The Manifesto of September 24, 1890

by John W. Pratt

Back to Gospel Discussions Page

The following is a brief review of several of the elements of the historical context of the "Manifesto" document, issued by Wilford Woodruff on 24 September 1890. It will be shown in this paper that the LDS leadership of the day did not consider the "Manifesto" to be a revelation from God at all, which fact is supported by not only the statements and personal actions of the LDS leadership of that time, but also by the historical situations of the day.

From that day to this, the LDS leadership has been preaching falsehoods instead of facts regarding this most sensitive yet critical issue of LDS church history. These undeniable falsehoods preached presently by the LDS church on this issue attest to their apostasy and cover-up of the same about this high and exalting principle, as with many other principles of the fullness of the gospel which have been abrogated as part of this more than 100 year slide of apostasy.

The former doctrine of the LDS Church was that plural marriage was an essential for exaltation in the highest degree. This was most clearly taught by all of the early brethren such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and their contemporaries. This principle was not instituted merely because of any superfluity of women in the former days of the LDS church, nor merely because they were to "raise up a righteous posterity." The bare facts are that plural marriage is a principle of the heavens, and that Joseph Smith is the Lord's servant to set up and redeem a Zion society in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times, which requires all of the Lord's celestial principles to truly accomplish. This earthly Zion must be prepared in all things to greet the return of Enoch's Zion and will have to have already become like Enoch's Zion preparatory to its return to usher in the Millennium.

Plural marriage is not a principle to demean men or women, nor is it a lifestyle to serve any of the carnal natures of humankind. The challenges for both men and women are to perfect and purify ourselves, to purge out the dross from ourselves, to improve our natures, and overcome our character defects as we perfect ourselves to attain unto the Divine Nature.

While many different relevant topics are touched on here, it is impossible to develop each one fully in this paper. Rest assured that a much fuller development of each of the topics or themes mentioned only briefly in this review has been accomplished in other works.

This was a very colorful time to say the least in the history of the LDS church, and much historical information relevant to events surrounding the Manifesto that is generally unknown among members of the LDS church begs for study and contemplation. The segments of the Manifesto quoted below are represented in italics to differentiate between other quoted material. All quoted material is indented at both margins.

First paragraph of the Manifesto text:

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 Com-mission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such plural marriages have been contracted 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--

The enemies of the church were indeed active in seeking all ways in which to eradicate what they felt was, like slavery, one of the "twin relics of barbarism" (1) of the nineteenth century. In fact, the Republican party was originally founded with this platform plank (the twin relics of barbarism) as a foundation. Upon the eradication of slavery, their attention focused on the Mormon practice of plural marriage. In addition, an unstated yet undisputed and clear goal of the movement against Mormonism was the destruction of the church in its existent state with its practices and doctrines so unusual to the rest of the world. Most press dispatches throughout this time regarding the Mormons were indeed sent for "political purposes."

The Utah Commission was appointed by the Secretary of the Interior to bring about the halt of the practice of plural marriage, and to monitor the progress of this effort. During the year or so before the Manifesto, they were engaged in monitoring the occurrence of new plural marriages and assisting in the prosecution of those involved in plural marriage, whether these marriages were performed recently or some time before. Just prior to the issuance of the Manifesto, this commission had prepared and was almost ready to send a report back to Washington D.C. stating that there had been "forty or more" new plural marriages performed during the time period of about one year before the Manifesto, (2) during which time the Commission felt that there had been a commitment from the Church to not continue nor promote the practice, as there had been some number of public statements by the Church leadership to that effect in the year or so before 1890. President Woodruff alludes to these verbal promises in the next segment of the Manifesto in which he essentially states that the church was not teaching, promoting, nor performing plural marriages. (In the last paragraph of the Manifesto he refers to these promises more specifically, using the words "during the time specified" during which time he claims that plural marriage had not been preached nor promoted by the Church.) In the text which continues, President Woodruff gives his response to the charges of the Utah Commission:

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.

Contrary to his statement above, there were numerous statements by the leadership of the Church at the time and after the manifesto which demonstrate a continued adherence to, and a preaching of the principle of plural marriage. For example:

[Referring to the principle of plural marriage] No principle or revelation that God ever gave to his people was to be laid on the shelf as a thing of the past. (Apostle John Henry Smith, one week before the Manifesto) (3)

[The Church leadership] could not ask Church members to obey the law and repudiate their plural wives. (Apostle Brigham Young, Jr., Spring 1890) (4)

I design [to continue] to live with and have children by my wives, using the wisdom God gives me to avoid being captured by the officers of the law. (Apostle Francis M. Lyman, 1890) (5)

I am a law breaker; so is Bishop Whitney; so is B. H. Roberts. My wives have brought me only daughters. I propose to marry until I get wives who will bring me sons. (Heber J. Grant, 1899) (6)

While it is difficult to ascertain whether or not there were exactly forty new plural marriages solemnized during the year before the Manifesto, it has been well established that there was indeed an appreciable number of plural marriages during this time period that were performed. (7) Some of the evidence for this may be obtained in LDS Stake genealogical libraries.

For example, Apostle Brigham Young Junior is listed in the records in stake center genealogical libraries as having wives that he married in 1855, 1887, and again in June 1890 (Helen Armstrong). This alone runs against the Manifesto denial statement of Wilford Woodruff. This is additionally significant, as Brigham Young Junior was one of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve at that time. Also, Brigham Young Junior was not the only member of the twelve to take a plural wife during the period which President Woodruff denied that any plural marriages had occurred. Apostles Marriner W. Merrill and Franklin D. Richards each took a plural wife during this period, as did John W. Taylor, who became an apostle a few years after. (8)

President Woodruff does refer to the occurrence of one new plural marriage, however, in the next paragraph of the Manifesto:

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 cons-equence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

In the LDS D&C Class Member Study Guide (9) for the 1997 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School class, it states on page 27 that President Woodruff had the Endowment House torn down "because of persistent rumors that plural marriages were performed in the Endowment House after the Manifesto was issued." While there were indeed many plural marriages performed after the Manifesto, this was not the reason for tearing down the Endowment House. This statement in the D&C Class Member Study Guide reflects considerable ignorance of the historical facts. As President Woodruff points out in the Manifesto document itself, the building had been already town down by his orders before the Manifesto document was issued.

While the Utah commission was asserting that "forty or more" new plural marriages were solemnized in the territory during the previous year, which President Woodruff denied in general, he did relate in the Manifesto, as mentioned already, that one such marriage occurred in the Endowment House during this approximate time frame, and this is what he claimed was the reason for tearing down the Endowment House. The pressure from the Utah Commission report on pre-Manifesto "rumors" would certainly have contributed to his action, as this would demonstrate to the world and to the Utah Commission that he was serious about halting new plural marriages. Note that this effort on his part to demonstrate a will to halt plural marriage was undertaken even before issuing the Manifesto.

In the same paragraph of the Study Guide referred to above, it is also implied that the Salt Lake temple was operating at the time of the Endowment House razing, or at least ready to be used: "Sacred temple ordinances were authorized to be performed there [Endowment House] until the Salt Lake Temple was completed." This is not accurate, although the point is moot. The Endowment House was torn down some time before September 1890 (issuance of the Manifesto), presumably around the summer of 1889; the Salt Lake temple was not dedicated until April 6, 1893.

The point here is that tearing down the Endowment House had no effect on the Church's ability to solemnize plural marriages any more that it had on the ability of the Church to solemnize any monogamous marriage performed by the Priesthood. The sealing power, authority, and keys had also been given to many men outside the Quorum of the Twelve. Also at the time, the Logan, Manti, and St. George Temples were operating, and not only that, the historical records demonstrate that marriage sealing ceremonies, plural or otherwise, could also be and were indeed performed in church buildings, private residences, on board ocean vessels, and even riding around in a carriage in Liberty Park at night. (10)

However, tearing down the edifice where it was reported than an "illicit" marriage was performed might ostensibly have some impact on convincing those outside the church, such as the Utah Commission, that President Woodruff was willing to halt plural marriages.

As to this "alleged" plural marriage ceremony in the Spring of 1899 solemnized in the Endowment House, it did indeed occur, and involved Hans Jespersen from Goshen, Utah and Alice Horton, who became pregnant not long after the marriage ceremony. While it is possibly true that at the time of the Manifesto President Woodruff did not know precisely the identity of the man who performed the marriage, this statement is greatly misleading. That President Woodruff interviewed or otherwise had intimate access to the parties involved is evident from the Manifesto where he states:

". . . in which the parties allege. . ."

The reason that President Woodruff was not "able to learn who performed the ceremony," was because the parties said that the officiator wore a disguise so that they would be unable to reveal who performed the ceremony! (11) It can be conjectured, probably with some safety, that President Woodruff could easily have ascertained who performed this ceremony. As it turns out, this marriage was solemnized by Apostle Franklin D. Richards. (12)

Next in the Manifesto text, President Woodruff ties the reasons for discontinuing the practice of plural marriage to the fact that the "court of last resort" or the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the "anti-bigamy" laws that Church polygamists had been in violation of for so many years. He continued:

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort,

However, it had been during only a short time of the history of the Church that plural marriage had not been illegal. But the Church, saints and leaders, felt that it was more important to obey the laws of God rather then those laws of the land which they felt violated the laws of God. During the years that plural marriage was practiced, the Saints had always felt that plural marriage should be protected under the Freedom of Religion provisions of the First Amendment. As it says in Section 98 of the D&C:

And that 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. (D&C 98:5-7)

For example, plural marriage was illegal in the state of Illinois when the Lord directed the Prophet Joseph to start initiating the practice among the twelve and a few others close to the leadership. (13) When the Saints arrived in Utah in 1847, the Great Basin area had just been acquired from Mexico, and being a territory, fell only under federal laws affecting territories. For a short while, plural marriage was legal in "Deseret", as Congress had not yet (although many individual states had) passed "anti-bigamy" laws. The first "anti-bigamy" law was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Lincoln in July 1862 (14), and while not enforceable at the time, this none the less still made plural marriage illegal. In the rhetoric of these laws, "bigamy" was equivalent to "polygamy."

Succeeding versions of "anti-bigamy" laws became more severe and enforceable, and ultimately many polygamous Church priesthood holders went to prison. To attempt to fight this, the Church decided to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They strategized to permit one of the polygamous brethren, George Reynolds (a secretary to Brigham Young) to be indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of 'illegal polygamous cohabitation,' so that they could appeal the conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. This effort failed, however, as the Reynolds conviction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the decision rendered on January 6, 1879. (15)

There were other laws passed, affecting punishments for conviction, confiscation of property, and so forth, some of which resulted in additional appeals to the Supreme Court regarding those specific provisions. However the Supreme Court decision which decided the legality of "anti-bigamy" laws per se was still the Reynolds Case of January 1879.

There was therefore a time lag of more than eleven and one half years since the Reynolds Supreme Court Decision upholding the "anti-bigamy" laws until the Manifesto was issued in September 1890. During this time period, the Church leadership continued to preach plural marriage, and refused to compromise on the practice of the principle. For example, John Taylor, the leader of the Church at the time of the Reynolds decision, utterly refused under great pressure both from within and without the Church to give into demands for a compromise. Again, this was after the Supreme Court decision. It was reported about John Taylor in the April 1922 conference report:

The laws prohibiting plural marriage were regarded as unconstitutional and unjust by the Church, and their execution was bitterly opposed.*** While this storm raged John Taylor stood immovable in his conviction that the anti-polygamy law was unjust, and died without making any concession. This was the outstanding feature of his administration. (16)

Some of the statements made by Church officials after the Reynolds Supreme Court decision follow:

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 fullness; never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of the marriage covenant you are bound to have plural marriage; bound to. (Apostle George Teasdale, 1884) (17)

If the doctrine of plural marriage was repudiated so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity, the two being indissolubly interwoven together. (Apostle Charles W. Penrose, 1883) (18)

What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the heart 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 fullness. 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 ordinances among this 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. (Charles W. Penrose,1885) (19)

The severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison, God will not change his law of celestial marriage. (Apostle Lorenzo Snow, 1887) (20)

. . . if plurality of marriage is not true, or in other words, if a man has no divine right to marry two wives or more in this world, then marriage for eternity is not true, and your faith is all vain, and all the sealing ordinanc[e]s and powers, pertaining to marriages for eternity are vain, worthless, good for nothing; for as sure as one is true the other also must be true. Amen." (Apostle Orson Pratt, 1880) (21)

God has given us a revelation in regard to celestial marriage. I did not make it. He has told us certain things pertaining to this matter, and they would like us to tone that principle down and change it and make it applicable to the views of the day. This we cannot do; nor can we interfere with any of the commands of God to meet the persuasions or behests of men. I cannot do it, and will not do it. I find some men try to twist round the principle in any way and every way they can. They want to sneak out of it in some way. Now God don't [sic] want any kind of sycophancy like that.... 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. (President John Taylor, 1884) (22)

During the same time period (1885), the following was printed in the Deseret News:

The abandonment of polygamy, that is considered by some to be so easy of accomplishment, is more untenable even than fighting. However much the people might desire to do this, they could not without yielding every other principle, for it is the very key stone of our faith, and is so closely interwoven into every-thing that pertains to our religion, that to tear it asunder and cast it away would involve the entire structure. (23)

Not only did the church leaders continue to support plural marriage, but there were revelations received from the Lord directing them to not abandon this practice after the Reynolds U.S. Supreme Court decision.

For example in January of 1880, Wilford Woodruff spent some time in solitude pondering and praying to the Lord regarding the difficult issues upon the Church at the time, especially regarding plural marriage. He received from the Lord a lengthy revelation that maintained, among other things, the necessity of continuing the practice. Wilford Woodruff wrote out the text of the revelation (which contained the wording: "Thus saith the Lord"), and then presented it to his brethren in the leading councils of the Church. (24) They read it, discussed it, and voted to sustain it as a revelation from the Lord. Wilford Woodruff recorded the text of this revelation in his journal. A copy of the revelation was made from the Journal of Wilford Woodruff, about 1908, by Joseph W. Musser, at the request of his father, A. Milton Musser, then Assistant Historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A relevant quote from this revelation follows:

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. (25)

In September of 1886, within a year of his death, President John Taylor received a revelation from the Lord specifically about not abandoning the principle of plural marriage. He was at the time very earnestly seeking divine guidance from the Lord. The fact that John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, and most of the leading Brethren were in hiding at the time did not permit frequent meetings of the entirety of the Church leadership, to specifically discuss this revelation, but the tenor of this revelation was maintained by President Taylor throughout his administration and his life. This revelation was discussed in some detail at the 1911 trials for the membership of Apostles Matthias F. Cowley, and John W. Taylor. A transcript of this revelation appears in the trials transcript. This meeting involved most of the quorum of the twelve, so they were aware of this revelation of John Taylor. John W. Taylor, the son of President John Taylor, was the executor of his father's estate. John W. Taylor stated that he found a copy of this revelation in his father's handwriting on his father's desk immediately after his death on July 25, 1887. John W. also made a copy in his own handwriting.(26) In this revelation, the Lord makes it very clear that this practice was meant to continue, and emphasizes this with the words: "Thus saith the Lord." The entire text of this revelation is as follows:

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 regards 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 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.

Again, in 1889, ten years after the Reynolds Supreme Court decision and only about a year before the Manifesto, Wilford Woodruff was seriously inquiring of the Lord about what to do regarding the extreme difficulties impending upon the church relative to plural marriage. On November 24, 1889, he received a revelation from the Lord in answer to his prayers.(27) This revelation contains, as the others referred to here, the words "thus saith the Lord," and in part the following words:

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.

The circumstances of the reception of this revelation were recorded by John Nutall:

Sunday, Nov. 24, 1889. I spent the day at Leonards in reading &c. Thomas called in the afternoon. Bro. D. R. Bateman called for me with a buggy this evening and took me to the Gardo House. I found Pres. Woodruff there. He with Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon had met this afternoon with Bro. John W. Young, LeGrand Young, Jas. H. Moyle and R. W. Young to consider the matters as presented and talked upon yesterday, and the question was left with Pres. Woodruff to decide. The President told me of this and said that he had made the subject a matter of prayer, and by the voice of the spirit he was directed to write. After he had concluded writing, which he was doing when I arrived, he asked me to copy a revelation which he had received. I did so. Having heard Bro. J. W. Young's reasoning, I felt very much worked up in my feelings; for I did not feel that as a church we could assume the position in regard to Celestial Marriage which he seemed to desire should be taken, and when Pres. Woodruff commenced talking to me this evening I felt that he had become converted and actually trembled, for I knew such had not been Prest. Woodruff's feelings before; but as I wrote at his dictation, I felt better all the time and when completed I felt as light and joyous as it is possible to feel, for I was satisfied that Pres. Woodruff had received the word of the Lord. When Pres. Jos. F. Smith returned and read the revelation he was moved to tears and expressed his approval and acceptance of the word of the Lord to His Servants and Saints. We all felt thankful to the Lord.* * *

Monday, Nov. 25th, 1889. * * * Prest. Geo. Q. Cannon expressed his satisfaction at the mind of the Lord as given to Pres. Woodruff in the matter spoken of yesterday and Saturday. (28)

There is ample evidence of the leadership of the Church promoting and preaching the practice of plural marriage after the Reynolds decision. In addition, these three revelations from the Lord directed the Church leadership to not make compromise with the enemies of the Kingdom of God, and to not abandon the principle of plural marriage even after the Reynolds Supreme Court decision. These three revelations were given under circumstances where the Lord's anointed at the time were imploring the Lord for comfort and direction regarding the difficulties surrounding the principle of plural marriage and the outside world. The answers were to continue the practice of the principle, and this in spite of the laws of the land which had been upheld and sustained by the court of last resort. The Church leaders and members still felt that obeying the laws of God was more important than obeying the unrighteous laws of man, even though those laws had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Church had always maintained that practicing plural marriage was, or should be, protected as a right under the freedom of religion provisions of the First Amendment.

President Woodruff concluded the Manifesto stating that he and the Church were to submit to the laws prohibiting plural marriage, that neither he nor his associates had recently been preaching the principle, and that those who did had been "promptly reproved," with the implication being that anyone who would preach such in the future would also be reproved:

. . . 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.

WILFORD WOODRUFF

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The analysis of this part of the Manifesto is best accomplished using the testimony of the other leaders of the Church of the time on the subject of plural marriage and the Manifesto, as well as a description of their activities regarding the principle of plural marriage:

[The Manifesto was] a cowardly proceeding, the more I thought of it the less I liked it. (B.H. Roberts) (29)

I do not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by his counselors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church. (Apostle Marriner W. Merrill) (30)

The Manifesto was not a divine production but something manufactured to outwit the church's enemies (Apostle Charles W. Penrose) (31)

My son David died without seed, and his brothers cannot do a work for him in rearing children to bear his name because of the Manifesto. I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married. *** Such relationships would have to be kept secret until the government changed its laws to permit formal polygamous marriages to be performed. (First Presidency member and Apostle George Q. Cannon) (32)

Brother [Apostle] Penrose told me once in the city of Mexico, that he had written the manifesto, and it was gotten up so that it did not mean anything and President Smith had told me the same. I mention these things only to show the training I have had from those over me. (Former Apostle Matthias F. Cowley) (33)

Before Issuing the Manifesto document to the government, President Woodruff had only consulted with Apostles Franklin D. Richards and Marriner W. Merrill.(34) although Apostle Matthias Cowley later stated that Apostle Charles Penrose claimed to have drafted the document itself. (35) At any rate, it was prepared in some haste, and delivered to the government to prevent severe impending punitive actions against the church. Most of the other members of the leading quorums learned about it second hand. (36) They had not had an opportunity to voice their opinion or to offer their counsel. Note that both Franklin D. Richards and Marriner W. Merrill were among those who had taken additional plural wives during the time period mentioned in the Manifesto of which President Woodruff denied that there had been any plural marriages performed.

Initially, the Manifesto was not considered to be a divinely inspired action, but rather a directive from President Woodruff. Certainly nothing is mentioned in the document itself of its coming from a divine source, which was a general characteristic of other revelation texts. There were also other "Manifestos" from around the same time regarding topics on which the Church leadership intended to make a statement, but they were not considered to be of revelatory origin, and also began: "To Whom it may concern."(37) In the conference in which the Manifesto was presented, the word "revelation" was not employed to characterize its nature. Joseph Fielding Smith in his writings stated that the Manifesto was not the revelation "received," but just the official act, however, no transcript whatsoever claiming to have been the original revelation has ever been forthcoming.

In response to pressing questions as to whether the Manifesto was to be a considered a divine revelation or not, it was not until President Woodruff gave a speech a year later, in October 1891, in which President Woodruff stated that the Manifesto was given by "inspiration."(38) A week after this in a conference in Logan Utah, he finally began to use the word "revelation" in conjunction with the issuance of the Manifesto--more than one year later.(39) Certainly, as seen above, many of the Brethren at the time did not deem it to be such. The following remarks exchanged by Apostle Reed Smoot and Apostle John Henry Smith indicate that even a year after it was given, the Manifesto was not considered to be a revelation by these members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and that the following two apostles were quite dismayed at that time, over a year later, that President Woodruff began to characterize the Manifesto a revelation. This "Logan" speech, that Apostles Smoot and Smith were so dismayed at, is the one quoted in the LDS D&C after the Manifesto test. Clearly the Manifesto progressed in status from an official act to that of a revelation over time:

Why in the world [did] President Woodruff ever make that Logan speech in which he declared the Manifesto to be a revelation? (Senator Reed Smoot to Apostle John Henry Smith) I don't know!!! (Response from Apostle Smith) (40)

More importantly, however, than their statements, the actions of the Brethren at the time seem to indicate their feelings about the Manifesto. The great majority of the church leadership from the time of the Manifesto until about 1904 or 1905, either took additional plural wives, performed plural marriages, or encouraged and arranged for specific plural marriages to be performed.

The following is a list of First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve members who took plural wives after the Manifesto: (41)

Abraham H. Cannon

George Teasdale

Rudger Clawson

Abraham O. Woodruff

Matthias F. Cowley

Brigham Young, Jr.

Marriner W. Merrill

John W. Taylor

Wilford Woodruff

The last name on this list is President Woodruff himself. He married Lydia Momreoff von Fickelstein Mountford on an ocean vessel off the California coast in 1897 about a year before he died, and seven years after the Manifesto. While the details are too lengthy for the purposes of this paper, the evidence for this occurrence of the final plural marriage by President Woodruff consists in his very close friendship with this woman during a time period prior to the approximate time of their presumed marriage, the testimonies of some of the leading brethren on this subject, and the circumstances of "Madame" Mountford's and President Woodruff's travels to California at that time (without President Woodruff being accompanied by any other spouse, which was not typical for him).(42) For example, Apostle Anthon H. Lund described a conversation he had with President Woodruff on the subject of "Madame" Mountford in which he stated: "I was rather astonished." (43) Apostle Matthias F. Cowley stated that he believed that "President Woodruff married a wife the year before he died." (44) In addition, this marriage between President Woodruff and Madam Mountford was re-somenized by proxy in the Salt Lake Temple on November 23, 1920, according to Salt Lake Temple records.

The following is a list of Apostles in the Church who performed plural marriages for others after the Manifesto: (45)

Matthias F. Cowley

John W. Taylor

Anthon H. Lund

George Teasdale

Francis M. Lyman

Abraham O. Woodruff

Marriner W. Merrill

Brigham Young, Jr.

These two lists only contain the names of Apostles involved. Many other prominent men in Church leadership positions outside of the Twelve were also involved, such as future apostle and First Presidency member, Anthony Ivins, who performed many post-manifesto plural marriages. My own great-grandfather, Helaman Pratt, who worked immediately under Anthony Ivins as a Church authority in the colonies in Mexico, had his third wife, Bertha, sealed to him in 1898 in Mexico (note there was no temple in Mexico then) by Anthony Ivins. First Council of Seventy member B.H. Roberts also took a third wife in the years following the Manifesto. (46)

In addition, it must be added that Presidents George Q. Cannon, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith, while not appearing on the above lists, frequently gave special permission as First Presidency members for the performance of post-manifesto plural marriages. (47) President Woodruff would also often defer decisions on requests for post-Manifesto plural marriages to his counselor, George Q. Cannon. (48)

Due to lack of specific wording in the Manifesto, many felt at the time that the Manifesto only went so far as to ban new plural contractions within the territory of Utah, or at least within the United States, and did not prohibit continued cohabitation with previously married plural wives. However, when cornered by government officials in a hearing on escheated Church property on this issue, President Woodruff was forced to declare that the Manifesto extended to Church members world wide, and that even continued cohabitation with plural wives could not be permitted.(49) There were many cases in the church membership where a husband had to separate from all of his wives but one (my maternal great-great grandfather, for example), but this did not happen in general with the Church leaders. Joseph F. Smith, for example, had 11 post-manifesto children from his plural wives. (50)

Most forceful of all was the testimony given by President of the Church Joseph F. Smith in 1904 at the Smoot Hearings. President Smith was one of the first witnesses called to testify. He stated under oath before Congress that the Manifesto included a prohibition against continued cohabitation with previous, plural wives, that he himself had continued to live with and father children by his plural wives, and that this violated the laws of the land and the laws of God, since the Manifesto was then considered to be the will of God. He denied any knowledge of possible or alleged polygamous activities of his fellow Church leaders. He further stated under oath that there had been no new plural marriages contracted in the Church since the Manifesto, nor any preaching to further the practice. (51) He further denied that any "secret" plural marriages had occurred anywhere in the world.

The public reaction to his statements was completely incredulous and mocking, and consequently, about a month later in the April 1904 General Conference, he issued the following statement:

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff, of September 26, 1890, commonly called the Manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land; I Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom.

Joseph F. Smith,

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (52)

After reading his statement, President Smith declared:

They charge us with being dishonest and untrue to our word. They charge the church with having violated a "compact" and all this sort of nonsense. I want to see today whether the Latter-day Saints representing the church in this solemn assembly will not seal these charges as false by their voice. (53)

He then had B.H. Roberts (who himself had taken a plural wife since the Manifesto) lead the conference congregation in a sustaining vote to show their support for President Smith as having told the truth. What is most striking in the latter statement by President Smith is his choice of the words ". . . seal these charges as false . . ." to apply to what he was asking the body of church members to do by their sustaining his statement of denials.

However, it none the less became clear to the public that there were polygamous activities continuing among the leading Brethren of the Church, notably with Apostles Matthias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor. These men were not, of course, the only members of the leading quorums to be involved, but their activities became known to the Smoot investigating committee. The result of this was tremendous pressure and embarrassment on the church from the investigation, which ultimately led to these two apostles being invited to resign from the Quorum, with the public statement that their activities and views regarding plural marriage were not in "harmony" with the rest of the Brethren.

Elders Taylor and Cowley took this pretty hard, and antagonisms developed between them and newer, monogamous quorum members. This ultimately led to a Church Trial for Elders Taylor and Cowley. Taylor was excommunicated, and Cowley was directed to cease from using his priesthood. Cowley never stopped officiating in priesthood ordinances, a few years later he was restored, and Taylor was rebaptized in a controversial action, but Taylor was not fully restored until about 1965 through posthumous action. Taylor's family members report that he was told by President Smith at the time of his separation from the Quorum of the Twelve that he needed to make this "sacrifice" for the benefit of the reputation of the church, and that when things calmed down, they would be restored to the quorum. (54) This, however, never happened.

Even though Apostles Cowley and Taylor were dropped from the Quorum of the Twelve, the reaction from the Smoot investigating committee was still negative, because of the context in which this was all accomplished. In the words of the investigating committee majority report:

The dropping of Taylor and Cowley from the quorum of the twelve apostles was so evidently done for popular effect that the act merits no consideration whatever, except as an admission by the First Presidency and twelve apostles that Apostles Taylor and Cowley have each taken one or more plural wives since the manifesto. (55)

In addition, in the time period following President Smith's testimony in the Smoot hearings, and his statement in the April 1904 conference, the First Presidency prepared and sent an affidavit to the presiding Church authority in Mexico at the time, Anthony Ivins. The affidavit repeated denials regarding plural marriages in Mexico. Elder Ivins was to sign the affidavit, and forward it to Apostle/Senator Smoot in Washington D.C., for use in the hearings. However, Elder Ivins refused to sign it, as he considered the statements it contained to be untrue.(56) Furthermore, when he was asked to appear in Washington D.C. as a witness in behalf of Apostle/Senator Smoot, he declined, as he felt that to do what would have been expected of him would have amounted to perjury. (57)

Returning to the analysis of the final part of the Manifesto, we read that the Manifesto was presented to the Church for a sustaining vote in the October 1890 conference:

Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we con-sider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding."

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890

The initial reaction of the U.S. Government to the Manifesto was of skepticism. The day before the October 1890 conference started (5 October 1890), government official John T. Caine telegraphed Salt Lake City from Washington D.C. stating that after hearing comments from the Territorial Governor Arthur L. Thomas, that the Secretary of the Interior, would not accept the Manifesto as binding unless it were presented to a conference of the church for a sustaining vote. (58) Notice how individuals outside the church were dictating regarding affairs of the church. Consequently, the next morning, 6 October 1890, the Manifesto was presented formally to the church, with Apostle Lorenzo Snow making the motion that the Official Declaration be accepted as "authoritative and binding."

Notwithstanding the verbiage at the end of "Official Declaration 1" as printed at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, the sustaining of the Manifesto was not unanimous. According to Comprehensive History of the Church, we read the following about the move to sustain the Manifesto:

The vote in support of this motion was nearly unanimous. (italics added) (59)

Apparently, while the majority of the conference attendees sustained the motion, there were many who abstained. Even one of the general authorities abstained, First Council of the Seventy member, Brigham H. Roberts. He had the following to say about the motion:

During the conference I saw that movements were on foot to have the whole people support it[,] a proceeding I viewed with alarm. When the crisis came I felt heartbroken but remained silent. It seemed to me to be the awfulest moment in my life, my arm was like lead when the motion was put; I could not vote for it, and did not. (60)

Anthony Ivins had this to say about the sustaining in the Conference:

Both the members of the ch. & the genl. Authorities for the most part voted for the Manifesto with indiv. reservations. (italics added) (61)

There was also at least one confirmed negative vote from the congregation against sustaining the Manifesto during the October 1890 conference. This vote came from Wilson Gibson, and was reported in the Deseret News. (62) The mood at the conference sustaining was one of gloom and surprise for many. As Abbie Hyde Cowley stated: "A gloom came over the people."(63) Gibson Condie said that sadness and shaken faith ran through the congregation.(64) John W. Whitaker, the recorder at the conference, stated that there was "great sadness and sorrow in the hearts of many," and that he felt that many of the General Authorities were opposed to this action, and that he had heard many state at the conference that they did not sustain President Woodruff in what he did, with strong reasons.

As a final note, I would like to end with a quote by an individual who was one of the first to practice plural marriage in the Kingdom of God on the earth in this dispensation. In the Temple Lot Case, Lucy W. Kimball (one of the Prophet Joseph Smith's plural wives) was asked why the Church had discontinued the practice of plural marriage. She responded:

Well, the Church will see the day when it will apologize for that. Yes, sir, I did consent to the Manifesto with the rest of the church to President Woodruff, much to my regret, but I am not going to acknowledge it again; the time will surely come for that principle to rule. (65)

Notes

1. Russell R. Rich, Ensign to the Nations, 1972, Brigham Young University Publications, p. 224.

2. "Annual Report of the Utah Commission," [1890], 3:419.

3. As quoted in the Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, ed. A. Karl Larson and Katherine Miles Larson, 2 Vols. (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:718, 16 Sept. 1890.

4. Brigham Young, [Jr.] Diaries, 24 April 1890, Church Archives.

5. Abraham H. Cannon Diaries, 30 Sept. -1 Oct. 1890.

6. "That Awful Mouth Again," Salt Lake Tribune, , 8 Sept. 1899; and "The Grant Declaration," ibid., 9 Sept. 1899.

7. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press, p 139, citing evidence in Temple and Endowment House Records.

8. Endowment House Sealing Records, Special Collections, film # 183402-25165, pt. 22, Family History Library (LDS Church).

9. The Doctrine and Covenants, Class Member Study Guide, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1991, p. 27.

10. This was how a post-manifesto plural marriage of John Whitaker Taylor (son of President John Taylor) was solemnized. Samuel W. Taylor, "Interviews with Nettie [Janet] Taylor," July 1947, 8-9, BYU Library; and "John Whitaker Taylor," in Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. Andrew Jenson, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Co. And Deseret News, 1901-36), 1:151-56.

11. "Annual Report of the Utah Commission," Report of the Secretary of the interior . . . 5 vols. (Washington D.C.: GPO., 1890), 3:417-18. The review of this case also includes excerpts from local newspapers.

12. Endowment House Sealing Records, Special Collections film # 183402-25165, pt. 22, Family History Library of Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.

13. Some historical accounts have Joseph taking a plural wife (Fannie Alger) as far back as Kirtland, which was the source of the trouble involving Oliver Cowdery, as he vacillated from objecting to the principle to wanting a plural wife himself, but which Joseph would not yet permit for others besides himself. Apparently, Oliver, J. Carter, W. Parish, or others took a second wife anyway without his permission. See Letter from Benjamin F. Johnson to George S. Gibbs, 1903, (available from multiple sources).

14. Russell R. Rich, Ensign to the Nations, 1972, Brigham Young University Publications, p. 367.

15. Ibid., p. 378.

16. Conference Report, April, 1922, p. 38.

17. Jan 13, 1884, Journal of Discourses 25:21

18. July 16, 1883, Millennial Star 45:454

19. Deseret News, April 23, 1885

20. Historical Record, 1887, vol. 6, p. 144

21. 18 July 7 1880, Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 296

22. 6 October, 1884, Journal of Discourses, vol.25, pp.309-310.

23. "Expressions from the People," Deseret News, 14 April 1885.

24. Improvement Era, Vol. 1: 874.

25. Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 25 Jan 1880

26. The Trials for the Membership of John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley, (non-published, non-dated), comprised of excerpts from the official meetings held by the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in February, March, and May of 1911, when inquiry was made into the views and polygamous activities of apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley. The transcription appears in a variety of formats.

27. Messages of the First Presidency 3:171-17

28. Diary of L. John Nuttall, pp. 164-165,168, original; pp. 103, 104, 106, B.Y.U. Typescript

29. As quoted in Walker, "B. H. Roberts and the Woodruff manifest," pp. 363-366.

30. Marriner Wood Merrill Diaries, 20 Aug 1891.

31. Thomas Jr Rosser claims that he was present in a missionary conference with Penrose in England 1908 in which this statement was made. Thomas J. Rosser To Robert C. Newson 4 Aug. 1956

32. As reported in the Abraham H. Cannon Diaries, 5 April 1894.

33. Testimony under oath of Matthias F. Cowley in the trial for his membership, 10 May 1911, "The Trials of Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley," Doctrine of the Priesthood, Collier's Publishing Co. January 1987, p. 28.

34. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press, p 139.

35. Testimony under oath of Matthias F. Cowley in the trial for his membership, 10 May 1911, "The Trials of Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley," Doctrine of the Priesthood, Collier's Publishing Co. January 1987, p. 32.

36. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press, p. 132.

37. For example, See "Official Declaration," