
stands self-condemnatory. One would actually have inclinations to be
rather embarrassed, if the heart of the matter weren't so deeply
significant--the voting away of eternal exaltation by those whose hands
may not have signed, but whose hearts did. It was government pottage.
Freedom never ceases to be a heavy responsibility.
Meanwhile, to return to our focus on the perpetuation of the [197]
holy law, we find Samuel Woolley in harmony with those already mentioned:
"That revelation (D.&C. Section 132) was of God and no man could or would
receive a fulness of celestial glory and eternal life except he obeyed
that law and had more than one living wife at the same time." (1:24-5,
3:128) "More than one living wife" is a phrase over which many become
quite distraught. To some, a succession of marriages and deaths qualifies
them as having lived the law. Not so. That was not the revelation nor the
intent of the principle, as those living it have been well aware. John
Taylor said, "This law pertains more particularly to the living." (1:315)
We cannot point out any other way than that which the Lord has revealed.
There is a gate to all blessings, blessings which are missed by going over
or under the fence, however choice the scenery.
Having dead women sealed to living men, or living women sealed to
dead men and assuming this to be celestial plural marriage, enshrouds the
heart of the matter: "This revelation, which God gave to Joseph, was for
the express purpose of providing a channel for the organization of
tabernacles, for those spirits to occupy who have been reserved to come
forth in the Kingdom of God, and that they might not be obliged to take
tabernacles out of the Kingdom of God." (B. Young, J.D. 3:264-6) Lucifer
has many polluted ways to gain the souls of men. The Lord has but one--the
purity of the holy marriage covenant for time and all eternity. Plural
marriage has a high and holy purpose in this one dimension alone, which,
of course, leads one to the obvious question: Was this purpose no longer
necessary in the sight of the Lord after the calendar year 1890? One has
cause to wonder at the inconsistency.
Heber C. Kimball reaffirms: "Plurality is a law which God established
for His elect before the world was formed, for a continuation of seeds
forever." (1:154) One cannot help suspecting that the principle was
restored with full intent that it was to stay, that the Lord would see to
it, considering its great importance to the children of men. It is folly,
then, to question if the Lord made provision to perpetuate the principle.
Rather, one is led to question, how.
Continuing, John Taylor stated, "It is part of the `Everlasting
Covenant' which God has given to man." (1:166) If so important a part of
the covenant was removed, then we must consider ourselves casting our lot
with a fragmented covenant holding forth partial hope of exaltation at
best. One could not call [198] our day the Dispensation of the Fulness of
Times, and sleep well.
Francis M. Lyman voiced his witness, if something of an
understatement: "It is a principle of vital importance in the plan of
salvation." (1:447) Shall we say that the plan has changed? That a tenet
of vital importance is no longer vital? Or important? That the minority is
at the mercy of the majority? There were many among the thousands of
Mormons in 1890 who had the heart of a Daniel. The holy and exalting
principle of plural marriage was restored in its proper time and place,
not to be given up until Christ shall come.
Assuming that the essentiality of living the principle since it was
restored has been more than intimated at by our Prophets, let us leave
that portion of this examination with this comment from Joseph F. Smith:
"But he (Joseph Smith) did not falter, although it was not until an angel
of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should
enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly
destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that
doctrine." (1:210; 4:10)
The next portion of this treatise will deal with those teachings
given by the Prophets which amplify the concept that celestial plural
marriage was restored to stay. Were it not so, the angel with the drawn
sword who gave command to Joseph Smith, performed a short, if not
insignificant, mission, the Lord didn't mean what He said as to a full and
last restoration, and Joseph shed his blood for naught. It might gently
and a bit pointedly be inserted here, that statement occurring in the
132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants: "For all those who have this
law revealed unto them must obey the same."
The voices of the Prophets blend as one, merging into one universal
whole as to the design of the Father. The decrees of God are firm and
immovable. His doctrines are not elastic. The voice of the people is not
the voice of God, and His words will all be fulfilled, even though it be
through a faithful handful. This was taught in message form to the saints
by the First Presidency on October 6, 1885: "Well-meaning friends of ours
have said that our refusal to renounce the principle of celestial marriage
invites destruction. They warn us and implore us to yield. But they
perceive not the hand of the Almighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, who
has made promises to us and who has never failed to fulfill all His words.
We cannot withdraw or renounce it. God has revealed it, and He has
promised to maintain it, and to bless [199] those who obey it ...." (Mill.
Star 47:707)
It is our witness that these prophets were correct and that the Lord
did not change His mind just five years after the significant message from
the First Presidency. Surely their prophetic ability would extend just
five years into the future. It is much more consistent with reason to
suppose that they knew whereof they spoke and that the Lord did indeed
provide the way for those who would be faithful.
We sometimes demonstrate a facile ability to shield our lives behind
blinds. We proclaim clearly and determinedly that our free agency gives us
every right to choose to sin as completely as we wish, partake of any and
every sin if we so elect. But it becomes another matter to say we have
equal freedom and opportunity to partake of every righteous law and
blessing. We are free to sin, but not free to live all law. That rates
about 100% on the nonsense scale. We can sin to our heart's content, but
we cannot sanctify our lives. This is a delusion.
We have Joseph F. Smith giving a positive declaration, delivered at
the funeral of William Clayton: "This doctrine ... of plural marriage, is
one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the
world. Without it man would come to a full stop; ... There are, however,
enough witnesses to these principles to establish them upon the earth in
such a manner that they never can be forgotten or stamped out. For they
will live; they are destined to live, and also to grow and spread abroad
upon the face of the earth, to be received and accepted ... ; they are
bound to prevail, because they are true principles." (J.D. 21:10) He was
not in error. The principle of plural marriage was not only bound to
prevail, it has prevailed and will continue along the path and upon the
course set forth by the Lord and taught by His servants. The mills of the
gods grind slowly, though inexorably.
One is tempted at this point to remove the burr that is commonly
under the saddle, the one that says plural marriage will again be lived in
the Millennium. The thought is less than profound. For if you have not
lived the Celestial law here, to what, then, will you be resurrected?
Shall our leaders be to blame for minimizing any focus on plural marriage?
Possibly. But you will surely share in the problem for worlds without end,
you will never be blessed for a law you have not lived. The situation is
on our own shoulders, and the Millennium will not be a panacea. God does
not bang heads with mortals. He provides the way for us, [200] and we must
seek and find. When people seek to counsel the Lord, they will have
Manifestos to their heart's content.
A discussion of the Manifesto is found in Section Five. We wish to
keep our aim singular here, slightly touching on the Manifesto in a
following paragraph or two. But the Manifesto of 1890 might be kept in
mind as the skids are put under it by the teachings of the Prophets.
Brigham Young is decisive: "The principle spoken upon by Brother
Pratt this morning, we believe in. And I tell you--for I know it--it will
sail over, and ride triumphantly above all the prejudices and priestcraft
of the day; it will be fostered and believed in by the more intelligent
portions of the world, as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any
people." (1:34, 3:208) This tends to be a becalming statement. It might be
noted that all faithful Saints are invited to join the intelligentsia, the
course for doing so being fairly clear. At any rate, President Young's
remarks, together with those following, serve to bog down the most
dedicated crusade, past and present, to sink the principle out of
existence.
Heber C. Kimball stated, "The principle of plurality of wives never
will be done away." (1:125) Some hasten to agree that the principle is
still here; but the practice of it has ceased, which is about like saying
the water is here, but we don't baptize.
Brother Kimball becomes more definite: "You might as well deny
Mormonism and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let
the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the
authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that
doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it
for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the
human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our
dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by
his people." (1:130) The roots of the 1890 Manifesto as being a revelation
from God are in soil too shallow to stand.
Brother Kimball again: "It would be as easy for the United States to
build a tower to remove the sun, as to remove polygamy or the Church and
Kingdom of God." (1:154) The prophets seemed to have complete assurance in
this matter. If the Lord had planned to soon remove the principle of
plural marriage, His representatives on earth were not in on the program.
"The doctrine of polygamy with the Mormons is not ... an item of
doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system [201] remain.
`Mormonism' is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is
invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one of
its leading principles is acknowledged to be false, or such as God will
not sustain in practice against the entire world." (Mill. Star 27:673) How
much more need be said to realize the consistent direction of that which
the brethren said over many years' time? The principle of plural marriage,
along with all others restored, would not be overruled by man or
government, principality or power. God has stood by His word. It is a
great delusion to suppose that provision was not made for the small
minority who would give their all to their God in living all of His
restored law. The best blood in the Church kept the holy principle alive
so long as they lived, and made proper provision for others to carry on
after them. This was in accord with Divine edict.
Informed people are well aware of the testimonies given by leading
Church brethren in 1904, at the time of the Smoot Hearings in Washington.
It is a matter of Congressional record. President Joseph F. Smith, among
others, stated publicly that while the Church was keeping the rule
regarding the cessation of plural marriage and cohabitation, that he was
not, that he had 11 children born to him after the Manifesto by five
wives, that he was living in defiance of the "rule of the Church" in that
matter, and that he preferred to stand his chances against the law.
(3:346) He was willing, like the ancients, to face the fiery furnace. He
was not a lone Daniel among men, however. There were others. Another
President paid a $100.00 fine in 1899. (3:309-11) The Salt Lake Tribune of
October 8, 1901, listed at least five Apostles, as well as 200 other
names, who were living the principle of plural marriage. (3:418-21) If the
Lord halted plural marriage by His Priesthood, He forgot to tell some
significant people, and we are nose to nose again with a calendar problem.
John Taylor and others were hounded and were in hiding. One surely cannot
help but wonder if they would be hounded and excommunicated and be
declared unfit parents today.
It is significantly clear that if the 1890 Manifesto is the word of
God to His Priesthood and Church, the Saints so declaring it brand their
former Priesthood leaders as false prophets, adulterers, and as
disobedient in speech and action. It is a fearsome thing to not know
whereof we speak. But many have so structured resistance to the principle,
that strange designs have been painted over the Lord's truths.
[202] A very fine statement was made by Lorenzo Snow in J.D. 19:345. (See
Section One) He spoke of the Book of Mormon people as having the Mosaic
law, but who sought out and lived the fulness of the Gospel. He says, "Do
you suppose it would have been wrong to search out the fulness of the
Gospel, while living under the Mosaic law?" He asked if they thought that
would displease God. Obviously, this must presuppose that the fulness was
there, along with proper authority. And so it is today. The present in
many instances is but a reflection of history.
To continue emphasis on the restoration being full and final, this
from Brigham Young: "It is written in the Bible, `and in that day seven
women shall take hold of one man ....' The government of the United States
does not intend that that prophecy shall be fulfilled, and the Lord
Almighty means that it shall. Do you not think that the Lord will conquer?
I think He will, and we are helping Him." (1:161) So are many faithful
Saints today. Possessing an understanding of the situation, some early
Mormons tried to incorporate the principle into their states' rights in
1901. The Manifesto didn't curtail their effort.
Wilford Woodruff expresses the feelings of many of like mind: "We
would be ashamed to deny the faith to accommodate our enemies, then meet
the prophets and apostles in the spirit world." (1:228) This puts the
Manifesto and Petition For Amnesty under glass. At least, inquiring minds
might be encouraged to sort out the facts motivating the issuance of the
Manifesto, rather than accepting it as a blanket to cover the plural
marriage headache.
The blood of Ephraim is also apparent here: "The United States stood
as good a chance to kick the stars from the sky, as to make the Latter-day
Saints forsake what the Lord revealed to them." (John Taylor, 1:252) To
say, as some do, that these teachings died when the Prophets died, is to
tax the credulity of the least exercised mind. Being creatures who court
security, shall we tremble when a present leader dies for fear their words
will be dismissed or superceded? The fact of the matter simply is that
truth is always true, in any era. God is unchanging, and all of His words
through His Prophets will be fulfilled. The Lord did not quickly remove
plural marriage from the scene when the government began to rattle its
sabers.
President Taylor also said, "Polygamy is a divine institution. It has
been handed down direct from God. The United States cannot abolish it. No
nation on earth can prevent it, nor all the [203] nations of the earth
combined!" (1:251) One has to admit, no matter his leanings, that this is
a stout comment. He, along with all the others, was correct. But anyone
can see that the Manifesto does get in the way. To justify it, however,
would be to excuse a government of its unconstitutional acts and to excuse
many fearful saints who, instead of letting the Lord fight their battles
as He promised, pressured Him to make life easier. The Manifesto came
Along to ease their burden, while the Lord was busy taking care of His own
purposes with or without the Manifesto.
An in-depth study of the 1890 Manifesto, which is not being attempted
here, unavoidably brings one face to face with the workings of the Lord.
It might be timely to insert at this point a statement made by George Q.
Cannon at the time of the issuance of the Manifesto. He said in General
Conference, "... you will see things that perhaps you cannot see and
understand at the present time." He added, "... the devil is not pleased
with what we have done." (2:488) The sixty-four dollar question is, why
would the devil not be pleased at the supposed cancellation of plural
marriage? What, then, were the workings of the Lord? Wilford Woodruff at
the same meeting said, after counselling the Saints to ask the Lord about
the action taken, "When you get through you will understand many things
that you do not today." (2:492) President Woodruff stated again later,
"The Lord is at work with us. He is doing things here that you do not
comprehend." (2:547) The same counsel would apply to us today, as to
seeking out the workings of the Lord.
Those comments delivered in 1890 harmonize with the earlier statement
made by John Taylor: "But one thing I can assure all men, in the name of
Israel's God, neither this nation nor any other nation, can do anything
against the truth, but for the truth." (1:236)
The same impression was held by George Q. Cannon: I tell you in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no power upon the earth or in hell
that can disturb the peace, the quietude, the propriety and success of
this people or interrupt the progress of this great and glorious work of
our God .... God has stretched forth his hand to accomplish a work, and
that work will roll forth." (1:299) That plural marriage or any other
principle would suffer cessation or extinction simply has no place in our
thinking. The 1890 Manifesto had a place and a purpose, though basically
less than divine. It was a fine cloak, well worn by some and shunned by
others. All effort against God's work serves but to [204] propel it
forward. The Lord never surrenders.
John Taylor is clear in this assurance: "If God has introduced
something for our glory and exaltation, we are not going to have that
kicked over by any improper influence either inside or outside of the
Church of the living God." (1:336) The truth is either spoken here, or the
Lord hadn't gotten His change of plans through to President Taylor. He
said further, "If we are interrupted by men who do not know about our
principles, that is all right, it will not impede the work of God or stop
the performance of ordinances." (1:345) Which, much to the nervousness of
some, is an understatement.
George Teasdale's testimony: "I bear my solemn testimony that plural
marriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from the
heavens. I bear my testimony that it is a necessity, and that the Church
of Christ in its fulness never existed without it. Where you have the
eternity of marriage, you are bound to have plural marriage; bound to; and
it is one of the marks of the Church of Jesus Christ in its sealing
ordinances." (1:328) It would be completely debilitating to think that if
we have a fragmented gospel, that would also be the level of our
blessings. If a small Dutch boy can save his town by plugging the hole in
the dike with his finger, one can rest assured of the Lord's capability to
do the same thing--on a far grander scale.
The Lord is consistent. Truth is consistent with itself in any age of
the world. It is singular that it was not until after Sarah gave Hagar to
Abraham in plural marriage, that the chosen seed appeared.
Let us give space to Charles W. Penrose: "What would be necessary to
bring about the result nearest the hearts of the opponents of Mormonism
.... Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new and
everlasting covenant of marriage in its fulness. Were the Church to do
that as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body. The authority
of the Priesthood would be withdrawn .... The heavens would permanently
withdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up another people of greater
valor and stability, for his work must ... go forward." (1:377. See
Section Five for full editorial) These are frightening penalties. But the
Church is assuredly not rejected of God. The Church has Priesthood.
Therefore the simplest of reasoning must bring us to conclude that the
sacred principle of celestial plural marriage is fulfilling its mission
and must be of force and in effect in the earth since its restoration. And
those fulfilling their sacred [205] covenants in this mission to which
they are called, must love the Church with all their hearts, with
understanding of her position and her holy mission among men.
A kinship of spirit is exhibited by Lorenzo Snow: "We have no
occasion for fear or cause for trembling--the purpose of God will be
accomplished--what He has recommenced will be consummated though the
combined armies of the earth should rise up and oppose .... Better suffer
a thousand deaths than succumb to the force of persecution by promising to
discard a single principle which God has revealed for our glory and
exaltation." (1:404, 406) This, too, joins the others in the repeated
assurance that the principle was here to stay. He said one month later,
"Though I go to prison, God will not change His law of celestial marriage.
But the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this
doctrine and the Church of God will be overthrown." (1:410) In an overall
contemplation of these teachings, the opponents of plural marriage are
hard pressed. We cannot hold to the supposition that God was premature
with the doctrine and had to withdraw it. He does not trade an eternal
principle for political expediency. Those whose hearts are linked with the
ancients' cannot accept the thought.
Abraham H. Cannon echoes the eternal declaration: "As God lives, the
principle will not be driven from the earth." (2:4)
The scriptures are clear that all men are saved by obedience to the
same principles and ordinances. We walk the same path to arrive at the
same goal. Said Joseph F. Smith, "The rites of the Priesthood of the
Church, as the Lord has revealed them, and the principles that underlie
the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ, are irrevocable,
unchanging and unchangeable." (Gosp. Doc. p. 14) So we are all in the same
boat, rowing with the same oars. Truths are hard for some to receive, and
they must be led to them by degrees. The glad tidings of the gospel are
sometimes too glad for some of us to bear.
The Millennial Star reported, "We cannot be married for eternity
without subscribing to the law that admits a plurality of wives." (Mill.
Star 5:15) While this may be discomforting news to some, it will bring
great joy to others. A "temple marriage" fills the law only in part. (J.D.
20:24-31. See Section One for full discourse) The fulness of the law of
celestial marriage is plural marriage. A monogamous relationship cannot
fill the law. Plural marriage as Joseph the Prophet restored it may be out
of sight, but there seems to be ample evidence that it is not out of [206]
existence. The Saints will one day rejoice because of that fact. The "ram
in the thicket" will then have newer and broader significance for them.
(See Section Twelve)
Let us close this portion of our examination by a final statement
found in the Fall 1971 edition of the Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 39,
No. 4, p. 359. It states: "President Woodruff was quoted by Smith (John
Henry) as stating at a meeting in the Manti Temple in May of 1888 that,
`We won't quit practising Plural Marriage until Christ shall come.'" Found
also in John Henry Smith Journal under date 17 May 1888.
The affairs of men are known to the Lord from the beginning of the
world. In His infinite wisdom, He set forth His order and will concerning
celestial plural marriage in a revelation to John Taylor in September of
1886. (See page 34) The revelation concludes with, "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." (1:442-3, 3:230) This was
given when the fires under the principle were hot. Statements from the
Lord rarely leave excuse for conjecture. It is preposterous to think to
quibble with God, and it is preposterous to think He changed His mind.
Rather, all the statements of the Prophets with reference to this holy
principle are in complete harmony with this stand taken by the Lord. The
revelation states, "It is more pleasing to me that men should use their
free agency in regard to these matters." And that is squarely where the
matter stands today. Plural marriage is not an item for proselyting. Nor
is it on the back of the Church for carrying and perpetuating. The load
was shifted.
A revelation was given to Wilford Woodruff in 1880. (See Section
Four, page 25) It includes a paragraph that says, "And I say again, woe
unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from
obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham, which leadeth to celestial glory,
which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant
Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned ...." (1:253) One
is again embarrassed to suppose God would be rendered helpless by acts of
men and nations to perpetuate a holy principle.
The 1882 revelation to John Taylor (See Section Four) calls George
Teasdale and Heber J. Grant to the Quorum of Twelve, and Seymour B. Young
into the Quorum of Seventies. (1:309) Seymour B. Young was therein
instructed to enter into the principle. One gets the feeling that the Lord
was not too [207] concerned about the law of the land, which had long been
clamoring for the heads of the polygamists. Nephi might be appropriately
quoted here, "I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded,
for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men,
save He shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing
which He commandeth them." (1 Ne. 3:7)
Because of pressures to make concession to the courts on polygamy,
Wilford Woodruff inquired of the Lord in 1889, and received another
revelation, (See Section Four) part of which states, "Let not my servants
who are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law,
which concerns the salvation of the children of men." (2:223) They were
further instructed to make no pledges from the Priesthood to their
enemies. This was in 1889. Was the Lord to change His mind one year later?
