Back to Gospel Discussions Page

Introduction

If the Manifesto were revoked tomorrow, how many of you would be willing to enter into plural marriage? Probably not very many-especially if you're Mormon.

Professor Davis Bitton made the following statement, which think is very accurate:

Today probably no modern people is more anti-polygamy than the orthodox Mormons. (Journal. Of Mormon History, 1977, No. 4, p. 101)

Most Gentiles are also against plural marriage, and they look at it as a curiosity. The news media s an example. Whenever a polygamist does something of note, they are sure to mention that he is a polygamist. "Polygamist so-and-so did this, and polygamist so-and-so did that." You may remember in the newspapers not long ago, it was stated that Polygamist Ogden Kraut crawled over the fence in the Singer-Swapp case. I don't know if that means a polygamist can crawl over the fence better than a monogamist, or not.

They always mention the marital relationship in the case of a polygamist; however, they don't do that with anyone else. They don't say, "Monogamist Bush had a press conference today." Or, "the Celibate Pope gave his Easter message."

It's a strange society we live in. Here are some of the situations we see frequently all around us:

But if someone mentions polygamy, they say, "Now that's strange!"

It seems that our common sexual practices today are the ones that are forbidden in the Bible, and the correct principle of marriage that was taught in the Bible is now forbidden. I don't know how we got so mixed up!

Early History

We have to go a long way back to understand what has changed our thinking regarding plural marriage-a long way back! It starts in the first book of the Bible, as early as the fifth chapter, and in that book of Genesis, we read about many great men, several of whom we honor and revere for their faithfulness. For example, Abraham-he was called the Father of the Faithful, the Friend of God, who talked with God and angels; and yet he was a polygamist! [He also had many concubines, who bore him children-Genesis 25:6.] He was the George Washington of all religions. He was honored by the Moslems; he is honored by all the Jews; he is honored by all the Christians.

And its the same way with the other judges, kings, prophets, and patriarchs of the Bible. For instance, Gideon-a great man who spoke with angels and led the hosts of Israel. He had 70 sons-and probably as many daughters. And today you can go to nearly any hotel in the United States and when you open up the dresser drawer, you'll probably see a Bible there with Gideon stamped on it-the name of a polygamist! You see how we honor the ancient patriarchs who lived plural marriage, but we ridicule the living ones.

The Moslems, along with their respect for Abraham and the other early prophets, also honored their lifestyle of plural marriage that started out in the early books of the Bible and ran like a heavy stream all the way through for 4,000 years to the end of the Old Testament. And the Moslems still honor plural marriage today.

The Jews honored it for about 3,000 years, and then a strange thing happened. They gave it up because of a rabbi by the name of Gershom Ben Judah. He was the Wilford Woodruff of the Jews. He wrote a book called The Light of the Exile, in which was a prohibition against plural marriage; however, it didn't completely stop its practice. For centuries some of them continued t live plural marriage down around Spain and some of the other countries, and even today you can find plural marriage lived among the Jews over in Jerusalem. I guess they could be called Jewish fundamentalists.

I was talking to a Jewish rabbi one day, and I said that it appeared to me that those laws regarding morality and marriage should be lived even today. And he answered that was correct. And I said, "Well, in the 22nd chapter of Exodus there is a quotation that says that if a man entices a maid and lies with her, he should surely endow her to be his wife. " He said, "That's correct." And I said, "Well then, what happens if he entices two maids and lies with them?" He looked at me for a minute and said, "Well, we don't believe in polygamy." And I asked him why not since it was a moral law. He responded, "Rabbi Gershom changed that." I asked again,, "How is it that a man can change the laws of God? We have that same problem not resolved in the Mormon Church." He just shook his head and realized that they didn't have it resolved either.

Well how does this affect Christianity and those living during the time of Christ? There was no prohibitions against it then, The great scholar Flavius Josephus lived plural marriage and that was at the time of Christ. Many of the disciples of Christ, and even Jesus we are told, lived plural marriage In fact, I wrote a book on this subject called Jesus Was Married-but it was never a best seller.

And so, this tradition has followed down through the ages, and many of the reformers realized that it was a correct doctrine-that there was nothing against. From about 1400 to 1800, there were many Protestant pamphlets advocating plural marriage, and even the great scholar, Martin Luther, for 18 years defended it as a correct principle. And when Prince Phillip of Hess in Germany went to Luther and said that he wanted a son to raise up and take his place on the throne, he told Luther that his wife wouldn't have any more children. Luther said that he would think about it and discuss it. So he got some of the best scholars that he had and brought them together. After their discussion, he told Prince Phillip that it was all right for him to take another wife. And this is what Luther told him:

The gospel of Christ hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. (History of Variations of the Protestant Churches, James Bosuet, Vol. 1)

Even the Church of England was founded on the principle of plural marriage. There was a battle between Henry VIII and the Catholic Church. He believed in marriage, but not divorce.

The only time I ever heard of anyone that found a scripture against plural marriage was Mark Twain, where he came into the Salt Lake Valley one time and got into an argument with an elder. Twain told him that the Bible was against plural marriage. The Elder said, "Mr. Twain, you find one scripture in that Bible against plural marriage." Twain thought for a moment and then said, "All right, 'No man can serve two masters!'" How are you going to argue with that?

We have adopted many customs, traditions, and laws from the Romans. The wearing of a ring on the wedding finger is a tradition of the Romans; carrying the bride across the threshold came from the Romans; and the law of monogamy came from the Romans, too-and the Caesars. They said it was all right to have as many wives as you want but not at the same time-you have to get rid of the previous one first. This is the same law we're following today.

Joseph Smith and the Restoration

Well, what about the restoration and Joseph Smith? Why did he bring in such a practice against the existing traditions and laws? I have to quote Mark Petersen here, as he gave a very good explanation. He asked a question and then answered it:

Why was plural marriage practiced by the Latter-day Saints? The Lord refers to it as part of the restoration of all things. The Prophet Joseph did not wish to enter into polygamy. It was farthest from his mind. But he was the restorer, and through him "all things" must be restored. (Way of the Master, p. 43.)

Apparently, the Lord was quite eager to let them know about it because Brigham Young said that that doctrine was revealed to Joseph and Oliver Cowdery while they were translating the Book of Mormon in 1829, before the Church was organized. About this time, Oliver said to Joseph that since they knew it was true, why should they delay. He thought they should go into it immediately. Joseph answered him that it was not time.

Well, Cowdery was over-eager and Joseph was too reluctant. Oliver Cowdery, I understand married the niece of George A. Smith-her name was Lyman, I believe-and I guess that didn't last very long. But Joseph had an angel come to him three times, telling him to obey that law. One of his wives said on this third appearance the angel brought a sword. I guess he meant business that time! So Joseph went into it-probably as early as 1835.

But he had trouble introducing it to the members of the Church. He made the following statement:

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions; they cannot stand the fire at all. (TPJS, p. 331)

So there were a few members who lived plural marriage for ten years before the Church accepted it.

Government Law Versus God's Law

In 1862 Abraham Lincoln said that the Mormons were like a big green tree that was too big to remove and too green to burn, and so they would just have to plow around it. But he took another course of action and signed a law against plural marriage in the territories, which was definitely against the Mormons.

It is interesting to note here that each time the Government would make a law against plural marriage, the Lord gave a revelation sustaining it. This see-saw went back and fourth right up to the time of the Manifesto. Let's look at some of these revelations:

Wilford Woodruff received a revelation in 1880 that said,

"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 . . ." (1880 Revelation, v. 20)

It is a very lengthy revelation. Strange that it is not included in our Doctrine and Covenants. In 1882 another revelation came to John Taylor, and this one said,

"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." (Messages of the First Presidency 2:345)

Wilford Woodruff said what was meant by "my law" was plural marriage. An do in this particular verse, the Lord is saying that he didn't want anyone presiding over His Priesthood unless he was a polygamist. But, of course, that changed within ten years. This revelation is not in the Doctrine and Covenants either.

Now we come to a revelation received in 1886, and this one is somewhat controversial. Mark E. Petersen said that it was concocted and spurious, and that it was a false revelation allegedly given to President John Taylor in 1886, which pretended to have secret authority given to perform plural marriages.

Well, this revelation is the springboard for Fundamentalism, and it is not so much the revelation that became controversial as the meeting that was held afterwards. That's another whole story, and we won't go into that now.

Part of this 1886 revelation states:

I the Lord do not change and my word and my law and my covenants 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 Abraham? I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting. (Revelations 1880-1890, Kraut, p. 30)

[The text of this revelation is also available in several other sources, including in the official minutes of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve on 22 February 1911, at the occasion of the trial for the membership of President John Taylor's son and former Apostle John W. Taylor. During the course of this trial, John W. Taylor repeatedly affirmed the authenticity of this revelation which his father had received.]

And another part of this revelation was, "Furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters." The Lord was never gong to force anybody into it, nor is He going to force them away from it. They have to use their free agency.

This passage about now using free agency is one that broke up the order and procedure, as Fundamentalists see it, of having to beg permission from the first wife, and the parents, and then the bishop and stake president, and maybe the apostleship or church president. Now, since conditions were getting hot and heavy with the U.S. Government, and many Church members didn't want to continue plural marriage any more in the Church, this traditional order was now being broken up.

In fact, John Taylor one time was being questioned in court by a federal attorney as to who held the authority to perform plural marriage, and President Taylor responded that he had ordained hundreds of men to perform plural marriages. The lawyer said, "Would you be so kind as to give me those names?" And John Taylor said, "No, I will not be so kind."

In 1889 another revelation came, and this one was received by Wilford Woodruff just ten months before the Manifesto. Abraham Cannon said that they were in a quandary as to what to do. They weren't sure how to handle the situation because the Government was putting so much pressure on the Church.

When the revelation came, Cannon wrote in his journal:

The whole revelation was filled with words of the greatest encouragement and comfort. *** It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue. (Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Dec. 19, 1889)

Excerpts from this revelation read:

In that revelation, there were about 12 very positive statements instructing them not to compromise or give in. However, ten months later, they did.

This revelation is also not in the Doctrine and Covenants. This is a strange thing. I have found about a dozen revelations received between 1880 and 1890, all of who have "Thus saith the Lord" in them, and none of them are in the Doctrine and Covenants. I better modify that statement somewhat There were some editions of the Swedish, German, and Danish Doctrine and Covenants that had some of these revelations contained in them. It seems somewhat peculiar, however, that the Lord revealed those revelations in English, and they were first written down in English, and then they were printed in a foreign language.

Isn't it interesting to note that during the first 60 years of the LDS Church, there were over 100 revelations that contained "Thus saith the Lord;" but after the Manifesto was accepted as official doctrine, as a revelation, for the following 100 years we have never had one revelation to the Church with "Thus saith the Lord" in it.

Another significant fact to consider is that some of the leaders of the Church lived plural marriage before the Church accepted it, and man of the leaders lived it after the Church rejected it. Could it be that the law of plural marriage is always a Priesthood law, and only a Church law when voted on by the members?

To Whom It May Concern

The Manifesto says "To Whom it May Concern." Well now, who did it concern?

It didn't seem to concern Wilford Woodruff, because apparently he took another wife seven years after he issued the Manifesto.

It didn't seem to concern his counselors, because one of them was issuing recommends to go into plural marriage, and the other was performing the ceremony up to 14 years after the Manifesto.

It didn't seem to concern the apostles, because most of them married additional wives afterwards, or at least continued to live it.

It didn't seem to concern many of the general membership of the Church because they had plural marriages performed in Mexico, Canada, on the high seas, and some of them didn't even bother to travel; they stayed right here [in Utah] and went into it.

And it didn't seem to concern the Federal Government afterwards, because they didn't put people in Jail after that.

Many of the states weren't concerned, because they made laws stating that "anything between consenting adults" was legal.

It doesn't seem to concern the Reorganized Church now, because they received a "revelation" in 1972 stating that they could allow polygamists to come into their church.

And for a while after the 1978 announcement, it didn't seem to concern the Black Mormons in Africa, because many of them joined the Church with their plural wives.

And it certainly doesn't concern the Fundamentalists. They all feel about like Louis Kelsch. He was a man who had wives and spent seven years in prison for those wives-the longest time that any man has served in prison for this principle. When he was called in for trial on his membership in the Church, he was asked, "Haven't you read the Manifesto?" And Louis said, "Well, yes, I read it but it says 'To Whom it May Concern,' and it doesn't concern me a damn bit!"

Who then, did it really concern?

It concerned Hugh B. Brown and J. Reuben Clark, the lawyers, that I understand helped to formulate the law making plural marriage a felony in the state of Utah. And they did the best they could to enforce it.

It concerned the son of B. H. Roberts, who was the prosecuting attorney that tried to get Fundamentalists and polygamists into prison. If it had not been for the timing, he could have put his own father in prison.

It concerned some Church historians, because they have tried to cover it up, and many of the books now on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young never mention that they lived polygamy nor identify any of their wives. Martha Bradley in her Sunstone article entitled "Changed Faces: The Official LDS Position on Polygamy 1890-1980," admitted:

The polygamist Joseph Smith or Brigham Young is rarely acknowledged. *** The concept of plural marriage is not part of the oral or written traditions of the modern-day public church. (Sunstone, Feb. 1990, p. 32)

It concerned Mark Petersen, because he sent out these test oaths. He blessed me with one of those. This is the time when believing in plural marriage was just about as bad as living it.

And as for Heber J. Grant-well, it didn't concern him and then again it did. He paid $100 fine nine years after the Manifesto for living with three wives. And then in a matter of a few years later, he said he would be glad when they put the polygamists in jail!

And Bruce McConkie-well, his was kid of a yo-yo concern. He made the following statement about those who lived plural marriage before the Manifesto:

Those who entered this order at the Lord's command, and who kept the laws and conditions appertaining to it, have gained for themselves eternal exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world! (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., 1979, p. 578)

Isn't that good? And then he talked about those who lived it after the Manifesto:

They are living in adultery, have sold their souls to Satan, and whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust or both, they will be damned in eternity. (Ibid., 1st ed., p. 523)

And then he turns around and talks about a future time when plural marriage will be lived again:

Obviously the holy practice <of plural marriage> will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium. (Ibid., 2nd ed., p. 578)

After the first edition of his Mormon Doctrine book, McConkie left out the part about those polygamists after the Manifesto selling their soul to Satan and being damned. I wrote and asked him if he omitted that because it would condemn several Church presidents and apostles and good Latter-day Saints, but he never answered my letter.

Belief Versus Practice

The stand taken by most LDS is that we believe in plural marriage but we are forbidden to live it today. To me, that's like saying, "Well, we believe in the Ten Commandments, but we can't live them right now."

But strangely enough, it was never a very popular practice. It has been reported that from 3% to 21% maximum is all that lived it in the LDS Church before the Manifesto. In a way, that is a disgrace. Here was a principle they were told would exalt them, and we're looking at 80% to 95% of the members who would not or did not live it. It had died a slow death, but it never really lived.

Mark Petersen said that there were only two reasons it was lived anyway [need to raise up seed & alleged superfluity of women]. I just briefly looked in the Old Testament and found 17 good reasons; and then I noted another 35 that were taught by some of the 19th century leaders of the Church.

During the Smoot Hearing in 1904, Joseph F. Smith was called in and questioned about living plural marriage after the Manifesto. He had this to say:

The Church has obeyed the law of the land, and it has kept its pledges with this Government, but I have not, as an individual, I have taken that chance myself. (Smoot Investigation 1:97; also Salt Lake Tribune, 8 October 1910)

Now, that's spoken like a true Fundamentalist!

When the law didn't seem to get a lot of the people living plural marriage after the Manifesto, they thought maybe shame and embarrassment and ridicule would stamp it out. For example, when B. H. Roberts went back to take his seat in Congress [The Senate], they tried every ways they could to embarrass and shame him and make look foolish for his belief and practice of plural marriage. Finally, as he was leaving, he got up and said:

I shall leave this august chamber with head erect and brow undaunted and walk God's earth as the angels walk the clouds, with no sense of shame upon me. (Congressional Record 3:1104)

Now there's a man!

Mark Petersen said that laws were enacted in Congress to ban plural marriage and so the Church was committed to honor that. That sounds good, and its' very reasonable, and I think that's nice-but that's not the way it was. Joseph Smith lived it in five states that had laws against plural marriage. Brigham Young lived it for 15 years in opposition to the "law." John Taylor had to live about half of his ten-year administration underground because he would not yield to the "law." And Wilford Woodruff lived it for several years before giving in.

So, it took the Church about 50 years to finally give in to the "law," and after the writing of the Manifesto, a lot of thinking on plural marriage started to change. For instance, note the following comparisons:

Brigham Young:

The doctrine of polygamy with the Mormons is not classed with "non-essentials." It is not an item of doctrine than can be yielded and faith in the system remain. (Mill. Star 27673)

James E. Talmage:

But that plural marriage is a vital tenet of the Church is not true. *** Plurality of wives was an incident, never an essential. (Story and Philosophy of Mormonism, p. 89)

John Taylor:

Plural marriage is as much a part of our religion as faith, repentance and baptism. (Life of John Taylor, p. 357)

John A. Widstoe:

We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage. (Improvement Era 46:191)

It would be a sad day for Joseph Smith if he were alive today and wanted to join the Church he started, but was denied membership because of his plural wives!

It would certainly trouble Brigham Young if he were refused admittance to BYU, the university bearing his name, because of his many wives and beard!

It would upset John Taylor to be ousted for promoting the Kingdom of God instead of the Republicans or Democrats.

Conclusion

The principle of plural marriage has been covered up, changed, denied, frowned upon, legislated against-but it's still there. To some, it is a proud heritage; to others, an embarrassment; to the rest, a curiosity. This perplexing history may be discarded or burned up, but like a Phoenix, it keeps rising again and again from its own ashes.

Men and women suffered for their belief and practice of plural marriage before the Manifesto, and they did the same afterwards. Right or wrong in the eye of the beholder, they deserve respect for their faith and their sacrifice.

The worst thing about it is-it doesn't matter whether we live it or don't live it, whether we believe it or don't believe it-the thing that I think is really hurting the Church and Mormons in general is the fact that they're trying to cover up or whitewash or change history, and that's wrong. The greatest sword that is being used by anti-Mormons is when they expose and relate the facts of history and show many of the Mormon people what really happened, and the Mormons won't believe it because they have been told otherwise.

Will plural marriage survive? There was certainly no question about its survival in the minds of many of the early Church leaders:

Brigham Young:

I can deliver a prophecy on it ... and I tell you-for I know it-it will sail over, and ride triumphantly above all the prejudice and priestcraft of the day. (Millennial Star 15:31 Supplement)

John Taylor:

Polygamy is a divine institution. It has been handed down direct from God. The United States cannot abolish it. (S.L. Tribune, Jan. 6, 1880)

Heber C. Kimball:

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away. (JD 3:125) It would be as easy for the United States to build a tower to removed the sun, as to remove polygamy. (Millennial Star 28:190)

Wilford Woodruff:

We won't quit practicing plural marriage until Christ shall come. (Utah Hist. Quar., Fall 1971, 39:359; statement dated May 1888)

So the Manifesto was a revelation only in the sense that it revealed the will of the majority of the Mormons. God had made it very clear that He would not revoke it.

If the Manifesto was meant to stop plural marriage, it failed, because there are more polygamists today than there were when the Manifesto was issued.

I consider it a great honor and privilege to have been called to speak here tonight. It was a lot of fun for me. Thank you very much.