All four of these last mentioned revelations were given after the Supreme
Court of the United States declared the anti-polygamy law constitutional.
It is one matter for the Lord to forget the Supreme Court had spoken, and
quite another for man to forget that the Lord had spoken.
Manifesto enthusiasts didn't take the Lord by surprise. He knew if
Satan could succeed in getting the Saints to lay aside one single
principle that God had restored to the earth in these last days, the world
would chortle at the Church, the Saints would be considerably weakened,
God's representatives would have to assume the responsibility for
forfeiting a holy principle, the works of God would be thwarted, and all
Hell would rejoice. Plural marriage was not a lonely target. If Satan and
his emissaries in the flesh were successful in getting the Church to turn
from one principle, it would be a classic precedent, and the Church would
likely turn from others, until the Priesthood itself would be forfeited
and taken from the earth. Destruction of the Priesthood was at the heart
of the matter.
The severity of the situation was expressed by George Teasdale: "The
Saints in general are less firmly united on this principle than on many
others belonging to the Gospel, and it is hoped by our enemies that this
circumstance will conduce largely, if not successfully, to bring about its
renunciation by the people in a Church capacity. Such an act would be
tantamount to an apostacy, and the consequent destruction of the power and
authority of the Priesthood would be consummated. This is a great object
aimed at." (2:94) This is mentioned to show that the [208] absence of
plural marriage in our day would bring about the fulfillment of such
statements as this. What are we left to conclude?
The Manifesto was a necessity, a blind to the government, an escape
opportunity to the fearful and tired among the Saints themselves, a
frustration to Satan and his skullduggery. It was offered to the world as
a disinfectant for Mormonism. It was offered, along with the unfortunate
Petition For Amnesty, "to be at peace with the government." Daniel would
rather have gone to the lions.
But to say that the 1890 Manifesto stopped plural marriage is as
wholly true as saying that the crickets ate the seagulls. It is an
interesting exercise in credulity to examine the wording of the Manifesto.
Great chinks are left in its superstructure, which is not a mark of God's
revelations. Manifesto supporters say plural marriage has stopped. For
them it has. The Lord kept His word and provided the way for others not
"bowing down to the golden image."
Viewed in the true light of historical occurrence, the 1890 Manifesto
was a bit late. The giving up of plural marriage within the Church
structure was not because of a sudden moment of capitulation. It was a
slow process of yielding up the practice, the Manifesto being a clear
parallel to closing the barn door after the horse was out.
If one is to decide whether the Manifesto was a good covenant or a
bad one, it is of some help to consider the actions of the Church leaders
after 1890. There is little question as to their course. If God cannot
revoke an everlasting law upon which an everlasting blessing is
predicated, can man?
Charles W. Penrose again: "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." (1:423) The
principle belongs to the Priesthood of God, if one will accept a key, and
to none other. It is not sought to extend it to the world nor to introduce
it to other people. It is confined to the Priesthood, and if polygamy is a
dead issue, the whole religion must of necessity be in a state of demise.
While the Manifesto is not itself a revelation, it is the result of a
revelation showing forth the sacrifices necessary in order to maintain the
principle of plural marriage in a wicked world. If the early Saints took
the urgent matter into their own hands, one surely cannot deny the Lord
the right to take the matter into His. [209] One cannot help but be
reminded of Lorenzo Snow's corroborative statement: "The severest
prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine
law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom." (1:410)
In concluding this examination on the theme that celestial plural
marriage was restored with full intent of its perpetuation, one or two
obvious thoughts might be considered. It is, for example, interesting to
note that the Lord prepares in advance for impending eventualities. Before
any step was ever taken in Adam's fall, the atonement was worked out in
advance of the fan. This is a pattern throughout history. Before the world
was washed through the flood, an Ark was prepared. Before Martin Harris
lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript, a double history was
recorded and therefore available. If one didn't know it, it would be safe
to merely assume that an advanced preparation would have assured
perpetuating plural marriage before the umpteen Manifestos made their
appearance. A holy, exalting, necessary principle was at stake.
Some view their position today much as the sons of the Ammonites in
Helaman's day. The Anti-Nephi-Lehites, gathered out from among the
Lamanites, covenanted to lay down their swords and never take up arms
again. When the Lamanites fell upon them, slaying the Nephites and
destroying their cities, it was the sons of the Ammonites, not under such
covenant, who took up arms to defend the lands and people. They were under
no condemnation. There are many Saints today who entered into no such
covenant against plural marriage that presently pins the Church to
government demand. They have taken up the work, under the direction of the
Lord and His servants, and they, too, are under no condemnation, so long
as they prove faithful.
The situation in our day would come as no surprise to Apostle Daniel
H. Wells: "Many will doubtless make shipwreck of their faith and will be
led away by the allurements of sin into and by forbidden paths; yet the
Kingdom will not be taken from this people and given to another. But a
people will come forth from among us, who will be zealous of good works,
willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in His ways and
who will walk in His paths." (Des. News 11/6/1876)
Heber C. Kimball foresaw the same thing: "But the time will come when
the Lord will choose a people out of this people upon whom He will bestow
His choicest blessings." (Des. News 11/9/1865) He continues the theme:
"Many of this people have [210] broken their covenants ... by finding
fault with the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence.
But you cannot do that, for God will cut you off and raise up another
people that will carry out his purposes (J.D. 4:108)
Turning to Apostle Orson F. Whitney: "But I know that there is a
people, in the heart's core of this people, that will arise in their
majesty in a day that is near at hand, and push spiritual things to the
front, a people who will stand up for God, fearing not man nor what man
can do." (Des. Wkly -/11/1889)
Lastly, from the Millennial Star 42:584, 1880: "Before the great day
of the Lord shall come, and the day of righteousness and peace dawn upon
this fair creation, two potent cleansing processes shall be in active
operation. The first of these is the preparation of a choice people,
purified by an application of their lives, as individuals,and a community,
of the principles of the Gospel of peace. Such a body will evolve from
those called Latter-day Saints, who as a church possess the fulness and
power of the pure plan of salvation. Out of this community at present in
the merely incipient stages of development, and from the remnant of the
whole house of Israel, will emanate the nucleous or foundation from which
will spring the righteous Millennial population of our globe." These
Saints hold the unfading and unfaltering assurance that the cause for
which they are ready to endure all things shall yet prevail over all the
earth. The Prophets certainly seem to concur. The principle of plurality
of wives in the Mormon faith is not a principle of mere inclination and
indulgence, but of Divine command to achieve holy ends.
Celestial plural marriage is not for everyone. Neither is the Church
itself, since exaltation is forced upon no man. It is a pursuit and a
process and requires rare devotion. It is a paralyzed man who hangs his
hat on a principle believed to be suspended. If the mere acquiring of a
piano doesn't make a persona musician, neither does having a law on the
books make a person holy. Plural marriage is just as "fulfilled" as is
baptism or the laying on of hands or the need for the Holy Ghost.
In the light of Matthias F. Cowley's comment, "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." (Smoot Inv. 1:8, 1901), one has cause for second thought in
trying to pit Joseph Smith's revelation on plural marriage against the
pur-[211]ported revelation called "Manifesto." Is the Lord cancelling out
Himself? It isn't too difficult to untangle the situation. Most people
know the Manifesto handicapped the Lord's program only in giving it a
temporary geographical restriction.
B.H. Roberts aims at the heart of the matter: "The truth remains. The
action of the Church has not affected it in the least. The truth remains
just as true as if the Church had accepted it. Its action simply
determines the relationship of the members to that truth; and if they
reject it, the truth still remains; and it is my opinion that they would
not make further progress until they accepted the rejected truth ...."
(Imp. Era 8:363) No amount of going around corners or crowding behind a
Manifesto will quench the flame of Section 132 in the Doctrine and
Covenants.
In passing, it is interesting to note that those who conceded the
principle in the first place were those of the majority not living it. So
it is only reasonable to say that if the 97% not, living the principle
should not have to suffer for what the 3% were doing, does it not follow
that the 3% should not have to suffer for what the 97% chose to do? That
seems to be as rarely considered as the situation where the smoker insists
upon smoking in the presence of non-smokers because it's a free country.
To whom? It is not in the heart of God to say the few cannot sanctify
their lives because the majority is confused.
Perhaps the best conclusion to this Summary could be best stated by
the Prophet Joseph Smith. There is a sure way to all knowledge and
understanding, to an outline of the course each should pursue in order to
please God. His words stand as a standard for all men:
"Search the scriptures, search the revelations which we publish, and
ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifest
the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory,
nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. You
will then know for yourselves and not for another .... You stand then in
these last days, as all have stood before you, agents unto yourselves, to
be judged according to your works." (T.P.J.S. 11-12)
Whatever Joseph Smith established and gave his life for, cannot be
compromised.
[211a]
ADDENDUM
As this Fourth Volume goes to press, we take note of a recent
publication entitled "That Manifesto", by Gilbert A. Fulton, under
copyright 1974. We have reviewed its contents and feel it appropriate to
make comment relative to several issues contained therein, inasmuch as
these issues have direct bearing upon the same subject matter in this
volume. It may be of interest to the reader to know that the specific
title, "That Manifesto", was the caption used by the Salt Lake Tribune for
a series of articles in September of 1890.
We have read Mr. Fulton's book and have carefully examined his
commentary and point of view relative to the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890.
We are appreciative of the scholarly effort evidenced in its research and
organization. Although we can concur with part of the position assumed by
the author in his analysis of the Manifesto, there are one or two concepts
treated in his work that bear further consideration. With one or two
exceptions, these are matters of extension rather than of divergence. But
they are of sufficient significance that we wish to make note of these
matters for the consideration of the reader in his attempt to view the
Manifesto in its historical and modern settings.
The author's basic premise carried throughout the book is that the
Manifesto, rather than being a major pivotal issue, was merely a public
declaration of an already ongoing internal Church policy. While this is
correct within its proper limit, it does not disclose the full policy
assumed and activated by the Church leaders in 1890 and for some time
previous. The issue is significant. To stop and go no further with the
concept that the Manifesto was but a timely public disclosure of an
already established Church policy, is to give the impression that the
principle [211b] and practice of plural marriage among the membership of
the Church was in its death throes en toto. This is not correct. The
Priesthood leaders were not working behind the scenes prior to the 1890
Manifesto either to abolish a practice they knew to be essential to their
exaltation, or to put it under anesthesia. The testimonies and lives of
Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, B.H. Roberts, Heber J. Grant and many
others, substantiate this position. Pages 188-196 of "That Manifesto"
cover one case in point. Detailed evidence can be found throughout the
volumes of "The Most Holy Principle".
It is true that the organization of the Church yielded up the
teaching and practice of plural marriage. The Manifesto made public
declaration of that portion of a previously assumed policy. But that
policy was not the result of the Edmunds-Tucker legislation of 1887.
Rather, it was the result of the 1886 revelation to President John Taylor,
instructing the Priesthood to shoulder the responsibility of perpetuating
that principle, predicated upon the free agency and choice of every
individual. Part of that on-going policy meant that living the principle
of plural marriage was up to the individual, and the word for so doing was
"underground". They knew that the responsibility for accepting the law was
upon their own shoulders; the Church could do nothing for them. The
principle was again under the jurisdiction of the Priesthood, as it was in
the days of Joseph Smith and up to the year 1852. The Manifesto rendered
unto Cesaer that which Cesaer unconstitutionally demanded, but the work of
God was to go on in its uninterrupted fulness. So when we discuss an
"on-going policy," it cannot be assumed that the policy which was
disclosed to the public via a Manifesto covers the whole picture. The
Priesthood had no intention of abolishing the teaching and living of God's
law. Under the circumstances, the Church could rightly say they had
nothing to [211c] do with it, because they didn't. The Lord had made other
provision.
It is stated that the Manifesto was not a directive to the Church
and, basically, did not concern them. (pgs. 98, 104, 135, etc) Again,
there are circumstances involved in this issue that go beyond that stand.
In the kindness of the Lord, the Manifesto was held out to many Saints as
an offering and was, by many, enthusiastically received. The only ones
whom it did not concern were those who went on living the commandment of
God and kept the principle alive as the Lord intended, which individuals
included a great portion of the Priesthood-bearing Church leaders
themselves.
It is our position that the Manifesto had a very direct concern upon
the Church membership and served to cause quite a stir on all levels. The
announcement of the Manifesto, the call in General Conference for a vote
from the people, President Woodruff's statement that it was intended to
"apply to the Church in every nation and country," the counsel to the
Church in the last two paragraphs of that document, served to rattle a few
testimonies. However, the basic Church involvement with the Manifesto was
in the form of embracing it as a rescue ship for the 97% who were anxious
to climb aboard. The Lord will always provide a lesser law for those who
will not abide a higher law, deeming the lower law preferable to
destroying the half-hearted or the disobedient.
This is specifically borne out by President Joseph Fielding Smith. In
1909 the Reorganized Church was bringing issues to bear against the Utah
Church. Under the direction of his father, Joseph Fielding Smith responded
to the charges. The Reorganites took the position through a
misconstruction of scripture that the Lord had rejected the Mormons in
Utah as well as the Church which the Pro-[211d]phet established, with all
her dead. They did not believe in temple work. They argued further that
there were no secrets in God's work, that the Prophet Joseph never did
anything that was secret.
Joseph Fielding Smith took the position that God, true to His word,
did reveal to the Prophet Joseph all things pertaining to the temple and
in the fulness of Priesthood that he, Joseph, conferred these things upon
the Twelve and others, that it was God's specific intent that Joseph Smith
receive the fulness of Priesthood outside of the temple, that the Church
receive it inside the temple. Why so? Because the Church members had
hardened their hearts and would not receive all of the gospel. President
Smith quotes Alma 12 and other scriptures to show that the Lord would
offer His gospel to the people, that they in their agency would decide
what portion of it they wanted, and if they rejected the fulness of the
gospel, the Lord would give them something less.
He states that many things pertaining to the Kingdom of God would not
be published abroad, but those who were worthy only of the lesser portion
would have it promulgated and made available to them. President Joseph
Fielding Smith understood this principle in 1909 and knew that it would be
necessary for us to live all of the gospel or we would not please the
Lord, we would not enter into the Church of the Firstborn in the Celestial
kingdom nor meet in communion therewith. He said that there is a portion
of the gospel reserved for the faithful. We have cited Dr. Hugh Nibley's
recent enlargement upon this theme. It is as old as the world. The gods
have reserved the sacred mysteries of the Kingdom of God for the faithful.
This position taken by Joseph Fielding Smith can be found in the pamphlet,
"The Origin of the Reorganized Church," by Joseph Fielding Smith. The
argument that President Smith took with [211e] the Reorganites is the
identical stand that we have taken, for it is correct.
Continuing, the Manifesto of 1890 became a rescue ship for those who
wanted to climb aboard. The higher law, nevertheless, remained available.
The Manifesto, which the Lord permitted to materialize, offered
opportunity for those who wanted to make that choice in the Church, as
well as providing the government with the statement for which it was
pressing.
We make note of another issue in Mr. Fulton's book. That the Saints
from 1862 to 1890 were put-upon by the government in its unrelenting
pressures, is true. But as we have mentioned; there are other workings
behind the scene. Another front was moving along among the Saints,
rippling the waters. Young and aspiring Mormons, most of whom were not
living the principle, were increasingly vocal in their dissatisfaction
with the conditions which imposed restrictions upon them in political and
economic circles. They were directly affected by the taint upon the
Mormons and their religion. Additionally, prominent Mormon businessmen
were urging the Church authorities to yield the practice of plural
marriage because of talk of heavy personal losses due to confiscation of
their own holdings along with the already seized Church property. A great
rift in Mormon unity had developed, and the Church leaders were heavily
pressured from within to give up the cause. We are reminded of the fact
that the drivings of the Saints in Missouri were not solely the fault of
the Missourians.
Considering more than one side, the Manifesto materialized not only
because of a government employing unconstitutional demands, but also
because of the changing attitude of the Saints themselves. The Manifesto
represented a lesser law, that of monogamy, to a large number of Saints
and provided the op-[211f]portunity for which they were clamoring, since
that was their hope and desire. Rather than being a fairly simple
disclosure with a fairly simple intent, the Policy of the Church combined
a five-fold intent at least, not consisting solely of a declaration of an
on-going policy as the book would have it appear: 1) Issue a Manifesto, 2)
Make it binding upon the church, leaving the Priesthood to act
independently of it, particularly outside of the United States, 3) Free
the Church to fill its mission to the world, while relieving the pressure
of plural marriage on those Saints not desiring it, 4) obtain statehood
and thereby self-government, and 5) Pass legislation favorable to plural
marriage afterward. Later, however, the formulation of restrictive clauses
in the State Constitution, created by Mormons, foiled the plans. So we can
see that the issues covered in the book were more complex than they appear
from a partial picture only.
In a departure from the author's posture that the Manifesto was a
revelation (iii, 140), it is our position that the Manifesto was not a
revelation "dictated by God." In this particular matter, the Salt Lake
Tribune was more astute in its analysis of the Manifesto and its
ramifications than were many of the Saints. The document was written by
several men, revised, rewritten and finally submitted for President
Woodruff's signature. On several occasions he spoke of his reasons for
"signing" the Manifesto. Revelations from God do not require signatures.
That the document is to be found in the Doctrine and Covenants at all is a
marvel. It was not until years later in 1911, through Gentile persistence,
that the Manifesto finally landed in the back of the Doctrine and
Covenants.
President Joseph Fielding Smith said in July of 1936, that the
Manifesto was not a revelation and was never presented to the Church as a
revelation. The Manifesto is, ad-[211g]mittedly, the result of
inspiration. President Woodruff saw in vision the trials and calamities
that would come upon the people. But this issue must include the fact that
the Saints had not been obedient to God's command and had not put their
trust in Him to fight their battles as He had promised. They received
their Manifesto, and it was a negative offering in the same sense that the
second set of tablets given to Moses inherently carried a lesser
possibility of achieving exaltation for those who accepted that level of
offering. This is illustrated by an incident similar in principle in the
Old Testament. The Lord sent the prophet Samuel to His people. But the
people insisted upon having a king. The God of Israel allowed them their
desire. The people got their king and all the trouble that went with it.
Similarly, Joseph the prophet of the latter days troubled the Lord to give
the 116 translated pages of the Book of Mormon to Martin Harris. The Lord
let him have his wish, and he also fell heir to much trouble. Many of the
Saints in the latter 1800's pled for plural marriage to be shelved. For
them it was. But it was not a directive from God, nor was the Manifesto
revealed or dictated by Him. He permitted the people to receive the ends
of their demands. God had nothing to do with it, only insofar as He
permitted the people to use their own agency in accepting or rejecting the
responsibility of His holy law. The Saints severally made their choice,
and it becomes double-talk to say that the Church was not anti-polygamy,
it was pro-monogamy. (p. 40)
However, the will of the Lord has been revealed in this matter, and
it has not varied in the least degree. He said in 1880, "Woe unto that
nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the
Patriarchal Law of Abraham." He said in 1882 that Seymour B. Young "must
conform to my law" before his appointment to the Seventies could be
acceptable. He said in 1886, "I [211h] have not revoked this law, nor will
I." He said again in 1889, "I cannot deny my words. Make no further
pledges." It is inconceivable that one year later He would "dictate"
another pledge to the government to revoke a law He said He wouldn't
revoke. He had not given a commandment impossible to obey, a law
impossible to live. The Saints could have succeeded. And the Saints should
have succeeded.
In this connection, Apostle Matthias F. Cowley said in 1901:
"I wish to remind you of a certain revelation (1882) given you
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 had obeyed
that command and revelation given through President Taylor, there
would have been no Manifesto." (Smoot Hearing 1:8)
So when it is stated that the Manifesto had to come and was
unavoidable, we must take the position that it was avoidable. The king
modern Israel wanted was monogamy, and they have it, a lesser law given
not according to the power of eternal lives. However, it must be
remembered that the Apostleship embraces the right to the perpetuation of
all the revealed word of God, independent of the Church organization, and
all of the revealed word of God is available to anyone who seeks to find
the keys.
Relative to the author's concept of the Church as a corporate entity,
as well as its relationship to the United States government and the law of
the land, (1-10) our own point of view is not so generous in according
cer-[211i]tain powers to the government. The government, all of the way to
the Supreme Court, woefully overstepped its bounds. Whenever such actions
are permitted by the people of the United States, significant chinks are
made in the armor of the U. S. Constitution. If the government can swoop
down and dictate as to doctrine or religious belief in my Church, it can
do the same in your Church.
We read in "That Manifesto" that the Church as a corporate structure
must obey governmental decree. one becomes uncomfortable with some obvious
ramifications attached to that unconditional view. The Church was
organized in Payette, New York, under God, in 1830, and became a legal
corporate entity thereafter. In receiving recognition from the government
as a corporation, the Church was not given its identity by the government.
God gave the Church its identity and its Priesthood. It is true that the
Church is bound and accountable to the government for that portion which
the government created, not the part that God created. In other words, a
Deed is accepted and recorded under the laws of a state or county. This
puts the public on notice of a fact. But the government did not create the
land to which the Deed refers.
On this premise the early Church leaders fought governmental action.
They did so within their rights and upon proper ground. The Church was not
created by the government but by God and is accountable to God. The
government was responsible for the creation of a legal entity, the
corporate body, and it is in this area that the corporation in its
business dealings is accountable to the government. In other words, a
government does not create a religion or its beliefs, but it permits the
corporation to be recorded so that the public is on notice as to its
status, with all of its liabilities and immunities. The Church is
accountable to the law of the land as to buying and selling properties.
Being the custodian [211j] of the wealth of the Priesthood, the Church is
accountable as to legally owning property. In this area a corporate body
has laws to obey, but not as to its faith, items of doctrine or matters of
conscience relative to God. The U.S. Constitution is explicit on that
matter, prohibiting government from getting into domestic affairs or
religion. That is tho issue. It is one not so simple as the book outlines.
A significant statement was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1885:
"If some one outside of the religious professor has the power to
prescribe what his religion shall consist of, all pretensions to the
existence of religious liberty are a delusion and a snare, and a
hollow and meaningless mockery. The only line of demarcation over
which the exercise of religion must not step is that which divides
its practice from the domain of the rights of others. It has never
been shown, nor is it susceptible of exhibition, that the peculiar
marital institution interferes with the rights and privileges of any,
under the Constitution. Nobody outside of the relationship are
injured, and therefore have no reason for complaint, neither has any
power the right of interference." (Des. Eve. News 1885)
If a government is allowed to punish a Church upon judgment of its
beliefs and religious practices when it is not infringing upon the rights
of others, then we are under a formidable dictatorship, and man's law has
become higher than the law of God. The Constitution was framed to prohibit
this very possibility. The acts of the government and the anti-Mormon
faction in the 1800's were on unconstitutional grounds and in disobedience
before the highest law of the land.
[211k] We are attempting to make it clear that a corporation did not break
the law. A corporation cannot marry. If an incorporator or a man within
that corporation breaks a law or in this specific case lives plural
marriage according to the free exercise of his conscience, then the
government should punish the man, not dissolve a corporation. If the
government had the right to dissolve the corporate Mormon Church and
confiscate its properties because a minority of its members was living
polygamy, it also, has the obligation to dissolve churches wherein murder
or robbery or adultery or treason or the degraded, immoral practices of
devil worship are committed. The principle is the same.
Such an unlawful position should not be tolerated and certainly not
embraced. But that which many Saints formerly fought, many Saints
presently accept. The lines of governmental limitations were drawn much
more clearly formerly than they are now. If the American people continue
to be fuzzy in their understanding that government dominion is rapidly
spreading, then the government will continue to be fuzzy about its
encroachment upon the rights of a free people.
The acts of the government led President Wilford Woodruff to declare:
"The Congress of 1862 and the Supreme Judges of 1879, in their acts
and decisions have taken a dangerous and fearful step; their acts
will sap the very foundation of our government and it will be rent
asunder, and the God of heaven will hold them responsible for these
things.... The Constitution once broken by the rulers of the land,
there will be no stopping place until the nation is broken in pieces,
and no power beneath the heavens can save this nation from the
consequences thereof." (Mill. Star, 1879, 41:243)
[211l] The book makes issue that the Saints must be subject to the law of
the land, citing reference Doctrine and Covenants 58:21-23. But it was
God's law that was to be kept upon the land, and Section 98:4-15 defines
the law of the land as being that which is constitutional. Should laws
appear upon the books making abortion mandatory after having two children,
how shall we adjust our conscience? Similarly, shall the government
regulate marriage in opposition to the outline given by God?
Initially, American law was patterned after English Common Law.
English Common Law encompasses a procedure by which legal or common
decisions were based upon precedent, or decisions predicated upon events
and/or decisions formerly established. The English people area composite
of different branches of God's Church, comprising the remnants of the
Tribes of Israel as they migrated to the British Isles. They brought with
them their laws and revelations from God. (See "Joseph Smith and Our
Destiny", pub. by Earl W. Harmer, S.L.C.) English Common Law had the Bible
as its foundation. Their tradition held that God is Supreme. American law
in the 1880's and 1890's was patterned after English Common Law, again
relying upon the Bible as its basis and precedent. The Constitution of the
United States was framed as a guarantee that certain accepted rights and
privileges would be held inviolate in God's people.
In the matter of marriage, plural marriage has always been found with
God's people. God has always commanded His people to live a certain way,
incorporating into those commandments such detail as that which should or
should not be eaten. The practice of polygamy in the 1800's was accepted
in about 4/5ths of the nations of the world, with the Bible as its
foundation. God set the precedent Himself, traceable from Adam to Noah to
Abraham and on down through the Prophet Joseph Smith when the gospel was
restored in the latter days. Po-[211m]lygamy is no more a "blight on
Mormonism" than it was on Abraham or Isaac or Jacob. Government
representatives in 1890 admitted that the provisions against polygamy
ground out in the legislative hoppers, were passed specifically for the
people in Utah. By Constitutional standards, this made it discriminatory
in its nature and certainly not according to the intent of our Founding
Fathers. Further, disfranchising the Mormons because the government did
not agree with their religious beliefs, served to give the non-Mormons
complete control in civil matters. It denied the majority of the people
who were residents in the area the right of self-determination, the right
to choose who would represent them, inalienable rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. The efforts of the out-of-order Utah Commission in 1890 can
be summed up in their own statement, "Churches and creeds are subject to
laws of evolution, and Mormonism must yield to the inexorable logic of
civilization." (p.44) But it is the "logic of civilization" that has led
the world to its present state of moral and spiritual famine. The
Commission thrust that "logic of civilization" attitude upon the Saints,
assuming that since the Church had a corporate identity, it fell under
government dominion and must do as the government bid regarding its
religious faith. The Mormons wrestled with the matter, holding that God's
law is supreme and the government must be subordinate to God's laws in all
respects, and plural marriage is God's law. Our belief in that is part of
our inherent and inalienable right. It is our birthright.
President Joseph F. Smith explained the matter very clearly:
(After quoting D.&C. 58:21 on keeping the law of the land, he said:)
We are told here that no man need break the laws of the land who will
keep the laws of God. But this is [211n] further defined by the
passage which I read afterwards - the law of the land, which all have
no need to break, is that law which is the constitutional law of the
land, and that is as God himself has defined it.
"I ask myself, what law have you broken? What constitutional law have
you not observed? I am bound not only by allegiance to the government
of the United States but by the actual command of God Almighty, to
observe and obey every constitutional law of the land, and without
hesitancy I declare to this congregation that I have never violated
nor transgressed any law...."
It is well known, of course, that President Smith lived the principle
of plural marriage despite the laws of the land and the rule of the Church
to the contrary, and so testified. He continues:
"The Lord Almighty requires this people to observe the laws of the
land, to be subject to `the powers that be,' so far as they abide by
the fundamental principles of good government. But he will hold them
responsible if they pass unconstitutional measures and frame unjust
and proscriptive laws, as did Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in relation
to the three Hebrews and Daniel. If lawmakers have a mind to violate
their oath, break their covenants and their faith with the people and
depart from the provisions of the Constitution, where is the law,
human or divine, which binds me, as an individual, to outwardly and
openly proclaim my acceptance of their acts? ... We intend to
continue to be law-abiding so far [211o] as the constitutional law of
the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequence of our
obedience to the laws and commandments of God, like men. These are my
sentiments briefly expressed upon this subject." (Gosp. Doc. p.
406-7)
God restored the principle of plural marriage when it was against the
law of the land. He encouraged its perpetuation against the law in His
revelations to His Church, as we have amply cited in preceding pages. He
made provision through His prophets to guarantee its perpetuation until He
comes again, because it is a holy law, and God overrides all other law. If
obeying the law in this matter was of singular importance to the Saints
Before 1890, they had at least 25 years to obey the law when Territorial
laws were pressed through. The Utah Commission organized and pressured for
8 years until the Manifesto was issued, but that does not give stature to
the unconstitutional laws regulating marriage. We must not gradually
embrace the position assumed by the government and fought by the early
Saints.
Actually, the real issue has yet to be decided. The issue focuses
itself into whether or not the Constitution is strong enough to guarantee
the Saints the right to worship according to the dictates of their
conscience. Some believe the Supreme Court settled it. But has the Supreme
Court the right to go against a higher law and a higher court? Wilford
Woodruff and others have held the nation responsible before God for its
acts and judgments in this matter. Those men and women who are keeping
plural marriage alive believe they are upholding and sustaining the
Constitution and the freedoms of future generations, when others have
capitulated and even embraced the government position. Those men and women
are keeping the keys of this ordinance on the earth so that God's law and
His word may be fulfilled.
[211p] We concur with the author of "That Manifesto" that the Manifesto,
as it related to practicing plural marriage, was more in the area of an
outward form than one constituting a major issue. For if plural marriages
were not bogus marriages in the eyes of the Priesthood prior to the
issuance of the Manifesto, they were not bogus marriages afterward. It is
true that they were and are illegal and invalid from the Church standpoint
of rule and policy. But the leaders of the Church went on with the
business of keeping the commandments of God and perpetuating His law.
Obviously the Manifesto and other forms of suppression from men did not
overrule their commitment to God and conscience.
The real issue in 1890, we may be sure, was not polygamy. The target
was the entire Church and its theocratic economy which interfered with the
spread of capitalistic institutions and its supposed control of political
life. Rather than any single item of doctrine, the real thorn was the
all-pervasive power of the Church. In order to topple the entire
structure, the government chipped away at its foundation. The idea was to
demolish Mormonism entirely by "persuading" it to abrogate principle after
principle, and the Church would be shorn of its strength temporally and
spiritually. So the real issue is not plural marriage. It is God or
Lucifer.
We are appreciative of the merits of the book, "That Manifesto". We
also feel it incumbent upon us to highlight the truths of God, the
workings of God among His people, rather than those controversies which
inevitably mushroom around those revealed truths.
[212]
[213]
APPENDIX
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"You often hear people desiring more of the knowledge of God, more of
the wisdom of God, more of the power of God. They want more revelation, to
know more about the Kingdom of Heaven, in heaven and on the earth, and
they wish to learn and increase.
"There is one principle that I wish the people would understand and
lay to heart. Just as fast as you will prove before your God that you are
worthy to receive the mysteries, if you please to call them so, of the
Kingdom of Heaven--that you are full of confidence in God--that you will
never betray a thing that God tells you--that you will never reveal to
your neighbour that which you ought not to reveal, as quick as you prepare
to be entrusted with the things of God, there is an eternity of them to
bestow upon you. Instead of pleading with the Lord to bestow more upon
you, plead with yourselves to have confidence in yourselves, and know when
to speak and what to speak, what to reveal, and how to carry yourselves
and walk before the Lord.
"And just as fast as you prove to Him that you will preserve
everything secret that ought to be--that you will deal out to your
neighbours all which you ought, and no more, and learn how to dispense
your knowledge to your families, friends, neighbours, and brethren, the
Lord will bestow upon you, and give to you, and bestow upon you, until
finally He will say to you, `You shall never fall; your salvation is
sealed unto you; you are sealed up unto eternal life and salvation,
through your integrity.'" (J.D. 4:371-372)
The revelation on plural marriage (D.&C. 132) was received by Joseph
Smith as early as 1831, but was not reduced to writing in its present form
until July 12, 1843. The principle was made Public and published to the
world through Church channels after August, 1852. Joseph was living the
principle long before the Church at large knew about it, possibly as early
as 1831.
***
[214]
WILLIAM CLAYTON:
"From him (Joseph Smith) I learned that the doctrine of plural and
celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed
to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle, no man
can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in Celestial glory." (Hist.
Rec. 6:225-7, Feb. 1843)
***
Why Plural Marriage?
JOHN TAYLOR:
"Joseph Smith told others, he told me and I can bear witness of it,
`that if this principle was not introduced, the Church and kingdom could
not proceed. When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and
so far binding upon the elders of this Church, that it was told them if
they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of
opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom
would be taken from them.'" (J.D. 11:221)
JOHN TAYLOR:
"Concerning the Patriarchal order of marriage, President Taylor said:
`If we do not embrace that principle 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. A man obeying a lower law [monogamy] is not qualified
to preside over those who keep a higher law.'" (Life of Wilford Woodruff,
p. 542)
WILFORD WOODRUFF:
"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.... 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, p. 542; Oct. 14, 1882, after 1882 Revelation)
[215]
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"Hear it ye Elders of Israel and mark it down in your log-book, the
fulness of the gospel is the united order and plural marriage, and I fear
that when I am gone this people will give up these two principles which we
prize so highly, and if they do this, the Church cannot advance as God
wishes for it to advance." (Sermon at Dedication of St. George Temple)
GEORGE Q. CANNON:
"What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the hearts
of the opponents of Mormonism, or properly termed the Gospel of the Son of
God? Simply to renounce, abrogate, or apostatize from the New and
Everlasting Covenant of Marriage in its fulness. Were the Church to do
that as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body, the authority
of the Priesthood would be withdrawn, with its gifts and powers and there
would be no more heavenly recognition of the administrations among the
people, the heavens would permanently withdraw themselves and the Lord
would raise up another people of greater valor and stability...." (Des.
News Editorial, April 23, 1885)
MILLENNIAL STAR, Vol. 5, p. 15:
"We cannot be married ... for eternity without subscribing to the law
that admits a plurality of wives."
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"The only men who become Gods, even sons of God, are those who enter
into polygamy." (J.D. 11:268-9)
CONTRIBUTOR, Vol. 6:
"God himself gave unto David a plurality of wives, thus becoming a
party to evil, if polygamy is sinful."
[216]
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
"But he (Joseph Smith) did not falter, although it was not until an
angel of God with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he
should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly
destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that
doctrine.... Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities
and obligations which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings
attached to the faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon
natural principles, which must so far exceed those of monogamy as the
conditions, responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is my
view and testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine
that should be taught and understood." (J.D. 20:29, 30)
JOSEPH SMITH:
"All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs of Jesus Christ will
have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of His Kingdom; and those
who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of
that glory, if they do not lose the whole." (D.H.C. 5:424; Mill. Star
65:627)
ORSON SPENCER:
"When God sets up any portion of His kingdom upon the earth, it is
patterned after his own order in the heavens. When He gives to man a
pattern of family organization on the earth, that pattern will be just
like His own family organization in the heavens. The family of Abraham was
a transcript of a celestial pattern .... It is the only order practiced in
the celestial heavens, and the only peaceful, united and prosperous order
that will endure, while man invented orders and devices [monogamy, free
love, etc.] will utterly deceive and perish, with the using." (Spencer
Letters, p. 192, 193)
HEBER C. KIMBALL:
"Plurality is a law which God established for his elect before the
world was formed, for a continuation of seeds forever." (Mill. Star
28:190)
[217]
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? because the Lord
introduced it to His servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and
the Lord's servants have always practiced it. And is that religion popular
in heaven? It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion
of Abraham, and unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's
seed and heirs according to promise." (J.D. 9:322)
GEORGE TEASDALE:
"I bear my solemn testimony that plural marriage is as true as any
principle that has been revealed from the heavens. I bear my testimony
that it is a necessity, and that the Church of Christ in its fulness,
never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of marriage you are
bound to have plural marriage, bound to; and it is one of the marks of the
Church of Jesus Christ, in its sealing ordinances." (J.D. 25:21)
ERASTUS SNOW:
"Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus spoke of that the man
who had one talent and hid it in the earth was the man who had but one
wife and would not take another, would have her taken from him and given
to one who had more." (Jrnl of W. Woodruff, Oct. 14, 1882 meeting: See B.
F. Johnson, 3:117)
(Zechariah 5:7 says: "And behold, there was lifted up a talent of
lead: and this is a women that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.")
Common Arguments Against Plural Marriage:
JAMES E. TALMAGE:
"The Latter-day Saints were long regarded as a polygamous people.
That plural marriage has been practiced by a limited portion of the people
under sanction of Church ordinance, has [218] never since the introduction
of the system been denied. But that plural marriage is a vital tenet of
the Church is not true. What the Latter-day Saints call Celestial Marriage
is characteristic of the Church and is in very general practice. But of
Celestial Marriage, plurality of wives was an incident, never an
essential." (Story and Philosophy of Mormonism, p. 89)
Never an essential? Consider the following:
WILFORD WOODRUFF:
Said the 132 Section revelation was the law for this dispensation, in
an 1883 statement. (Life of Wilford Woodruff, p. 542)
JOHN TAYLOR:
On January 19, 1883, said this revelation pertains to the living.
SECTION 132:
Verse 3: "Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the
instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have
this law revealed unto them must obey the same."
Verse 4: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting
covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned."
Verse 6: "And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it
was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and be that receiveth a
fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith
the Lord God."
MILLENNIAL STAR, Vol. 5, p. 27, October 1865:
"The doctrine of celestial marriage with the Mormons is not one of
that kind that can in the religious world be classed with non-essentials.
It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded and faith in the system
remain. Mormonism is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is
invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one of
its leading principles is acknowledged to be false, or such as God will
not sustain in practice against the entire world."
[219]
ORSON PRATT:
"It is well known to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day
Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives as a part of
their religious faith. But, says the objector, we cannot see how this
doctrine can be embraced as a matter of religion and faith .... In reply
we will show that it is incorporated as part of our religion and necessary
for our exaltation to the fulness of the Lord's glory in the eternal
world." (statement when Section 132 was presented to the body of the
Church on August 28-29, 1852, Mill. Star Suppl., Vol. 15)
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
"Man cannot receive the fulness of the blessings unless he fulfills
the law .... 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 mean
this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does
mean that." (J.D. 20:28)
Never an essential?
WILFORD WOODRUFF:
"The law of the Patriarchal order of marriage belongs to this
dispensation, and after it was revealed to the Prophet Joseph, he was
commanded to receive it. If he and the people had rejected it, the Church
and Kingdom of God would have advanced no further and God would have taken
it from them and given it to another people." (Life of Wilford Woodruff,
p. 546)
JOSEPH SMITH:
"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and
strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on
celestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. He
said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it,
I, together with [220] my people would be damned and cut off from this
time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and
was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction."
(Contributor 5:259)
GEORGE Q. CANNON:
"The Latter-day Saints practice it ... because God, Our Heavenly
Father has revealed it unto us. If there were no record of its practice to
be found and if the Bible, Book of Mormon and Book of D.&C. were totally
silent in respect to this doctrine, it would nevertheless be binding upon
us as a people, God himself having given a revelation for us to practice
it at the present time." (J.D. 13:197)
Not an "incident," but a commandment.
Argument: Temple marriages are celestial marriages and one man with
one wife sealed for eternity will attain to exaltation and eternal lives.
1. The Church's official position in its "Official Statement" of June
17, 1933: "Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and
eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms.
Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in
accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church are
celestial marriages." (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark.)
2. Melvin J. Ballard, on July 21, 1934 said: "I do maintain that the
new and everlasting covenant of marriage is not plural marriage but is the
eternal union of a man and a woman.... To say that those who in the past
have or in the future will enter into plural marriage will be the only
ones who shall attain Celestial Glory is stating that which is not true."
If 1 and 2 are true, what do we do with the following:
MILLENNIAL STAR, Vol. 5, p. 15:
"We cannot be married ... for eternity without subscribing to the law
that admits a plurality of wives."
[221]
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a
sort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation 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 wish 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 fulness of the blessing pertaining
to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions,
has deceived himself. He cannot do it." (J.D. 20:28)
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"The only men who become Gods, even sons of God, are those who enter
into polygamy." (J.D. 11:268-9)
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"Now, where a man in this Church says, `I don't want but one wife, I
will have my religion with one,' he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial
Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of
any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come
forward and say, `here is that which thou gavest me. I have not wasted it,
and here is the one talent,' and he will not enjoy it, but it will be
taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and
he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever
and ever." (J.D. 16:166)
BISHOP SAMUEL WOOLLEY:
"The spirit told me ... that that revelation was of God and that no
man could or would receive a fulness of the Celestial Glory and eternal
life except he obeyed that law and had more than one living wife at the
same time." (Hist. Rec. 6:231)
[222]
JOSEPH W. MUSSER:
"A tradition has grown among the Latter-day Saints that celestial
marriage may be comprehended either in the monogamous or patriarchal form,
when the ceremony is performed under the authority of the Melchizedek
Priesthood, and by one so authorized. True, a marriage performed for time
and eternity, by an authorized servant of the Lord and sealed by the Holy
Spirit of Promise, is of a celestial nature as it is intended to extend
into the celestial sphere; But it is equally true that the full and
complete act of celestial marriage comprehends a plurality of wives and
cannot be complete in the monogamic form. The title first given to the
revelation on celestial marriage was, `A Revelation on the Patriarchal
Order of Matrimony, including Plurality of Wives.' (Pratt, The Seer, p. 7)
Patriarchal marriage means the kind of marriage entered into anciently by
such Patriarchs as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and others and has
reference to a plurality of wives."
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the
world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings
which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists--at least in your faith,
or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which
Abraham has obtained." (J.D. 11:268-9)
Finally, if celestial marriage and plural marriage are not synonymous
terms, what do we do with:
GEORGE TEASDALE:
"Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have plural
marriage; bound to; and it is one of the marks of the Church of Jesus
Christ in its sealing ordinances." (J.D. 25:21)
JOSEPH SMITH:
"...(said) It was a doctrine which pertained to celestial order and
glory." (William Clayton, Hist. Rec. 6:225-7)
Argument: Book of Mormon: Jacob 2:23-27. "Wherefore.... [223] For
there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines
he shall have none."
Previous verses indicate the Lord is chastising the people of that
time for their much wickedness. They were not worthy to be living the
higher Law of plural marriage. Verse 30 states: "For if I will, saith the
Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise
they shall hearken unto these things."
The Book of Mormon clearly indicates elsewhere that plural marriage
was practiced at proper times:
See Alma 10:11. "For behold, he hath blessed mine house, he hath
blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my
kinsfolk ......"
See Ether 1:41. "Go to and gather together ... and thy families; and
also Jared thy brother and his family ......
See Ether 6:20. "... Now the number of the sons and the daughters of
the Brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of
sons and daughters of Jared were twelve...."
The Brother of Jared conversed with the Lord and received revelations
because he was living a higher law than was Jared.
Also, the Jacob scripture was between 544 and 421 B.C. Over 400 years
later, 82 B.C., Amulek proclaimed how the Lord had blessed his women.
Joseph F. Smith while testifying in the Reed Smoot case before the
Committee on Privileges and Elections in the U.S. Senate, March 9, 1904,
said of the Jacob scripture at that time:
"All you need to do, sir, is to read the whole thing and it explains
itself. The revelation to Joseph Smith does not repeal this. It is simply
a commandment of the Lord unto him, and received by him and accepted by
him, to enter into plural marriage by His law and by His commandment and
not by their own volition."
[224]
Then it becomes a matter of commandment. Were we commanded to live
the law in this dispensation of the fulness of times? Note the following:
ORSON PRATT:
"Why, then, do Latter-day Saints practice polygamy? ... It is because
we believe ... that the Lord God, who gave revelations to Moses
approbating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day Saints, not
only approbating it, but commanding it, as He commanded Israel in ancient
times." (J.D. 17:223)
WILFORD WOODRUFF:
"Again, this testament which Joseph Smith left contains a revelation
and commandment from God, out of heaven, concerning the patriarchal order
of marriage ... And God, our Heavenly Father, knowing that this was the
only law ordained by the gods of eternity, that would exalt immortal
beings to kingdoms ... to a fulness of Celestial glory, I say, the God of
Israel, knowing these things, commanded Joseph Smith to obey this law `or
you shall be damned,' saith the Lord." (Mill. Star 41:242-3)
JOSEPH SMITH:
"... We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was
given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (Contributor
5:259)
Argument: The New Testament says, "A Bishop and a Deacon shall each
be the husband of one wife." (1 Tim. 3:2)
Then the inference must be that others, laymen, elders, seventies,
high priests, etc., may have more than one, since no injunction is made as
applying to others than deacons and bishops.
Might the meaning more realistically be that these men should be
married to properly fill their offices, and to at least one wife?
[225] What does the Bible teach in regard to plural marriage? Did not all
the prophets live it and verily were commanded to do so in some instances?
Where is one scripture to be found that condemns plural marriage? The
people were reproved for many evils but never a word against plural
marriage. Why was it never included?
GEORGE A. SMITH, 1869:
"We interpret it to mean, a bishop should be blameless, the husband
of one wife at least.... Now this passage does not prove that a man should
have but one wife. It only proves that a bishop should be a married man."
(J.D. 13:39)
BRIGHAM YOUNG, 1854:
"Instead of my believing for a moment that Paul wished to signify to
Timothy that he must select a man to fill the office of a Bishop that
would have but one wife, I believe directly the reverse; ... He did not
say, `but one wife;' it does not read so; but he must have one to begin
with ...." (J.D. 2:88, 89)
****
Argument: D.&C. 58:21. "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he
that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land."
1. Joseph and all others broke the law wherever they were living, to
wit:
Vermont in 1805
New York
1815-1830
Ohio
in 1831
Missouri
in 1831
Illinois
in 1839
Law of 1797 on statutes
Law of 1788
Law of 1824
Law of 1825
Law of 1833
2. Read D.&C. 98:4-9, which outlines the law of the land to be that
which is constitutional.
3. Instances of breaking the law of the land as revealed in
Scripture:
[226]
The Three Hebrews refused to bow down to the golden image of
King Nebuchadnezzar and were cast into the fiery furnace. All the
rest of Israel bowed down. And all bow down today to the golden image
of monogamy--except a few.
Daniel refused to cease his prayers according to the decree of
King Darius, and was thrown into the lions' den.
Abraham refused to worship at the shrine of his apostate father.
4. The Lord virtually commanded disobedience to the Saints when, for
example, He commanded plural marriage by His Servants three years
after the Morrill Law (1879) was enacted, when Seymour B. Young
entered polygamy. (In the 1882 revelation to John Taylor)
That 1882 revelation was published by the Church in early European
editions of the D.&C., also in the Life of John Taylor, p. 349, also in
the Life of Wilford Woodruff," p. 542. Note that this revelation and
command from the Lord was given 20 years after the anti-polygamy law was
passed by Congress in 1862, and 3 years after the law was declared
constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (in 1879), also 7 months after
the Edmunds Law (1882), which was designed to give strength to the 1862
Law. And the 1886 revelation was 18 months after the Edmunds Law.
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
(After quoting D.&C. 58:21) "We are told here that no man need break
the laws of the land who will keep the laws of God. But this is further
defined by the passage which I read afterwards, the law of the land, which
all have no need to break, is that law which is the constitutional law of
the land, and that is as God himself has defined it. (D.&C. 101:77-80) ...
The Lord Almighty requires this people to observe the laws of the land, to
be subject to `the powers that be,' so far as they abide by the [227]
fundamental principles of good government, but he will hold them
responsible if they will pass unconstitutional measures and frame unjust
and proscriptive laws, as did Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in relation to the
three Hebrews and Daniel. If lawmakers have a mind to violate their oath,
break their covenants and their faith with the people and depart from the
provisions of the constitution, where is the law, human or divine, which
binds me, as an individual, to outwardly and openly proclaim my acceptance
of their acts? ... We intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as the
constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the
consequence of our obedience to the laws and commandments of God, like
men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed upon this subject." (Gospel
Doctrine, p. 510-511)
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the
economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders
of the Roman Empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by
wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was
evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with
their neighbors, depended on introducing females into their body politic,
so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcity
of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome
became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy
wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamous order of marriage
so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine
institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers."
(J.D. 9:322)
The first public law in the Roman Empire against polygamy was at the
latter end of the 4th Century, about the year 393, by the Emperor
Theodosius.
Plural marriage was always God's law. Man-made laws against it are
unconstitutional:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
[228] Polygamy with the Mormon people is strictly a religious rite and not
subject to legislative interpretation or judicial curtailment. And this
position was maintained by leading Senators, Congressmen, Jurists and
Publicists of the United States during the years when the subject was
receiving legislative attention by the Federal Government.
Witness the following by statesmen and prophets:
ABRAHAM LINCOLN:
"Think if you can of a single instance in which a plainly written
provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force
of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written
constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify
revolution: certainly would if such a right was a vital one." (First
Inaugural Address)
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit; we
are answerable for them to our God."
BLACKSTONE (the English Jurist):
"If ever the laws of God and men are at variance, the former are to
be obeyed in derogation of the latter.
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
Testified in the Smoot case, 1:335-6, that he was living in open
violation of the "rules of the Church;" so did Francis M. Lyman; so did B.
H. Roberts and others of the presiding brethren.
GEORGE TEASDALE:
"I believe in plural marriage as a part of the gospel just as believe
in repentance for the remission of sins. I do not fear the face of man as
I fear the face of God." (J.D. 25:21)
LETTER FROM CATHOLIC BISHOPS:
[229] "But when the laws of the state conflict with the natural laws and
God's commands, then God must be obeyed more than man."
Peter was commanded by the High Priests of his day to cease their
doctrines. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, "Whether it be
right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge
ye." Also, "We ought to obey God rather than man."
WILFORD WOODRUFF:
"The Congress of 1862 (Lincoln was Pres.) and the Supreme Judges of
1879, in their acts and decisions have taken a dangerous and fearful step;
their acts will sap the very foundation of our government and it will be
rent asunder, and the God of heaven will hold them responsible for these
things... The Constitution once broken by the rules of the land, there
will be no stopping place until the nation is broken in pieces, and no
power beneath the heavens can save this nation from the consequences
thereof:" (Mill. Star 41:243, April 21, 1879)
GEORGE Q. CANNON:
"... I admit that those raising children by plural wives are not
complying with man-made laws, but in the sight of God they are not
sinning, as there is no sin in it." (Sanpete Stake Conference, Sept. 1899)
RUDGER CLAWSON:
"Your honor, I have only this to say why judgment should not be
passed upon me; I very much regret that the laws of my country should come
in conflict with the laws of God: but whenever they do I shall invariably
choose to obey the latter." (November 3, 1884, sentenced to state
penitentiary)
WILFORD WOODRUFF:
"God ... commanded Joseph Smith the Prophet and all Latter-day Saints
to obey this law, `or you shall be damned,' saith the Lord. Now, having
obeyed the law for many years, the Congress of the United States and the
supreme judges of the nation, stand [230] forth and say, `You shall be
damned if you do obey it.' Now, Latter-day Saints, what are we going to do
under the circumstances? God says we shall be damned if we do not obey the
law, Congress says we shall be damned if we do. It places us in precisely
the same position that it did the Hebrews in the fiery furnace and Daniel
in the den of lions. The enemies of Daniel counciled together and said,
`We cannot find any occasion against Daniel, except we find it against him
concerning the law of God.' Our enemies have pursued the same course. And
made it a law of offense to obey the laws of God. Now who shall we obey,
God or man? My voice is that we obey God..." (Mill. Star, April 21, 1879,
p.242)
HEBER BENNION:
"Hundreds of L.D.S. have gone to prison because they would not do it
(obey the law of the land). President John Taylor died a martyr in exile
rather than do it, and men were dropped from their positions in the Church
because they promised to obey the law of the land. Joseph F. Smith would
not do it, but went on the underground for years, and had eleven children
born after the Manifesto by five mothers."
JOHN TAYLOR:
"When they enact tyrannical laws, forbidding us the free exercise of
our religion, we cannot submit, God is greater than the United States. And
when the Government conflicts with Heaven, we will be ranged under the
banner of Heaven, and against the government. The U.S. says we cannot
marry more than one wife. God says different .... Polygamy is a divine
institution. It has been handed down direct from God. The U.S. cannot
abolish it. No nation on earth can prevent it, nor all the nations of the
earth combined. I defy the United States. I will obey God." (S.L. Tribune,
Jan. 6, 1880)
Argument: Marriage sealings for time and eternity must be performed
in the Temples.
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"There are many of the ordinances of the house of God that [231] must
be performed in a Temple that is erected expressly for that purpose. There
are other ordinances that we can administer without a Temple ... We also
have the privilege of sealing women to men, without a Temple ... but when
we come to other sealing ordinances, ordinances pertaining to the holy
Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from father Adam until
now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our
forefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a Temple. But we can seal
women to men, but not men to men, without a Temple." (J.D. 16:186)
JOHN TAYLOR:
"I was asked if certain ordinances could be performed in different
places. I told them, yes, under certain circumstances. `Where,' I was
asked--`Anywhere besides in temples?' Yes. Anywhere besides the Endowment
House?' Yes. `Where, in some other house?' In another house or out of
doors, as the circumstances might be. Why did I say that? ... It is the
authority of the Priesthood, not the place that validates and sanctifies
the ordinance. I was asked if people could be sealed outside. Yes. I could
have told them I was sealed outside, and lots of others .... I will say
that man was not made for temples, but temples were made for man ... The
temples are places that are appropriated for a great many ordinances, and
among these ordinances that of marriage; but, then, if we are interrupted
by men who do not know about our principles, that is all right, it will
not impede the work of God, or stop the performance of ordinances. Let
them do their work, and we will try and do ours." (J.D. 25:355-356)
Argument: D.&C. 124:49-- "... When I give a commandment to any of the
sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all
their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not
their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from
performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more
at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings."
CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"... Quotations sometimes referred to by the weakbacked who need a
ramrod fastened parallel with their spinal column..."
[232]
(Refers to the above quotation and states:)
"It is a little singular that some people will persistently refuse to
see the difference between a certain special work and a principle or law.
The consistency of the Lord relieving a people from any such obligation as
the building of a house when prevented by enemies from accomplishing it is
self-evident. When it comes to the abrogation of a law, a principle, a
truth, the matter is entirely different. The revelation does not apply
even remotely...." (Des. Eve. News, editorial, June 5,1885)
Argument: Plural Marriage is fine for the men, but not for the women.
Someone should have counselled the Lord about that several billion
years ago.
When will the Lord ever reveal a principle that will harm women? Or
make them second-class citizens?
Jesus said, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17)
Thousands of women know the doctrine to be of God. And rejoice in it.
MARION ROSS PRATT:
"I have been in polygamy 25 years and have never seen the hour when I
have regretted that I was in it. I would not change my position for
anything earthly, no matter how grand and gorgeous it might be; even were
it for the throne of a queen.
LUCY W. KIMBALL:
"I poured out my heart's contents before God. I at once became calm
and composed; a feeling of happiness took posses-[233]sion of me and at
the same time I received a powerful and irresistable testimony of the
truth of plural marriage, which testimony has abided with me ever since."
DR. ELLIS R. SHIPP:
"We are accused of being down-trodden and oppressed. We deny the
charge! For we know there cannot be found a class of women upon the earth
who occupy a more elevated position in the hearts of their husbands, or
whose most delicate and refined feelings are so respected as here in Utah.
True we practice plural marriage, not however because we are compelled to,
but because we are convinced that it is a divine revelation, and we find
in this principle satisfaction, contentment and more happiness than we can
obtain in any other relationship."
ELIZA R. SNOW:
"This, one of the most important events of my life, I have never had
cause to regret. The more I comprehend the pure and ennobling principle of
plural marriage, the more I appreciate it. It is a necessity in the
salvation of the human family--a necessity in redeeming woman from the
curse, and the world from its corruptions."
BATHSHEBA W. SMITH:
"Joseph Smith counseled the sisters not to trouble themselves in
consequence of it, that all would be right, and the result would be for
their glory and exaltation." (All from Tullidge, Women of Mormondom)
ELLA WHEELER WILCOX:
"In Salt Lake City the men and women born of polygamous mothers in
the upper classes of Salt Lake City, are superior in Physique and in
mental endowments to the same members selected at random in other cities I
have seen. A little investigation will prove the truth of my statement.
"Before we cast any more stones at their ancestors, let us weed from
the ranks of our own churches and our own fashionable society all the
unwelcome and fatherless children, all the [234] deserted, betrayed girls,
and stand them in a row, and practice upon them as targets, in order that
we may have a surer aim when we stone the polygamists again." (New York
Journal)
JAMES CAMPBELL, Minister, 1869:
"Now polygamy is either right, or it is wrong. If it is wrong, it is
contrary to the will of God. If it is contrary to the will of God now, it
always has been, ever since the fall of man, for God has not changed,
human nature has not changed, and the mutual relation of the sexes has not
changed. If it is contrary to the divine will, God would certainly have
expressed decided disapprobation of it in his work, and denounced those
who practiced it. But on the contrary, it was, by the Mosaic law,
expressly sanctioned, and under certain circumstances, expressly
commanded."
****
Argument: We can live it during the Millennium. It is not for now.
1. People have said since the beginning of time, "It's not for now.
Let's wait." Shall we wait for the magical Millennium to fulfill a
mortal covenant to raise up a choice seed unto God?
2. Can we receive Baptism during the Millennium instead of now? The
laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost? Can we have
someone living plural marriage for us by proxy? Are blessings
retroactive?
3. Zion, prior to the Millennium, must be built up on principles of
Celestial law--the United Order and Patriarchal Marriage--according
to D.&C. 105:5. The millennium is too late.
4. How do you become exalted if you haven't lived the laws designed
to exalt? The righteous will be resurrected at the beginning of the
Millennium. We are resurrected to the degree of glory for which we
have lived and whose laws we have obeyed. Do we live plural marriage
by proxy?
[235]
5. "...And when we obtain any blessing, it is by obedience to that
law upon which it is predicated."
6. D.&C. 132:5--"For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall
abide the law which was appointed for that blessing..."
"During the Millennium" was not included in the verse.
WILFORD WOODRUFF:
"The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without
the Patriarchal order of marriage, is that it belongs to this dispensation
...." (Life of W. Woodruff--p. 542)
If it cannot be lived now, then you have to admit that the faithful
are bound by the wishes of the unfaithful--that in very deed, Satan has
succeeded in binding Jesus Christ.
****
Argument: Only one man on earth at a time can hold the keys.
All of the Apostles hold all of the keys and are sustained as
prophets, seers and revelators. But they go to the worthy senior High
Priest Apostle, who presides, for permission in administering the
ordinances.
In Joseph Smith's day he wanted his brother, Hyrum, to be president
of the Church (with full authority), while he, the Prophet, was president
of the Priesthood. That is the case today. Spencer W. Kimball is one who
presides over the Church and has full keys to do so and to perform the
full function of that calling.
But if you want to look for a man who holds all the keys, you must
look for the man who has received all of the ordinances and is living all
of the restored laws. Again, the one man at a time who holds all of the
keys must be a man who has received all of the ordinances. For example, if
a man had not received the Priesthood, he could not confer it on to
someone else; therefore, he wouldn't hold the key to that ordinance. It is
also the same [236] with marriage, and endowment, plural marriage and
receiving inheritance by consecration, etc.
There is no quarrel with putting Spencer W. Kimball at the head of
the Church. But does this put the Church at the head of the Priesthood? Or
ahead of God's laws when they not only can vote some of them away, but
did?
If the Lord had two sons and He told them both they must keep all of
His law if they wanted all of the blessings, and subsequently one of the
sons said I will keep all of your laws, the other saying I will keep part
of the law and I will be in control because I have many on my side and
will cut my brother off if he does all you say, which do you suppose was
more favored of the Father? And would He not make provision for the fewer
but more faithful?
The Church and the Kingdom of God are not the same. The Church can
vote on the law and if they choose to support the man as God's mouthpiece.
But the Kingdom of God has no vote to what constitutes God's law. They can
only administer the law--and they must accept the man at the head
appointed by God as well as all of God's law, because this must be
administered as God chooses and not as man votes. This organization is
under the man chosen by God with or without the people's vote.
As a mental exercise read Section 101:43--etc., the parable of the
vineyard. 1) vineyard is the Church or the Lord's people. 2) hedge is the
ordinances of the gospel with the gate symbolizing baptism. 3) twelve
olive trees are the twelve Apostles, and 4) tower is the fulness of the
gospel.
The vineyard is the choice ground (the Church) that the Lord caused
to be plowed. The servants of God set up a hedge round about
(ordinances--gate is baptism). Then they were commanded to build a tower
(plural marriage) or the higher ordinances, and to put a watchman upon it,
signifying having the Spirit of the Lord to discern the enemies of God
that they could discern the enemy from afar off. They did begin to build
the tower, or to live the plural marriage law and the higher ordinances,
but they became slothful when pressures came upon them, and they claimed
that they did not need this tower (or higher ordinances). So they did away
with it. And the enemy came upon them. And the servants fled. A classic
parable of events around 1890?
They did not stand their ground. And the Lord came among them and
said, what great evil is this? Ought ye not to have done even as I
commanded? He then spoke to one of His servants [237] (Joseph Smith--see
Sec. 103:21 and 90:16), that he was to gather together the residue of the
servants and break down the towers of the enemy and reclaim the vineyard.
They were to start anew and build the vineyard, and then again build a
tower, that they might see the enemy from afar off and be ready for him.
This took place partially when Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ appeared to
John Taylor in 1886, and commanded them to set men apart to keep the
fulness of the gospel alive, and empowered them with the keys to set other
men apart, to see that this ordinance was never taken from the earth, even
though the Church did vote it away.
These men comprehend the organization to preside over the Kingdom of
God organization in its unorganized condition until it can be fully
organized at the time when Zion will be redeemed in power, spoken of in
Sec. 101. The continuation and consummation of this gathering will be when
Zion is redeemed in power--see Sec. 105:4-6--Zion cannot be built up
except upon Celestial laws. These men need not have any permission
whatsoever, nor sanction, nor vote of the people or of any other prophet
subsequent to John Taylor, to carry on what John Taylor, Joseph Smith and
Jesus Christ himself commissioned them to do.
The president of the Church does have the keys to do what he has been
called to do. The Church is a missionary Church with the primary
obligation to offer the gospel to the world, to bring people in and
baptize them and give them the Holy Ghost as a gift. President Kimball is
presently the man who holds the keys as president of the Church; that is,
the one of the Apostles who presides, as they all have the keys.
The Church has refused, or voted away giving certain ordinances to
the people. Therefore, the Church is no longer the custodian of these
ordinances and the necessary keys. Question: What would happen if a man
came who was definitely worthy of an ordinance and requested it be given
to him, and the man in charge of the keys to that ordinance refused to
give it to him? God said he would be removed out of his place and another
man put in who would give the children of men what they were worthy of.
This did in reality happen in 1890, meaning the Church, not Wilford
Woodruff, because the Church voted these things out. Wilford Woodruff did
not lose the keys, but the Lord through him made provision for carrying
out the ordinances desired by the worthy few at a later time, so that
worthy seekers could progress whether other Church members chose to or
not.
[238] So, one man at a time does preside over all the keys, but it doesn't
have to be the President of the Church, as Joseph Smith made plain in his
day, (suggested he be the President of the Priesthood while Hyrum be
President of the Church.)
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall be
the President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, and
Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President of
the Church.
Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the
Church? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up
the Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time
or in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was
by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood,
independent of their voice." (J.D. 1:133)
J. REUBEN CLARK:
"The Priesthood is essential to the Church, but the Church is not
essential to the Priesthood." (Imp. Era, p. 134, March, 1936)
GEORGE Q. CANNON:
"We are asked, is the Church of God, and the Kingdom of God the same
organization? And we are informed that some of the brethren hold that they
are separate. This is the correct view to take. The Kingdom of God is a
separate organization from the Church of God. There may be men acting as
officers in the Kingdom of God who will not be members of the Church of
J.C. of L.D.S." (Hist. of the Ch. 7:382)
B.H. ROBERTS:
"Joseph Smith when speaking strictly recognized a distinction between
the Church of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, and not only a
distinction but a separation of one from the other. (Rise & Fall of
Nauvoo, p. 180)
[239]
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"The Prophet gave a full and complete organization of this kingdom
the spring before he was killed.... The Kingdom of God will protect every
person, every sect and all people upon the face of the whole earth in
their legal rights; I shall not tell you the names of the members of this
Kingdom, neither shall I read to you its Constitution, but the
Constitution was given by revelation. The day will come when it will be
organized in strength and power." (J.D. 17:156)
Argument: The Keys for sealing plural marriages have been temporarily
suspended.
1. How do you suspend keys and have a "Fulness of Times"?
2. What do we do with D.&C. 112:30? "For unto you, the Twelve, and
those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your
counselors and your leaders, is the power of this Priesthood given,
for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the
dispensation of the fulness of times."
3. If the Keys have been suspended since 1890, how can keys be held,
let alone passed on, by someone who hasn't received the ordinance?
4. It would take another Dispensation to restore them, and this
couldn't be the Dispensation of the fulness of Times.
5. Will it not be a tried and proven people who have lived the
principle who will be called to build Jackson County? Problems and
responsibilities at that time will be great enough without everyone
having to take time out to figure out how to live plural marriage.
****
Argument: My grandfather was a righteous and studious man, holding
high positions in the Church. Surely he won't receive a lesser reward
because he didn't know about plural marriage. He was nearly perfect.
[240]
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
"... But if he remain faithful with only the one wife, observing the
conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the eternity of the
marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the benefits, blessings
and power appertaining to the second or more faithful and fuller
observance of the law, he never will receive, for he cannot.
"... But what will become of him that cannot abide it? He that is
without understanding is not under the law, and it remains for God to deal
with him according to His own wisdom. if a man acknowledges that he is
incapable, or disqualified by a lack of knowledge, wisdom or understanding
to obey this law, then it remains with God to deal with him according to
those principles of justice which are written, or are yet to be revealed.
It is not likely however, that he will take his seat with Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, or share in their promised blessings." (J.D. 20:24-31)
Would this also apply to those who hold the Manifesto of 1890 up as a
shield and claim immunity? The Manifesto pleased the Utah Commission and
97% of the Saints; provision for continuing patriarchal marriage pleased
God.
****
Argument: You can't live anything the Church doesn't accept by the
vote of the people.
1. Someone should have told Joseph Smith that. And many others. They
lived it for many years before the Church at large knew anything
about it.
2. It was from the beginning and now is, a law of the Priesthood and
never was voted into acceptance by the Church. The Church, rather,
was invited to participate. The Church in 1890 voted it out, but the
1886 Revelation had already made it a matter of man's free agency and
the principle of plural marriage continued as a matter of Priesthood
Law, independent of the Church. The Manifesto was a matter of
necessity to appease the government and never was a real issue. It
doesn't take a revelation to know the Manifesto was not only not a
revelation, a [241] revelation wasn't even needed. The 97% negative
votes was all the revelation necessary!
The Priesthood presides over the Church, not the other way around.
In the revelation on patriarchal marriage:
D.&C. 132:18--"I am the Lord thy God and will give unto thee the law
of my Holy Priesthood."
Verse 58--"Now as touching the law of the Priesthood..."
Verse 61--"And again, as pertaining to the law of the Priesthood..."
The Church voted plural marriage out, the president of the Church
signed the Manifesto, making it binding upon the Church. Not upon the
Priesthood.
****
Argument: The Church leaders would never be found making misleading
statements.
1. This has always been necessary, because of the wickedness and
unbelief of the people. Dr. Hugh Nibley in a series of articles
published in the Improvement Era on Secrecy in the New Testament
Church states:
Quoting from Tertullian: "We believe that the Apostles were
ignorant of nothing, but that they did not transmit everything they
knew and were not willing to reveal everything to everybody. They did
not preach everywhere nor promiscuously ... but taught one thing
about the nature of Christ in public and another in secret ...."
(Imp. Era, May 1965, p. 407; 444)
2. John Taylor: Apostle Taylor first took the Gospel to France and
after quoting a statement of the Church on [242] monogamy, (Times and
Seasons 3:940) stated in part: "We are accused here of polygamy and
actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting, such that none
but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things
are too outrageous to admit of belief .... I shall content myself by
reading our views of chastity and marriage... `You both mutually
agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the
legal rights belonging to this condition; that is keeping yourselves
wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.'"
(July 1850, Orson Pratt's Works, p. 8 of Public Disc.)
3. Joseph Smith also published denials more than once when situations
warranted: "As we have lately been credibly informed, that an elder
of the church, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching
polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines, the county of Lapeer,
state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general
that he has been cut off from the Church for his iniquity; and he is
further notified to appear at the Special Conference on the 6th of
April next, to make answer to these charges." (Joseph Smith, Times &
Seasons 5:423, Feb. 1, 1844)
(Joseph Smith was living the principle at that time.)
4. Thus prompting President Joseph F. Smith to state: "Let all the
Latter-day Saints know that Joseph Smith ... and his brother Hyrum
did practice the doctrine (of plural marriage) in their lifetime, and
until their death, notwithstanding their seeming denials as published
in the Times and Seasons, and which are so fervently relied upon as
evidence against the fact by a certain class of anti-polygamists.
Those denials can be explained, and have been, and while they are
true in the sense for which they were designed, they are not denials
of plural or celestial marriage as taught by Joseph and Hyrum Smith,
and practiced at the time by both of them and many others in
prominent standing in the church." (Hist. Rec. 6:219-220, Des. News,
May 20, 1886)
[243] "In the sense for which they were designed" covers the reason for
many misleading statements made by leaders of the Church through all ages.
5. Paul in II Thess. 2:10, 11 reminded the Saints that because men
"Received not the love of the truth ... God shall send them strong
delusions, that they should believe a lie."
6. There are numerous instances of grossly misleading statements made
by President Joseph F. Smith and others, testifying before the United
States during the Reed Smoot Investigations in 1904:
Chairman: "Is the sealing for eternity ever performed between two
living mortals?"
Smith: "I have heard of one or two instances of that kind."
Chairman: "According to the doctrines of your church, did that carry
with it the right of earthly cohabitation?"
Smith: "It was not so understood. It does not carry that right."
Chairman: "Was it practiced, do you know?"
Smith: "Not that I know of."
Chairman: "This manifesto suspending polygamy, I understand, was a
revelation and a direction to the church?"
Smith: "I understand it, Mr. Chairman, just as it is stated there by
Pres. Woodruff himself. Pres. Woodruff makes his own statement. I
cannot add to nor take anything from that statement."
Chairman: "Do you understand that it was a revelation the same as
other revelations?"
Smith: I understand personally that Pres. Woodruff was [244] inspired
to put forth that manifesto."
Chairman: "And in that sense it was a revelation?"
Smith: "Well, it was a revelation to me."
And so on ...
****
Argument: The "one mighty and strong" spoken of in the 85th Section
of the D.&C. is not--Joseph Smith but Edward Partridge.
President Joseph F. Smith is oft quoted as substantiation for this
argument. Pertinent portions of his speech as follows:
"But that (Bishop Edward Partridge) was the man so threatened in that
revelation (verse 8), there can be no question; ... Also Orson Pratt ...
publicly declared from the pulpit ... that the man referred to in that
passage of revelation in question was Bishop Edward Partridge.
"Now as to the `one mighty and strong,' who shall be sent of God ...
Who is he? What position will he hold in the Church? In what manner will
he come to his calling? We draw attention first of all to the fact that
this whole letter to William W. Phelps, as well as the part afterwards
accepted as the word of the Lord, related to the affairs of the Church in
Zion, Independence, Jackson Co., Missouri. And as through his repentance
and sacrifices and suffering, Bishop Partridge undoubtedly obtained a
mitigation of the threatened judgment affixed, ... so the occasion for
sending another to fill his station "one mighty and strong to set in order
the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the
Saints"--may also be considered as having passed away and the whole
incident of the prophecy closed."
However, it would seem that President Smith himself didn't consider
the prophecy closed. He goes on to give us another choice:
"If, however, there are those who will still insist that the prophecy
concerning the coming of `one mighty and strong' is still [245] to be
regarded as relating to the future, let the Latter-day Saints know that he
will be a future Bishop of the Church who will be with the Saints in Zion,
Jackson, County, Missouri, when the Lord shall establish them in that
land; and he will be so blessed with the spirit and power of his calling
that he will be able to set in order the house of God, pertaining to the
department of the work under his jurisdiction; ... This future Bishop will
also be called and appointed of God as Aaron of old, and as Edward
Partridge was." (Imp. Era, Oct. 1907)
Why bring this latter part up if Bishop Partridge ended the matter?
1. Is it unreasonable to think that the "future Bishop" spoken of by
Pres. Smith would be acting under the direction of Joseph Smith?
2. Verse 8 may refer to Bishop Partridge, but verse 7--"holding the
scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering,
whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall
be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God," seems a
rather exalted description for Bishop Partridge.
3. D.&C. 90:16 is referring to Joseph Smith: "And this shall be your
business and mission in all your lives, to preside in council, and
set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom."
4. A reminder again of Brigham Young's statement:
"Brethren, this Church will be led onto the very brink of hell
by the leaders of this people. Then God will raise up the one mighty
and strong spoken of in the 85th Section of the D.&C., to save and
redeem this Church."
This was stated in 1867, about 35 years after Bishop Edward
Partridge.
And Brigham Young's statement matches Isaiah 3:12 and 28:2.
[246]
5. Have the Saints received their inheritances by consecration, so
that the issue can be closed?
6. Where is the Book of Remembrance, the Book of the Law?
7. Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt:
"Concerning the death of Joseph Smith, he prayed, O Lord! in the
name of Jesus Christ I pray thee, show me what these things mean, and
what I shall say to thy people? On a sudden the Spirit of God came
upon me and filled my heart with joy and gladness indescribably, and
while the spirit of revelation glowed in my bosom with as visible a
warmth and gladness as if it were fire, the Spirit said unto me: Lift
up your head and rejoice, for behold! it is well with my servants
Joseph and Hyrum. My servant Joseph still holds the keys of my
kingdom in this dispensation, and he shall stand in due time on the
earth, in the flesh, and fulfill that to which he is appointed...."
(p. 333)
(Joseph Smith will lead the Saints back to Jackson County)
President Joseph F. Smith said, " It may be considered strange that
the Lord should give first of all the Patriarch; ... we well know
that this order has not been strictly followed from the day we came
into these valleys until now--and we will not make any change at
present." (Special Conf. Rept., Univ. of Utah Library)
Joseph Smith: (Before the Nauvoo Legion) You will gather many people
into the fastness of the Rocky Mountains, as a center for the
gathering of the people, and you will be faithful because you have
been true; and many of those that come under your ministry, because
of their much learning, will seek for high positions. And they will
be set up and raise themselves in eminence above you, but you will
walk in low places unnoticed and you will know all that transpires in
their midst, and those that are [247] my friends will be your
friends. And this I will promise to you, that when I come again to
lead you forth, for I will go to prepare a place for you, so that
where I am you shall be with me." (Fate of the Persecutors of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, by N.B. Lundwall)
****
Argument: If you are Excommunicated, you have no more Priesthood, all
blessings are revoked, etc.
1. Excommunication is for departing from the Priesthood and Gospel
truths. Not for living more of God's laws, or believing too much of
the restored Gospel.
2. Excommunication from the Church for living God's Law because of
God's command, is not binding in heaven. Or why did the very prophets
at the head of the Church continually risk it?
3. Even Jesus Christ Himself was cast out of His Church, by the
members of His Church. Who lost the Priesthood?
4. Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden, knowingly breaking a
lesser law to live a higher law. Those entering into plural marriage
are breaking a "rule of the Church" as Pres. Joseph F. Smith
admitted, to live a higher law.
5. Joseph F. Smith: "The Lord can take away the power and efficacy of
their ordination, and will do so if they transgress. No endowments or
blessings in the House of the Lord, no Patriarchal Blessings, no
ordination to the Priesthood can be taken away once given. To prevent
a person from exercising the rights and privileges of activity in the
offices of the Priesthood, may be and has been done, and the person
so silenced still remains a member of the Church, but this does not
take away from him any Priesthood that he held." (Imp. Era 11:466)
Adam was a scapegoat.
(For the world)
Christ was a scapegoat.
(For all of us)
Joseph Smith was a scapegoat. (For all of us in the latter days)
[248] Those now living plural
marriage are scapegoats.
(For the Church)
But from the beginning there has always been a way provided for a
"reconciliation"--the putting of things back in order.
Argument: In the last days, even the very elect will be deceived.
1. That is not according to scripture. The statement is, "... if it
were possible, the very elect will be deceived." (Matt. 24:24)
2. Jedediah M. Grant, 1854: "... Let Lucifer mix in truths with
error, and work great signs and wonders to deceive the very elect,
but it is not possible. Why? Because they have learned the
Priesthood, and they possess the power thereof that cannot be shaken
.... For it is not possible for them to deceive the elect of God."
(J.D. 2:15)
Argument: We have to follow the Prophets.
1. Exactly.
****
The Grandaddy Argument:
Manifesto
Official Declaration:
To whom it may concern:
(An unusual opening for a revelation)
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt
Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah
Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior,
allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June
or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the
Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice
of polygamy-[249] I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that
these charges are false. 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.
One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the
marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the
Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the
ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In
consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my
instructions, taken down without delay.
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.
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.
/s/ Wilford Woodruff, September 24, 1890
Upon careful reading of the Manifesto, one is led to appreciate the
words of Joseph Smith:
25 March 1839: Joseph Smith, Jun., from Liberty Jail, told the Church
that unless suggestions are made or names mentioned by commandment or
"thus saith the Lord," he did not consider it very binding as to the
general affairs of the Church. (D.H.C. 3:295)
Excerpt from Thomas J. Rosser letter, missionary to England and Wales
during 1907 and 1908:
"... I then left for Treorachry, Wales, my birthplace, and labored
there until May 23, 1908. Then I went back to Bristol, my [250]
headquarters, to a conference, which was held Sunday, May 24, 1908. On
Monday morning, the 25th, our Conference Priesthood Meeting was held,
which lasted four hours and a half. After the preliminary exercises,
President Charles W. Penrose asked if any of the brethren had any
questions on their minds, and if so, to present them now before he
delivered his message to us.
"Up went my hand.
"`All right,' he said.
"`President Penrose,' I said, `I have heard much discussion on the
principle of Plural Marriage, some saying that it is withdrawn from the
earth and that the Manifesto was a revelation from God. Dear President,
what about this case?' Then I related to him the testimony of the Sister,
... and asked him, `Why should she receive this testimony if God has
withdrawn that principle from the earth, and the Manifesto is a true
revelation from God?'
"President Penrose then rose to his feet, scratched the side of his
head with his right hand for a moment or so, then stretched out his right
hand toward us and said, `Brethren, I will answer that question, if you
will keep it under your hats. I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifesto
with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. It's no revelation
from God, for I wrote it. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the Devil at
his own game. Brethren, how can God withdraw an everlasting Principle from
the earth? He has not, and can not, and I testify to you as a servant of
God that this is true.'
"The reason this statement is given is because I have heard so much
discussion as to whether or not the Manifesto of 1890 is a revelation from
God, and so I wish to relate here--with the understanding given to us at
the Bristol Conference by Charles W. Penrose on May 25, 1908."
If the Manifesto was a revelation ...
What do we do with D.&C. 105:5--"And Zion cannot be built up unless
it is by the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom; otherwise I
cannot receive her unto myself."
1. Therefore, we cannot redeem Zion prior to the Millennium unless
celestial laws are being lived.
2. Exaltation and the power of eternal lives are not possible [251]
because the Law has not been lived. Like Israel, we must be living a
lesser law that cannot exalt.
3. Without plural marriage, the Saints "must be rejected as a body
and the Priesthood authority withdrawn." George Q. Cannon.
4. Without Patriarchal marriage, the Priesthood must be "out of our
possession." Brigham Young, J.D. 10:273.
5. The Gospel is not here in its Fulness. George Teasdale, J.D.
25:21.
6. Jesus will never come:
Orson Pratt: "Jesus will have to stay a long time in the heavens
providing that monogamist principles are the only principles that
will be introduced. In fact He never can come, for the Scriptures say
the, heavens must retain Him until all things are restored." (Acts 3,
J.D. 17:221)
7. How can "seven women take hold of one man" as prophesied in Isaiah
4:1?
JOSEPH W. MUSSER:
The Manifesto released only those of the Saints who did not have the
faith, courage or fortitude to accept and abide in the Law.
JOSEPH W. MUSSER:
"It was expected the Manifesto would pave the way to Statehood, when
the Saints being in the majority, could make their own laws, relative to
their religious beliefs. But the Church accepted its being voted out.
Plural marriage, being a law of the Priesthood (D.&C. 132:28, 58, 61), and
the Priesthood presiding over the Church, the Manifesto signed by the
President of the Church and ratified by the members thereof, did and could
only [252] affect the Church, the Priesthood as a separate and distinct
organization, carrying on as the Lord intended it should.
Note: The Manifesto is the only document signed by only one member of
the First Presidency. Why?
Note: What are the three requirements for a document or revelation to
become part of the Standard Works?:
1. Accepted by the First Presidency unanimously.
2. Accepted by the Quorum of Twelve unanimously.
3. Accepted by the Church in Conference."
The Manifesto does not meet one of the requirements.
How binding was the Manifesto on these brethren?
JOSEPH. F. SMITH:
(Under question by Congress in 1904)
The Chairman: "Do you obey the law in having five wives at the same
time, and having them bear you eleven children since the Manifesto of
1890?"
J.F. Smith: "Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I
have obeyed the law of the land.... I do not claim so, I have said
that I prefer to stand my chances against the law.... And I wish to
assert that the Church has obeyed the law of the land, and that it
has kept its pledges with this Government; but I have not, as an
individual, I have taken that chance myself." (Smoot Investigation
1:99, etc.)
B.H. ROBERTS:
(Under question by Congress in 1904)
Chairman: "In living in polygamous cohabitation you are living in
defiance of the Manifesto of 1890, are you not?"
B.H. Roberts: "Yes sir. In defiance of the action of the Church on
that subject." (Smoot Investigation, Vol. 1:718-719)
[253]
HEBER J. GRANT:
"Plural marriage has been stopped, but not by the Lord." (February
22, 1942, Ensign Ward)
ABRAHAM H. CANNON Journal: March 29,1892
"We continued our meeting. Pres. Snow said he felt that when any
question came up among us on which the majority were clear, should there
be one who did not see as the others, that one should be willing to yield
his views to those of the majority, and leave the responsibility of the
course pursued with them."
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
"A brother told Pres. Joseph F. Smith that he knew he was required to
abide the Celestial Law of marriage `and as far as I know, you are the
only man on earth that has the authority to stop me from living that law.'
"J.F Smith then said, `My boy, as President of this Church, I do not
have the right to stop you from living that law. That is a covenant that
God has made with Abraham and his seed forever. This is your birthright...
Of course you are to understand that if you go ahead and enter plural
marriage and someone betrays you, you will be excommunicated and your name
taken off the records of the Church.'
"The brother said, `Yes, I understand, but I know that my name will
not be taken from the book of life and in the eternal world I shall be
numbered among the living.'
"President Smith then said, `God bless you,' and laid his hands upon
his head and gave him his blessing and told him to go to those who were
appointed to take care of these things." (Star of Truth 4:45)
DISCUSSION between Charles F. Zitting and Anthony W. Ivins:
(November 2, 1928)
Ivins: "Don't you know that a manifesto was passed in 1890 to do away
with plural marriage?"
Zitting: "I answered that I was well acquainted with the manifesto
and asked him if it was a revelation from God."
[254]
Ivins: "No, I wish it was and then we would have something on which
to handle such men as you when you come up here. Do you know about
the letter President (Joseph F.) Smith sent out to the Presidents of
Stakes in 1910? When those instructions came out we put a stop to it
all over the world. Had you gone into plural marriage before those
instructions came out, I would have nothing to say, but now it is
quite a different matter."
Zitting: "Bro. Ivins, do you mean to tell me that had I gone into
plural marriage before this letter came out, it would have been all
right?"
Ivins: "Yes, as far as I am concerned personally."
Zitting: "Very well, Bro. Ivins, if you have no more respect than
that for Pres. Woodruff s manifesto, then what prevents me from
showing the same respect to this letter of instruction from Pres.
Joseph F. Smith? Neither one of them are revelations ...."
Finally -- What argument matches the following?
"Now I want to prophesy that all men and women who oppose the
revelation which God has given in relation to Polygamy will find
themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them the very
moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go
down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent ... will be damned if
they do not receive it. For the Lord has said so." (Orson Pratt, J.D.
17:223-5)
Trouble in the Church
I TIMOTHY 4:1-3:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocracy; having their consciences
seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry...."
[255]
ISAIAH 3:12:
Speaking of the latter days, "As for my people, children are their
oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, t hey which lead thee,
cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."
ISAIAH 28:1, 7, 15:
"Woe to the crown of pride to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose
glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat
valleys of them that are overcome with wine!"
"But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are
out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink
they are swallowed up of wine ......
"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with
hell are we in agreement... (1890??) for we have made lies our refuge, and
under falsehood have we hid ourselves."
The Manifesto is a covenant with death and an
agreement with hell.
D.&C. 112:24-26:
"Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth,
a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of
mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all
the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go
forth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, who
have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed
against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord."
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"Brethren, this Church will be led onto the very brink of hell by the
leaders of this people. Then God will raise up the one [256] mighty and
strong, spoken of in the 85th Section of the D.&C., to save and redeem
this Church." (Provo Bowery Conference 1867)
ISAIAH speaks of the one "mighty and strong":
Isaiah 28:2 - "Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which
as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters
overflowing shall cast down to the earth with the hand."
Verse 17: "Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to
the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the
waters shall overflow the hiding place."
Verse 18: "And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and
your agreement with hell shall not stand..." (Sept. 1886)
D.&C. SECTION 85:7
"And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty
and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light
for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his
bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God
...."
Why must one mighty and strong come to set the
Lord's house in order - if it is not out of order?
DANIEL 7:15-28:
Verse 21: "I beheld and the same horn made war with the Saints, and
prevailed against them;" (The horn from the ten horns represents the
United States Government, which did prevail.)
Verse 25: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and
shall wear out the Saints of the most High, and think to change times and
laws ...."
ISAIAH 24:5:
"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; [257]
because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the
everlasting covenant."
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said of that scripture: "Are we not too
much inclined to blame the generations that are past for the breaking of
the new and everlasting covenant, and to think it is because of the great
apostasy which followed ... the Apostles in primitive times...? Perhaps we
should wake up to the realization that it is because of the breaking of
covenants, especially the new and everlasting covenant which is the
fulness of the Gospel that the world is to be consumed by fire and few men
left. Since this punishment is to come at the time of the cleansing of the
earth when Christ comes again, should not the Latter-day Saints take heed
unto themselves? We have been given the new and everlasting covenant, and
many among us have broken it." (Des. News, Oct. 17, 1936)
(Latter-day Saints have broken the "New and Everlasting covenant
which is the fulness of the Gospel" because Latter-day Saints are the only
ones on earth who have it.)
JOSEPH SMITH:
"Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the
world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered
or changed. All must be saved on the same principles. ... where there is
no change of priesthood, there is no change of ordinances." (D.H.C.
5:423-4)
Then how is Priesthood affected if an Ordinance,
an exalting Ordinance, is dropped - voted out?
THIRD NEPHI 16:6, 7, 10:
"And blessed are the Gentiles (in this reference, US), because of
their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of
me and of the Father."
"Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because
of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the
truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be
made known unto them."
[258] "... At that day when the Gentiles (us) shall sin against my gospel,
and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations...
(etc); and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness
of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my
gospel from among them."
And what is the "Fulness" of my gospel?"
BRIGHAM YOUNG says:
"Hear it ye Elders of Israel and mark it down in your log-book, the
fulness of the gospel is the united order and plural marriage..." (Sermon
at dedication of St. George Temple)
The prophets denied the principle would be overthrown.
HEBER C. KIMBALL:
"Plurality is a law which God established for His elect before the
world was formed, for a continuation of seeds forever. It would be as easy
for the United States to build a tower to remove the sun, as to remove
polygamy, or the Church and Kingdom of God." (Mill. Star 28:190)
HEBER C. KIMBALL:
"You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it as to oppose
the plurality of wives. Let the presidency of this Church, and the 12
apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they
will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are
you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the
salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in
this our dispensation; and that which He revealed He designs to have
carried out by His people." (J.D. 5:203)
LORENZO SNOW: (1886 in jail)
"God will not change his law of celestial marriage. But the man, the
people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this [259] doctrine and
the Church of God will be overthrown." (Hist. of Utah, Whitney 3:471)
JOHN TAYLOR:
"Polygamy is a divine institution. It has been handed down direct
from God. The United States cannot abolish it. No nation on earth can
prevent it, nor all the nations of the earth combined. I defy the United
States. I will obey God." (S.L. Trib., 1/6/1880)
MILL. STAR, Vol. 5:27, October 1865:
"The doctrine of polygamy with the Mormons is not one of that kind
that in the religious world is classed with `non-essentials.' It is not an
item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain...
Mormonism is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is
invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one of
its leading principles is acknowledged to be false .... Polygamy was
revealed by God, or the entire fabric of their faith is false. To ask them
to give up such an item of belief, is to ask them to relinquish the whole,
to acknowledge their Priesthood a lie, their ordinances a deception, and
all that they have toiled for, lived for, bled for, prayed for, or hoped
for, a miserable failure and a waste of life."
Then who can really believe polygamy was so easily "suspended"?
ABRAHAM H. CANNON:
"As God lives, the principle will not be driven from the earth."
(S.L. Stake Conf., May 8, 1887)
GEORGE Q. CANNON:
"Those who make the attack perhaps hope to drive the people of God to
renounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation. Unless the
Saints apostatize, such an action on [260] their part is impossible. By
doing so, they would deliberately shut the door of the celestial glory in
their own faces .... To comply with the request of our enemies would be to
give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and
Jesus Christ, the Son .... So intimately interwoven is this precious
doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that
it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of
immortal glory." (Juvenile Instructor, May 1, 1885, editorial)
Section 101 of the D.&C. is a parable about a nobleman, servants,
watchtower. Joseph Smith is the servant spoken of in verse 55, as shown in
103:21 and 105:16 and 90:16.
Joseph Smith partially set things in order when he came to President John
Taylor, resulting in the 1886 Revelation, which was intended to keep the
eternal principle of plural marriage alive and perpetuated, as the
prophets had said.
An indication of the weakness of the Saints:
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"Whereupon, the Prophet goes upon the stand, and aft preaching about
everything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the idea
of the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the Law of Sealing, and it
produced such a tremendous excitement that as soon as he had got his
dinner half eaten, he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all that
he had preached, and left the people to guess at the matter." (J.D. 2:217,
Mar. 18, 1855)
** "In 1891, shortly after signing the Manifesto, the First
Presidency and Apostles signed a Petition to the President of the U.S. for
Amnesty, "To be at peace with the government and in harmony with their
fellow citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence
of the Government and the people, our people have voluntarily put aside
something which all their lives have believed to be a sacred principle."
(Contributor 13:197)
[A Covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.]
[261] "Brigham Young warned earlier: `There is nothing that would so soon
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.'" (J.D. 10:32)
BRIGHAM YOUNG:
"When we see the time that we can willingly strike hands and have
full fellowship with those who despise the Kingdom of God, know ye then
that the Priesthood of the Son of God is out of your possession." (J.D.
10:273)
(No wonder, then, that Pres. Joseph F. Smith testified in the Smoot
case Vol 1:335-6, that he was living in open violation of the rules of the
Church; as did Francis M. Lyman, B.H. Roberts and others of the presiding
brethren.)
Parley P. Pratt said if he were asked to give up this principle he would
not "Give a fig for Mormonism." If one principle can be given up, so can
any part of it.
JOHN TAYLOR:
"If God has introduced something for our glory or exaltation, we are
not going to have that kicked over by any improper influence either inside
or outside of the Church of the Living God." (J.D. 25:310)
DESERET NEWS EDITORIAL: (Geo. Q. Cannon)
"Were the Church to do that as an entirety, God would reject the
Saints as a body, the authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn ...
the Lord would raise up another people. ..." (April 23, 1885)
[262]
GEORGE Q. CANNON:
"The day will come when men's Priesthood and authority will be called
to question, and you will find out that there will be hundreds who have no
Priesthood, but who believe they hold it, they holding only an office in
the Church." (Meeting at Draper shortly before his death. Truth 3:153)
JOHN TAYLOR:
"On Sept 27, 1886, in an eight hour meeting, Pres. Taylor said: `I
would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold the
Melchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel at the
time of the seventh president and that there would be thousands that think
they hold the Priesthood at that time, but would not have it properly
conferred upon them.'"
DANIEL H. WELLS:
"Many will doubtless make shipwreck of their faith and will be led
away by the allurements of sin into and by forbidden paths; yet the
Kingdom will not be taken from this people and be given to another. But a
people will come forth from among us, who will be zealous of good works,
willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in His ways and
who will walk in His paths." (Des. News, Nov. 6, 1876)
DANIEL H. WELLS:
"And if we as a people do not hold ourselves on the altar ready to be
used, He will pass on and get somebody else; because He will get a people
that will do it. I do not mean to say that He will pass on and leave this
people; no, there will come up from the midst of this people that people
which has been talked about so much." (Des. News, Dec. 9, 1882)
ORSON F. WHITNEY:
"Many of this people are perhaps preparing themselves, by following
after the world in its mad race ... but I know that there [263] is a
people, in the heart's core of this people, that will arise in their
majesty in a day that is, near at hand and push spiritual things to the
front, a people who will stand up for God, fearing not man nor what man
can do..." (Des. Weekly, Aug. 11, 1889)
HEBER C. KIMBALL:
"But the time will come when the Lord will choose a people out of
this people upon whom He will bestow His choicest blessings." (Des. News,
11/9/1865)
HEBER C. KIMBALL:
"Many of this people have broken their covenants ... by finding fault
with the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence. But
you cannot do that, for God will cut you off and raise up another people
that will carry out his purposes ... no tongue can express the suffering
and affliction this people will pass through if they do not repent." (J.D.
4:108)
MILLENNIAL STAR 42:584 - 1880:
"Before the great day of the Lord shall come, and the day of
righteousness and peace dawn upon this fair creation, two potent cleansing
processes shall be in active operation. The first of these is the
preparation of a choice people, purified by an application of their lives
as individuals and a community, of the principles of the Gospel of peace.
Such a body will evolve from those called Latter-day Saints ... Out of
this community ... will emanate the nucleous or foundation from which will
spring the righteous Millennial population of our globe."
(These Millennial people will have had to be living all the restored
laws - the fulness.)
Who are they?
President George Q. Cannon told Joseph W. Musser that President John
Taylor had taken steps in his day to see that the principle of plural
marriage was perpetuated, doubtless referring to the eight hour meeting of
1886.
[264]
****
Conferring Priesthood
JOSEPH F. SMITH:
"The revelation in Section 107 of the D.&C., verses 1, 5, 6, 7, 21,
clearly points out that the Priesthood is a general authority or
qualification, with certain offices or authorities appended thereto.
Consequently the conferring of the Priesthood should precede and accompany
ordination to office, unless it be possessed by previous bestowal and
ordination. Surely a man cannot possess an appendage to the Priesthood
without possessing the Priesthood itself, which he cannot obtain unless it
be authoritatively conferred upon him." (Imp. Era 4:394, 1901)
The change made official in the Church was established after this manner:
HEBER J. GRANT: (7th President)
"Ordaining to the Melchizedek Priesthood: Calling the candidate by
name; -- by (or in) the authority of the holy priesthood and by the laying
on of hands, I (or we) ordain you an Elder (or whatever the office may be)
in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and confer upon you
all the rights, powers, keys, and authority pertaining to this office and
calling in the holy Melchizedek Priesthood, in the name of the Lord, Jesus
Christ, Amen." (April 26, 1921, Missionary's Handbook, p. 139, 1944)
CHARLES W. PENROSE:
"We have made a mistake in our ordinations; we have been conferring
the Priesthood and it ought not to be done." (Quarterly Conference, Provo,
The Kingdom of God, D.R. Peay, p. 26)
In 1957, President McKay changed the wording in conferring Priesthood back
to the original manner.
[265] President Wilford Woodruff once said, "Joseph Smith continued
visiting myself and others up to a certain time, and then it stopped."
(Stake Conference, Ogden, October 19, 1896, Des. Weekly News, Vol. 53, No.
21)
A Stake President, some years after the Manifesto, asked John Henry
Smith, a member of the First Presidency of the Church, "Brother Smith, why
don't you brethren put this question of plural marriage up to the Lord and
have it settled once and for all?" President Smith answered, "We have put
it up to the Lord, but He will not answer us upon the question."
(Had the Lord not made it clear enough?)
Another Stake President, claiming membership in the Heber J. Grant
prayer circle, meeting in the Temple, stated that upon one occasion
President Grant came to his circle meeting with tears in his eyes, saying,
"Brethren, I have fasted and prayed most earnestly to the Lord for certain
information, but He will not answer me;" and on several occasions
President Grant said the heavens were as brass over him.
An Inconsistency
HEBER J. GRANT:
"No matter what restrictions we may be placed under by men, our only
consistent course is to keep the Commandments of God. (Cites instances of
the Three Hebrews.) If we are living in the light of the Gospel, we have a
testimony of the truth, and we have but one choice, that is to abide in
the law of God no matter as to the consequences.... When people know they
are right it is wrong for them to forego their honest convictions by
yielding their judgment to that of the majority." (Des. News, April 6,
1885)
HEBER J. GRANT:
"I am a law breaker; so is Bishop Whitney; so is B.H. Roberts; my
wives have brought me only daughters. I propose to [266] marry until I get
wives who will bring me sons." (Sept. 8, 1899, after the Manifesto, S.L.
Tribune)
Later ... November 27, 1928:
HEBER J. GRANT:
"None could point to anyone who had entered this principle since its
official prohibition who was a pride to any community, and that the same
could be said of their children. I shall rejoice when the government
officials put a few of these [polygamists] in the County Jail or in the
State Penitentiary." (Letter reprinted in Truth magazine 11:32)
In 1935, at President Grant's request, Hugh B. Brown drafted a law
changing "Unlawful Cohabitation" from a simple misdemeanor with a maximum
jail sentence of six months, to a felony, the latter bearing a five year
jail sentence.
This law was fathered in the legislature by Lyle B. Nicholes, an
officer in the Mormon Church, and enacted by Mormon vote. It was guided
through the legislative hopper by a committee comprising General
Authorities of the Church. It was signed by Governor Henry H. Blood, a
Mormon Stake President, and later President of the California Mission.
It is a matter of record in the court files that men were appointed
by the Church leaders to gather evidence to be used by the prosecution in
cases against the men.
Under the law, Abraham, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and President
Grant himself, had lived feloniously, for they were all guilty of living
in plural marriage. God, himself, was guilty, for His son Jesus Christ was
born of a plural wife.
As to President Grant's statement, those arrested were in the County
Jail on May 13, 1945, awaiting transfer to the penitentiary. On the 14th
of May, President Grant passed away, one day after seeing his wish about
the polygamists (of which he was very much one) come true.
L.D.S. BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA Vol. 3, p. 415:
[267] Regarding Abraham Hunsaker:
When the law of celestial marriage was first whispered to him he
opposed it exclaiming, "It is of the devil," but God knew his heart and in
open day a messenger from heaven with three women clothed in white raiment
stood before him several feet from the ground, and addressed him thus:
"You never can receive a full and complete salvation in MY kingdom unless
your garments are pure and white and you have three counselors like me."
Thus he was convinced that principle was right and he subsequently,
married five wives, two of whom survived him, and he became the father of
50 children.
****
Finally, we have the word of the Lord:
"How can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord am
everlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done
away with, but they stand forever.... I, the Lord, do not change, and my
word and my covenant and my law do not.
"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."
[268]
[269]
CHRONOLOGY AND DIGEST
1788
1797
23 Dec 1805
7 Nov 1822
1824
1825
18 Jan 1827
1829
1829
Anti-bigamy law of New York.
Anti-bigamy law of Vermont.
Joseph Smith was born.
1:1
(1) Vilate Murray was married
3:1
to Heber C. Kimball.
Anti-bigamy law of Ohio.
Anti-bigamy law of Missouri.
Emma Hale married to Joseph
Smith.
Translation of the Book of Mormon
completed.
Earliest known revelation on plural 3:2
marriage given. Oliver Cowdery proposed
to enter into the practice but was
forbidden by Joseph Smith.
1:471-472
1:471
(1)
1:472
1:472-473
3:1
3:1-2
(1)
6 Apr 1830
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints was organized at
Fayette, New York.
3:2
1831
Joseph Smith told Lyman Johnson that 3:3
plural marriage was a correct principle
but that the time had not come to teach
or practice it in the Church.
1 Jul 1831
Revelation given that God's laws are to
3:3
be kept on this land.
1833
Anti-bigamy law of Illinois.
1:473-474
28 Jan 1833
Leonora Cannon married to John
Taylor.
3:5
24 Jul 1833
Agatha Ann Woolsey married to John D.
Lee.
3:6
(1)
6 Aug 1833
Revelation: Admonition to live by every 3:6
word proceeding out of the mouth of God.
22 Jan 1834
Joseph Smith says that all men have the
3:7
privilege of thinking for themselves on
matters relative to conscience.
18 Feb 1834
Mary Ann Angel married to Brigham Young. 3:13 (1)
4 Sep 1834
Marinda N. Johnson was married to
Orson Hyde.
3:13
24 Sep 1834
Jenetta Richards married to Willard
Richards.
3:14
Dec 1834
Lectures on Faith delivered in
Kirtland.
8:14
1835
Benjamin F. Johnson learned that the 3:16
ancient order of plural marriage was
again to be practiced in the
Church. Oliver Cowdery and Warren Parish knew
[270]
that Joseph Smith and Fannie Alger were husband and wife.
1835
Section 101 (Doctrine and Covenants, 3:16-18
1835 ed.)
given relating to marriage,
i.e.: one man to have one wife, one
woman but one husband.
9 Oct 1836
Ruth Moon married to William Clayton. 3:22
(1)
13 Apr 1837
Phoebe W. Carter married to Wilford
Woodruff.
3:22
29 Apr 1837
The Seventies resolved to have no
3:22
fellowship with anyone guilty of
polygamy or any offense of the kind.
8 May 1838
Joseph Smith says that the Mormons do 3:23
not believe in having more wives than
one at the same time.
Fall 1840
Joseph Smith taught Joseph B. Noble 3:29
(1)
(1)
5 Apr 1841
27 Oct 1841
11 Dec 1841
1842
Feb 1842
7 Feb 1842
17 May 1842
24 May 1842
15 Jun 1842
the principle of celestial or plural
marriage, or a plurality of wives.
Louisa Beman married to Joseph Smith. 3:30
Zina D. Huntington married to Joseph
Smith.
Prescindia L. Huntington married to
Joseph Smith.
Desdemona, W. Fullmer married to
Joseph Smith.
Elvira A. Cowles married to Joseph
Smith.
Mary E. Lightner married to Joseph
Smith.
Nauvoo city marriage ordinance passed 3:35
requiring registration of marriages
whether with or without a license.
John C. Bennett affirms that Joseph 3:39
Smith never taught him that polygamy,
adultery, or fornication
were right.
Chauncy L. Higbee was cut off the
3:44
Church for unchaste and unvirtuous
conduct toward certain females, and
for teaching it was right if kept secret.
Lucy Decker was married to Brigham
Young.
(3)
3:32
(4)
3:33
(5)
3:34
(6)
3:34
(7)
3:35
(8)
3:45
(2)
17 Jun 1842
William Law says that no accusation 3:45
of bigamy has ever been proved against
the Mormons.
27 Jun 1842
Joseph Smith is accused of seducing 3:50
or attempting to seduce single and
married females, including Nancy Rigdon.
29 Jun 1842
Eliza R. Snow married to Joseph
Smith.
3:51
Summer 1842
Martha McBride married to Joseph Smith.
3:52
(10)
Summer 1842
Brigham Young proposes to Martha
3:53-56
Brotherton and is rejected.
16 Jul 1842
The Presbyterian General Assembly
3:57
decided that it is incest for a man
to marry his dead wife's sister.
[271]
27 Jul 1842
Sarah Ann Whitney married to Joseph
Smith.
3:57
(11)
Aug 1842
Ruth Vose Sayers married to Joseph
3:58
Smith.
(9)
(12)
1 Aug 1842
1 Aug 1842
2 Aug 1842
27 Aug 1842
1 Oct 1842
Winter 1842
1 Dec 1842
1843
Early 1843
Feb 1843
Accusations of polygamy indirectly
3:58-59
denied in an editorial in the Times
and Seasons.
William Clayton accuses Martha
3:60-61
Brotherton of apostacy. He says that
no such principle of "two wives" ever
existed among the Latter-day Saints,
and never will.
Joseph Smith's love letter to Nancy 3:62-64
Rigdon is published.
Joseph Smith's authorship of the love 3:65-66
letter to Nancy Rigdon denied in an
editorial in The Wasp and by Sidney
Rigdon.
Several of the leading brethren and 3:68-69
sisters affirm that there is only one
marriage system or rule known among
the members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, viz:
one man-one wife. J.C. Bennett's
"secret wife" system is denied.
The Peace Maker is published on the 3:69-110
Church press by Udney Hay Jacob,
supporting the concept of plural
marriage and other things.
The Peace Maker is called "an unmeaning 3:110
rigma-role or nonsense, folly, and
trash."
Maria Lawrence married to Joseph Smith. 3:110 (13)
Sarah Lawrence married to Joseph Smith. 3:110 (14)
Sarah P. Noon married to Heber C.
3:110 (2)
Kimball.
Joseph Smith suggests that plural
3:111-112
marriage will again be practiced in
Zion and that the laws of Zion would
permit it, but had to retract the
statement.
Hannah Ells married to Joseph Smith. 3:112 (15)
Joseph Smith taught William Clayton 3:112-113
that plural marriage was right in the
sight of Heavenly Father and that it
was his (Wm.'s) privilege to have all
the wives he wanted. Joseph said that
the doctrine of plural and celestial
marriage is the most holy and important
doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth.
Mar 1843
4 Mar 1843
8 Mar 1843
9 Mar 1843
[272]
15 Mar 1843
Martha R. Browitt married to Orson Hyde. 3:114
Emily D. Partridge married to Joseph 3:114
Smith secretly from Emma Smith.
Eliza M. Partridge married to Joseph 3:114-115
Smith secretly from Emma Smith.
Patty B. Sessions married to Joseph 3:115 (16)
Smith.
(2)
The charge of advocating plurality of 3:115
wives common property is declared false
and ridiculous.
Spring 1843
Flora Ann Woodworth married to Joseph 3:116 (17)
Smith.
Apr 1843
Joseph Smith teaches the doctrine of 3:116
celestial marriage including plurality
of wives to Erastus Snow.
Apr 1843
Mary Ann Price married to Orson Hyde. 3:116 (3)
2 Apr 1843
Joseph Smith teaches the principle of 3:116-117
plural or celestial marriage to
Benjamin F. Johnson and asks him for
his sister Almera to be his wife.
Apr 1843
Almera W. Johnson married to Joseph 3:118 (18)
Smith.
12 Apr 1843
Olive Gray Frost married to Joseph
3:118 (19)
Smith.
27 Apr 1843
Margaret Moon married to William
3:118
Clayton for time and eternity by
Joseph Smith, he already having a
wife living not sealed to him for
time and eternity.
May 1843
Helen Mar. Kimball married to Joseph 3:118 (20)
Smith.
1 May 1843
Lucy Walker married to Joseph Smith. 3:118 (21)
11 May 1843
Eliza M. Partridge remarried to Joseph
3:118-119
(22)
Smith.
Emily D. Partridge remarried to Joseph 3:118-119
(23)
Smith.
16 May 1843
Joseph Smith tells William Clayton: 3:119
"Except a man enter into an everlasting
covenant and be married for eternity ...
by the power and authority of the Holy
Priesthood, they will cease to increase
when they die ... they will not have
any children after the resurrection.
12 Jun 1843
Rhoda Richards married to Joseph Smith. 3:122 (24)
12 Jul 1843
Joseph Smith says: "I received the
1:16-24
22 Jul 1843
22 Jul 1843
Aug 1843
(sic)
12 Aug 1843
7 Sep 1843
[273]
20 Sep 1843
5 Oct 1843
15 Oct 1843
23 Oct 1843
2 Nov 1843
25 Nov 1843
following revelation ... Revelation
on the Eternity of the Marriage
Covenant, including Plurality of Wives
..." (D&C 132)
Hyrum Smith rehearses the revelation 3:122-123
on celestial marriage to Howard Coray,
saying that it was not for the public yet.
William Clayton's first wife, Ruth, 3:123 (2)
was married to him by Joseph Smith.
Almera Johnson married to Joseph Smith.
3:124
(25)
Revelation on celestial marriage is 3:125
read to the Nauvoo High Council by
Hyrum Smith. Three of the brethren
did not receive the testimony of
Hyrum Smith concerning its truthfulness.
Mormons are accused of setting aside 3:125-127
all moral and religious institutions
established by the Bible and cherished
by men as the only means of maintaining
those social blessings necessary to
happiness.
Malissa Lott married to Joseph Smith. 3:127 (26)
Joseph Smith gives instructions to try 3:128-129
those persons who are preaching,
teaching, or practicing the doctrine
of plurality of wives ... that no man
shall have but one wife at a time
unless the Lord directs otherwise.
Joseph Smith gives instructions that 3:129
the sisters should stop their
"spinning street yarns and talking
about spiritual wives."
Joseph Smith teaches Heber C. Kimball,
3:129
George A. Smith, and Brigham Young
many principles illustrating the
doctrine of celestial marriage.
Fanny Young married to Joseph Smith. 3:130 (27)
Harriet E.C. Campbell married to
3:130 (3)
Brigham Young.
Augusta Adams married to Brigham Young. 3:130
Joseph Smith is acquitted of the charge
3:130
of having taught that seduction was
right. He said that the Church has
not received permission to commit
(4)
12 Dec 1843
21 Jan 1843
1 Feb 1844
15 Feb 1844
25 Feb 1844
Mar 1844
15 Mar 1844
16 Mar 1844
1 Apr 1844
2 Apr 1844
19 Apr 1844
fornication, adultery, or any corrupt
action, that if a man commit adultery
he cannot receive the Celestial Kingdom.
Elizabeth Haigham married to John
Taylor.
3:130
Joseph Smith teaches that to be saved,
3:131
a man must abide the whole celestial law.
Hyrum Brown is cut off the Church for 3:132
preaching polygamy and other "false
and corrupt doctrines."
Artimesia Beman married to Erastus
3:136 (1)
Snow for time and eternity by Hyrum Smith.
Jane Ballantyne married to John Taylor.
3:136 (3)
Joseph Smith affirms that the
3:137
revelation on celestial and plural
marriage was given by way of
commandment and not by way of
instruction.
Hyrum Smith denies the teachings of 3:137-138
some elders who say that a man having
a certain priesthood can have as many
wives as he pleases, that such teaching
is false doctrine, and that no such
thing is practiced in Nauvoo. He further
states that any man found teaching
privately or publicly any such doctrine
is liable to lose his license and
membership also.
Emma Smith, as President of the Relief
3:139
Society, admonishes the sisters to
"... let polygamy, bigamy, fornication,
adultery, and prostitution be frowned
out of the hearts of honest men to drop
in the gulf of fallen nature ...."
To the Elders abroad: "...If any man 3:141
writes or [274] preaches doctrines
contrary to the Bible, Book of Mormon,
or Doctrine and Covenants, set him
down as an impostor, try him by the
principles of the acknowledged word
of God. If they teach, preach, or
practice contrary to that, cut
them off...."
Minerva White married to Erastus Snow.
3:142 (2)
Abigail Shaffer Woolsey married to
3:142 (2)
John D. Lee.
(2)
24 Apr 1844
3 May 1844
4 May 1844
4 May 1844
8 May 1844
Jun 1844
27 Jun 1844
Sep 1844
10 Sep 1844
26 Sep 1844
12 Oct 1844
Review of the history of the
3:142-143
"Spiritual Wife System" given in the
Warsaw Signal.
Parley P. Pratt implies that the
3:144
insinuations that Joseph Smith keeps
six or seven young females. as wives
etc. are infamous slander and lies,
that men who perpetrate such things
should be left alone severely and be
shunned as a pestilence.
William and Jane Law swear affidavits 3:145-146
that Hyrum Smith read to them the
revelation commanding Joseph Smith to
have more wives than one and to
administer that law to others.
Austin Cowles swears an affidavit to 3:146-147
the effect that Hyrum Smith read, in
High Council meeting, a revelation
containing the doctrine of plurality
of wives, calling it a heresy.
Clara Decker married to Brigham
3:147 (5)
Young.
Joseph Smith tells William Marks,
3:148
President of the Nauvoo Stake, that
polygamy would prove the overthrow of
the Church, that it was a cursed
doctrine, and that every exertion
should be made to put it down, and
that those in transgression must be
severed from the Church unless they
make ample satisfaction.
Joseph and Hyrum Smith are killed at 3:148
Carthage.
Emily C. Partridge was married to
3:149
Brigham Young.
Ann Alice Gheen married to Heber C. 3:150 (3)
Kimball.
Clara Chase Ross married to Brigham 3:150 (8)
Young.
Elder Benjamin Winchester and his wife
3:151
are cut off from the Church for
unchristian-like conduct, in slandering
the Church, and railing against, and
speaking evil of the Twelve and others.
A resolution is adopted by a conference
3:155-156
presided over by Richard Savery,
(7)
15 Oct 1844
1 Nov 1844
2 Nov 1844
7 Nov 1844
14 Nov 1844
15 Nov 1844
20 Nov 1844
2 Dec 1844
17 Dec 1844
concerning B. Winchester and Sidney
Rigdon, that the Twelve and their
abettors have flagrantly violated the
original and true principles of the
Church through practising the doctrine
of polygamy, despoiling female virtue
and chastity, and seduction.
Sidney Rigdon publishes an article
3:157-163
condemning the Twelve and others at
Nauvoo for teaching and [275]
practicing the doctrine of plurality
of wives.
William Smith testifies that there is 3:164-165
no law in the Church commanding a
plurality of wives and those teaching
that a doctrine of this kind is either
tolerated or taught in the Church are
wanton falsifiers and base calumniators.
Susan Snively married to Brigham Young.
3:165 (9)
Benjamin Winchester attributes Joseph 3:165-166
Smith's death to the "transgression"
of introducing the "spiritual wife
system" into the Church.
Mary Ann Hale married to Benjamin F. 3:166 (2)
Johnson.
Sidney Rigdon's accusations of
3:167
"spiritual wifery" contested in the
Times and Seasons.
Alice Hardman married to William
3:167 (3)
Clayton.
Jane Hardman married to William
3:167
Clayton.
S. Bennett laments that Joseph Smith 3:168
was teaching the spiritual wife
doctrine secretly and denying it
openly, and those who set at naught
the counsels of God by teaching as a
celestial law that the highest degree
of glory is only to be obtained by
marrying more wives than one.
Gov. Thomas Ford acknowledges the
3:169-170
belief that Joseph Smith announced a
revelation sanctioning polygamy,
whereby a man was allowed one wife
pursuant to the laws of the country
and an infinite number of others to be
(4)
1845
9 Jan 1845
20 Feb 1845
Feb 1845
22 Feb 1845
Spring 1845
30 Apr 1845
1 May 1845
1 May 1845
24 May 1845
12 Nov 1945
enjoyed in some mystical and spiritual
mode.
Clarissa Cutler married to Heber C. 3:173 (4)
Kimball.
Emily Cutler married to Heber C.
3:173 (5)
Kimball.
Lucy Walker married to Heber C.
3:173 (6)
Kimball
Margaret Pierce married to Brigham
3:173 (10)
Young.
Diantha Farr married to William
3:175 (5)
Clayton.
Sidney Rigdon and William Law trace the
3:175
deaths of Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith
to the introduction of the spiritual
wife system.
Olive Grey Frost married to Brigham 3:175 (11)
Young.
Accusations of polygamy, adultery,
3:176-177
etc. refuted by Parley P. Pratt.
Rachel Andora Woolsey married to John 3:180 (3)
D. Lee.
Louisa Free married to John D. Lee. 3:180 (4)
Mary Ann Oakley married to John Taylor. 3:180 (4)
Emmeline Free married to Brigham Young. 3:188
(12)
From the Times and Seasons: Cain, who 3:189
taught the doctrine of a "plurality of
wives" and the giants who practiced the
same iniquity, and [276] others who
build up churches and multiply systems
without authority from God are all
co-workers in the same plan.
The charge of polygamy against the
3:189-190
Mormons is refuted by E. M. Webb.
Parley P. Pratt says that the
3:192-194
"spiritual wife" doctrine of J. C.
Bennett and other apostates is not
of God, and those advocating such
doctrine either secretly or publicly
should be rejected.
William Smith accuses Brigham Young, 3:194-195
John Taylor, W. Richards and others
for continually preaching the doctrine
and openly practising adultery, and
says that Joseph and Hyrum would never
have sanctioned the present wicked
Dec 1845
11 Dec 1845
1845-1846
Jan 1846
1 Jan 1846
7 Jan 1846
21 Jan 1846
26 Jan 1846
3 Feb 1846
7 Feb 1846
15 Apr 1846
plans of the Twelve and their doctrine
of polygamy.
Amanda Gheen married to Heber C.
3:195 (7)
Kimball.
Nancy Bean married to John D. Lee.
3:195 (5)
Martha E. Berry married to John D. Lee.
3:196 (6)
Polly Ann Workman married to John D. 3:196 (7)
Lee.
Delthea Morris married to John D. Lee. 3:196 (8)
Prescindia L. Huntington married to 3:196 (8)
Heber C. Kimball.
Ruth Reese married to Heber C. Kimball.
3:196 (9)
Thresa Morley married to Heber C.
3:196 (10)
Kimball.
Sylvia P. Sessions Lyon married to
3:196 (11)
Heber C. Kimball.
Sarah Lawrence married to Heber C.
3:196 (12)
Kimball.
Maria Lawrence married to Brigham
3:196 (13)
Young.
Ellen Rockwood married to Brigham
3:196 (14)
Young.
Sarah Longstroth married to Willard 3:196 (2)
Richards.
Mary H. Smith married to Heber C.
3:197 (13)
Kimball.
Sarah Sanders married to Heber C.
3:197 (14)
Kimball.
Harriet Sanders married to Heber C. 3:197 (15)
Kimball.
Martha Bowker married to Brigham Young. 3:198 (15)
Nanny Longstroth married to Willard 3:198 (3)
Richards.
Martha McBride Knight married to Heber
3:199 (16)
C. Kimball.
Sarah Stiles married to Heber C.
3:199 (17)
Kimball.
Naamah K. J. Carter married to Brigham 3:199 (16)
Young.
Nancy M. Winchester married to Heber C. 3:199
(18)
Kimball.
Sarah Scoll married to Heber C. Kimball. 3:199
(19)
Rebecca Swain Williams married to Heber
3:199 (20)
C. Kimball.
Rebecca Ann Jackson married to Wilford 3:199
(2)
Woodruff.
[277]
30 Apr 1846
The Nauvoo Temple is dedicated
3:199-200
privately.
Sarah C. Williams married to John D. 3:199-200
(9)
Lee.
14 Oct 1846
Margaret M. Alley married to Brigham 3:200 (17)
Young.
21 Dec 1846
Emoline Vaughn married to John D. Lee.
3:201 (10)
27 Feb 1847
Nancy Armstrong married to John D. Lee. 3:201 (11)
Mary V. Young married to John D. Lee. 3:201 (12)
Lavina Young married to John D. Lee. 3:201 (13)
Mar 1847
Lucy Bigelow married to Brigham Young. 3:201 (18)
23 Apr 1847
Sophia Whitaker married to John Taylor.
3:201 (5)
4 Dec 1847
Harriet Whitaker married to John
3:201 (6)
Taylor.
19 Dec 1847
Elizabeth R. Ashby married to Erastus 3:202 (3)
Snow.
29 Jun 1849
Eliza R. Snow married to Brigham Young. 3:202 (21)
15 Jan 1850
That Joseph Smith taught a system of 3:202-203
polygamy is branded a lie and refuted
in the Millenial Star.
1850
Accusations against the Church of
3:204
polygamy branded as too outrageous to
admit of belief by John Taylor.
9 Sep 1850
The Act of Congress providing for the 1:27
organization of the Territory of Utah
was approved.
20 Sep 1850
Brigham Young is appointed Governor of
1:27
Utah Territory.
29 Aug 1852
The first public reading of the
1:28-33
revelation on Celestial marriage
including a plurality of wives was
done in a special conference. No vote
was called for or given.
Jan 1853
The Seer was published putting forth 1:43-110
some of the basic principles of
Mormonism including plural marriage.
3 Jun 1862
The Morrill anti-bigamy bill was passed
1:146
by the United States Senate.
8 Jul 1862
The anti-bigamy bill was approved by 1:147-148, 477-478
President Abraham Lincoln.
10 Mar 1863
Brigham Young is arrested on a charge 1:148
of bigamy
and placed under $2000 bond.
Jan 1867
The Utah Legislature petitioned
1:162
Congress to repeal the 1862 anti-bigamy
law.
6 Dec 1869
[278]
13 Jan 1870
23 Mar 1870
Feb 1871
2 Oct 1871
2 Jan 1872
23 Jun 1874
25 Feb 1875
Dee 1875
27 Apr 1877
29 Aug 1877
1879
6 Jan 1879
Jan 1880
22 Mar 1882
13 Oct 1882
7 Jun 1883
18 Oct 1884
Sen. Aaron H. Cragin introduced an
anti-polygamy bill in the U. S. Senate.
1:171
A mass meeting was held by the ladies 1:171
of Salt Lake City to protest against
passage of the Cullom anti-polygamy bill.
The Cullom bill was passed by the House. 1:171
Judge James B. McKean made belief in 1:174
polygamy a test question in the
naturalization of aliens.
Brigham Young was arrested on an
1:175
indictment charging him with lascivious
cohabitation with his polygamous wives.
Judge McKean refused $500,000 bail for
1:176
the release of President Young.
The Poland Bill was approved, having 1:183, 479-485
passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate.
Judge McKean ordered President Young 1:193
to pay Ann Eliza Young, a divorced
plural wife, $9500 alimony.
The ladies of Utah sent a petition to 1:194
Congress petitioning for statehood and
for the repeal of the anti-polygamy laws.
The case of Ann Eliza Young vs. Brigham
1:198
Young was finally decided, the alimony
being disallowed.
Brigham Young died.
Memorial of Emmeline B. Wells and Zina 1:215-216
Young asking for repeal of the
anti-polygamy law of 1862 was laid
before the House.
The Supreme Court upheld the
1:217-225
constitutionality of the 1862
anti-bigamy law.
Revelation given through Wilford
1:253-260
Woodruff concerning the Patriarchal
Law of Abraham and this nation.
The Edmunds anti-polygamy law became 1:289-290, 486-489
law.
Revelation given through President John
1:309-312
Taylor.
Dr. J.B. Carrington, a non-Mormon, was 1:317
arrested for bigamy and was discharged
notwithstanding proof of his guilt.
John Taylor states on the witness stand
3:210-224
3 Nov 1884
1 Feb 1885
3 Feb 1885
20 Apr 1885
16 Sep 1885
20 Oct 1885
30 Nov 1885
31 Dec 1885
8 Jan 1886
12 Mar 1886
10 May 1886
in the polygamy trials that temples are
not necessary for marriage solemnization,
though preferable, that there are many
men authorized to perform plural sealings.
Rudger Clawson was sentenced to four 1:346
years' [279] imprisonment and $800
fine for polygamy and unlawful
cohabitation.
John Taylor delivers his last public 1:350-363
discourse.
A law passed by the Idaho Legislature
1:363
prohibiting all Mormons from voting,
was approved by Gov. Bunn.
The United States Supreme Court upheld
1:376
the decision of the Utah courts in the
Rudger Clawson polygamy case.
Judge Zane interpreted the law in such
1:390
a way that persons found guilty of
unlawful cohabitation could be
imprisoned for life. This was the
commencement of the segregation policy.
Thomas Simpson, a non-Mormon sentenced
1:390
to two years' imprisonment for polygamy,
was pardoned by President Cleveland and
released from the penetentiary after
seven months' service.
The cases against several men for lewd
3:394
and lascivious conduct were dismissed
in police court because of Judge Zane's
decision.
Lorenzo Snow is convicted of unlawful
1:395
cohabitation notwithstanding the
evidence introduced against him proved
him innocent.
The First District Court at Ogden
1:400
brought another verdict of guilty
against Lorenzo Snow for unlawful
cohabitation in 1884 and 1883 in
conformity with the segregation policy.
Apostle Lorenzo Snow voluntarily went 1:411
to prison in order to have his case
brought before the U.S. Supreme Court
quickly.
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the 1:420
three Snow polygamy cases for "want
of jurisdiction."
13 May 1886
16 Jul 1886
5 Aug 1886
27 Sep 1886
18 Oct 1886
27 Nov 1886
12 Jan 1887
3 Mar 1887
30 Jun 1887
7 Jul 1887
25 Jul 1887
30 Jul 1887
11 Nov 1887
15 Nov 1887
18 Nov 1887
Gov. Caleb West offered amnesty to
1:420
those in prison for polygamy and
unlawful cohabitation if they promised
to obey the law as interpreted by the
courts.
Gov. West issued a proclamation
1:427
warning the Mormons against disobeying
the Edmunds law.
The views of the minority respecting 1:427-439
the Tucker-Edmunds Bill were referred
to the House calendar and ordered to
be printed.
Revelation given to John Taylor
1:442-443
relative to the New and Everlasting 3:227-230
Covenant.
The test oath law is declared
1:444
constitutional.
Wm. A. Morrow, a non-Mormon, charged 1:449
with [280] unlawful cohabitation,
promised to obey the law, and
sentence was suspended.
John T. Caine speaks in the U. S.
1:454-464
House of Representatives in opposition
to the Edmunds-Tucker anti-polygamy bill.
The Edmunds-Tucker Bill becomes law, and 1:464-465, 490-501
takes effect without the signature of
2:1
President
Cleveland.
A constitutional convention, consisting
2:11
entirely of Mormons, met to frame a
Constitution for the State of Utah,
including in it an anti-polygamy
provision.
The First Presidency and the Twelve 2:18
endorsed the Constitution proposed by
the convention.
President John Taylor died in exile. 2:21
Suit was commenced against the Church 2:21
and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund under
the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law.
Receiver Dyer took possession of the 2:49
Tithing office, Salt Lake City.
Receiver Dyer took possession of the 2:49
Historian's office and Gardo House and
demanded the President's office.
Receiver Dyer took possession of the 2:51
property belonging to the Perpetual
22 Nov 1887
23 Nov 1887
12 Dee 1887
13 Jan 1888
18 Feb 1888
29 Feb 1888
13 Mar 1888
25 Aug 1888
24 Sep 1888
23 Jan 1889
26 Apr 1889
25 Sep 1889
Emigrating Fund.
John T. Caine is set apart for his
2:51
labors as Delegate from Utah at Washington.
Receiver Dyer took formal possession 2:51
of the President's office.
Several anti-polygamy measures were 2:52
introduced in the U. S. Senate.
An act for the punishment of polygamy 2:52
was introduced into the Utah Legislature
by Wm. H. King, a Mormon.
Franklin S. Richards explains to the 2:56-58
Senate Committee on Territories that a
Celestial Marriage might or might not
be a plural marriage.
Angus M. Cannon explains that
2:58
polygamous marriages have been
discontinued for nearly a year, and
that persons applying for such marriages
have been refused, and that President
Woodruff affirmed that he (Pres.
Woodruff) could not grant recommends
to the Temple for such marriages.
The Supreme Court of the District of 2:60
Columbia decided that the Edmunds-Tucker
law was in-[281]tended for the Territory
of Utah alone, and was not applicable to
the District of Columbia.
John T. Caine tells the U. S. House of 2:65-70
Representatives that plural marriage in
Utah is a dead issue.
The refusal of the officers of the
2:78
Church to participate in plural
marriages began when the law forbade
them, which was since before the death
of President Taylor.
A letter is written by Pres. Woodruff 2:86
to Pres. M. W. Merrill of the Logan
Temple instructing him to discontinue
plural marriages for the present until
further advised, unless for special
occasions or for prudential reasons.
The Woman's Industrial Christian Home 2:98-99
Assn. is established for the purpose of
receiving and protecting polygamous
wives who wish to renounce the system.
A house of prostitution is raided. The
2:138-139
13 Oct 1889
9 Nov 1889
14 Nov 1889
24 Nov 1889
30 Nov 1889
12 Dec 1889
4 Jan 1890
13 Jan 1890
[282]
25 Jan 1890
3 Feb 1890
25 Mar 1890
10 Apr 1890
19 May 1890
women are fined ten dollars and costs
and committed to the county jail for
30 days. The keeper is fined $100 and
costs and committed to the county jail
for four months.
Wilford Woodruff affirms that he has 2:156-158
refused to give any recommendations for
the performance of plural marriages
since having become President of the
Church, and that President Taylor
also refused before him.
A female charged with keeping a house 2:182-183
of ill fame was acquitted upon the
basis that such laws have become obsolete.
Proceedings concerning Mormon
2:189
naturalizations were commenced in Third
District Court before Judge Thomas J.
Anderson.
Revelation given to Wilford Woodruff 2:223-224
concerning concessions demanded by the
court upon polygamy and other points.
Thomas J. Anderson issues his opinion 2:230-261
that members of the Mormon Church
cannot be naturalized.
Wilford Woodruff issues a manifesto on
2:288-292
politics, the kingdom of God, blood
atonement, etc.
The Idaho test oath case is argued
2:299-324
before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A bill to disfranchise all Mormons was
2:324
introduced in the U. S. House of
Representatives, implementing a test oath.
A constitutional amendment in regard to 2:327-328
polygamy and cohabitation is introduced
in the House.
The Idaho test oath is declared
2:328-329
constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin renders
2:355
a decision effectively prohibiting the
reading of the Bible in the public schools.
The Baskin disfranchisement bill
2:366
relating to the Territory of Utah is
introduced in Congress.
The U. S. Supreme Court rendered a
2:369-395
decision declaring those sections of
20 Sep 1890
24 Sep 1890
25 Sep 1890
6 Oct 1890
3 Dec 1890
19 Jan 1891
19 Oct 1891
20 Oct 1891
20 Oct 1891
19 Dec 1891
4 Feb 1892
Mar 1892
the Edmunds-Tucker Bill escheating
Mormon Church property valid and
constitutional.
The Mormons in Canada do not practice
2:442
polygamy and do not intend to do so.
A manifesto advising the Saints to
2:443
refrain from contracting any marriage
forbidden by the laws of the land
issued by Pres. Woodruff.
The Official Declaration was
2:443-444
telegraphed to Washington, and Bro.
Caine made arrangements to have the
manifesto published in a circular
letter and newspapers. It was published
simultaneously in the Deseret News.
The Official Declaration is presented 2:480
to the Church in Conference and voted upon.
Judge T. J. Anderson reaffirmed his 2:518
former ruling, that alien Mormons were
not entitled to citizenship, he having
no faith in the manifesto.
The U. S. Supreme Court rendered a
2:518
decision that polygamous children born
within one year after the passage of
the Edmunds law were legitimate and
entitled to inherit after their fathers.
Wilford Woodruff says that the
2:525-532
manifesto did not change the tenet or
principle of faith of the Church to
which it had reference.
Pres. George Q. Cannon states that he 2:533
has no hope or expectation that the
practice of polygamy or plural
marriage will ever be re-established
in the Church.
President Joseph F. Smith says that he 2:536-537
understands the intention of President
Woodruff in issuing the manifesto to be
to stop the practice of polygamy in the
Church permanently.
The Petition for Amnesty is sent to the
2:547-550
President [283] of the United States.
An act to punish polygamy and other 2:551, 591-592
kindred offences was passed in the Utah
Territorial Legislature.
Proceedings in the Temple Lot case: 3:237-278
4 Jan 1893
17 Jul 1893
Oct 1893
5 Apr 1894
18 Sep 1894
27 Sep 1894
6 May 1895
13 Nov 1895
4 Jan 1896
1896
Depositions concerning polygamy in
Nauvoo given by President Woodruff
and others.
Benjamin Harrison, as President of the
2:565-566
United States, grants full amnesty and
pardon to all persons who have abstained
from unlawful cohabitation under color
of polygamous or plural marriage since
Nov. 1st 1890.
The Utah Commission ruled that former
2:567-568
polygamists who had not violated the
Edmunds Law since Nov. 1, 1890, were
entitled to vote in elections.
An amended bill providing for the
2:568
restoration of Church property is
passed by Congress.
George Q. Cannon says: "I believe in
concubinage, or some plan whereby men
and women can live together under sacred
ordinances and vows until they can be
married ... until the laws of our
government change to permit the holy
order of wedlock which God has revealed.
A new oath was framed by the Utah
2:569
Commission for polygamists.
Pres. Grover Cleveland issues a
2:569
proclamation granting pardon and
restoring civil rights to all persons
who were disfranchised by the
anti-polygamy laws excepting those who
had not complied with Pres. Harrison's
proclamation.
A Constitutional Convention adopted a
2:569, 593-594
Constitution for the State of Utah which
included anti-polygamy provisions.
It was decided by the United States 2:570
Supreme Court that the Edmunds Law was
applicable as thoroughly to the District
of Columbia as to the Territory of Utah,
thus reversing the court's former
decision.
Utah was proclaimed a State by Pres. 2:570
Grover Cleveland.
Laws pertaining to polygamy, unlawful 2:595-596
cohabitation and related items were
adopted by the Utah State Legislature
13 Jan 1896
[284]
12 Sep 1897
13 Sep 1897
May 1898
2 Sep 1898
1899
7 Jan 1899
30 Dec 1898
8 May 1899
9 Sep 1899
8 Jan 1900
6 Mar 1901
14 Mar 1901
verbatim from the former Territorial
Statutes.
That the divine law of Celestial
3:297
marriage has not changed is affirmed
in the Deseret News.
Methodist ministers declare that
3:297
polygamy is still being practiced by
Mormons officials and members.
That polygamy is still being practiced
3:280-283
by the Mormon Church is denied by
Angus M. Cannon.
Brigham H. Roberts declares that
3:282
Christians must learn to tolerate
polygamy.
President Wilford Woodruff died.
James E. Talmage publishes that the 3:283-286
Saints are required to give strict
allegiance to the civil laws.
Charles W. Penrose says that no plural 3:286-288
marriages have been permitted or
solemnized after the Woodruff manifesto,
and that there is no intention of
reviving them in this state.
Lorenzo Snow says that polygamous
3:289-290
marriages in the Mormon Church have
entirely ceased.
Lorenzo Snow says that the principle 3:300
of plural marriage is not practiced nor
are such ceremonies performed nor
permitted.
Heber J. Grant pleads guilty to
3:309
unlawful cohabitation and pays a fine.
Lorenzo Snow says that the Church has
3:313-315
positively abandoned the practice of
polygamy or the solemnization of plural
marriages in this and every other state,
that no member or officer thereof has
any authority whatever to perform a
plural marriage or enter into such
relation, nor does it advise or
encourage unlawful cohabitation.
The Evans amendment respecting adultery
3:326
is introduced into the Utah State Senate.
Gov. Heber M. Wells vetoes the Evans
3:326-329
amendment.
Jan 1904
16 Jun 1906
11 Jun 1906
10 Oct 1910
6 Apr 1911
4 Oct 1918
Apr 1921
4 Jun 1923
17 Jun 1933
14 Mar 1935
7 May 1970
24 Feb 1974
Hearings are commenced in the U. S. 3:331-371
Senate regarding the seating of Senator
Reed Smoot.
John Henry Smith says that the
3:377
manifesto is only a trick to beat the
devil at is own game.
Protestations are issued against the 3:377-400
seating of Reed Smoot in the U. S.
Senate on the polygamy issue.
A list of 200 men who have entered
3:417-423
polygamy since the issuance of the
Woodruff manifesto is published.
Joseph F. Smith affirms that plural 3:432-434
marriages have ceased in the Church as
it was announced [285] by Presidents
Woodruff and Snow, and that no man in
the Church or anywhere outside of it
has authority to solemnize a plural
marriage, not one!
Charles W. Penrose says that plural 3:436
marriages are no longer solemnized.
Heber J. Grant says that no person has 3:442
the right to perform plural marriages.
Temple garments are greatly modified. 3:445-447
The Official Statement relating the 3:456-473
history of plural marriage and outlining
the policy of the Church in regard to it
is published in the Church News.
Unlawful cohabitation is made a felony
3:473-474
by law.
The director of the United States
3:478-480
Census Bureau apologizes for implying
that those living in polygamy have
anything to do with the Mormon Church
in his instructions to those taking
the census.
Elder Reed C. Durham, Jr., acknowledges
4:49
that the Church has the 1886 revelation
and reveals that handwriting analysis
show it to be written in John Taylor's
handwriting.
[286]
AEB
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
Albert E. Bowen
JCK
Joseph C. Kingsbury
AHC
AHL
AM
AMC
AMM
AOS
ARD
BER
BFJ
BHR
BS
BY
CCR
CW
CWP
DF
DHW
DMT
EDP
EER
ES
EmS
ERS
FDR
FJC
FML
FSR
GAS
GOL
GT
GQC
HBL
HLA
HJG
HMW
HS
Abraham H. Cannon
Anthon H. Lund
Aurelius Miner
Angus M. Cannon
Amos Milton Musser
A. O. Smoot
Alvin R. Dyer
Ben E. Rich
Benjamin F. Johnson
Brigham H. Roberts
Bathsheba Smith
Brigham Young
Charles C. Rich
Charles Walker
Charles W. Penrose
David Fullmer
Daniel H. Wells
Douglas M. Todd
Emily Dow Partridge
E. E. Rich
Erastus Snow
Emma Smith
Eliza R. Snow
Franklin D. Richards
Frank J. Cannon
Francis M. Lyman
Franklin S. Richards
George Albert Smith
Gustive O. Larson
George Teasdale
George Q. Cannon
Harold B. Lee
Hyrum L. Andrus
Heber J. Grant
Heber M. Wells
Hyrum Smith
JDL
John D. Lee
JET
James E. Talmage
JFS
Joseph F. Smith
JFIdS Joseph Fielding Smith
JHS
John Henry Smith
JLR
Joseph Lee Robinson
JMG
Jedediah M. Grant
JRC
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
JS
Joseph Smith
JT
John Taylor
JTC
John T. Caine
LCW
Lorin C. Woolley
LJA
Leonard J. Arrington
LJNL. John Nuttall
LOL
Lyman O. Littlefield
LS
Lorenzo Snow
LWK
Lucy W. Kimball
MFC
Mathias F. Cowley
OFW
Orson F. Whitney
OH
Orson Hyde
OP
Orson Pratt
OS
Orson Spencer
PPP
Parley P. Pratt
RC
Rudger Clawson
SAW
Samuel A. Woolley
SLR
Steven L. Richards
SR
Sidney Rigdon
SWR
Samuel W. Richards
SWT
Samuel W. Taylor
TS
Thomas Smith
UHJ
Udney Hay Jacobs
WC
William Clayton
WS
William Smith
WW
Wilford Woodruff
WWP
William W. Phelps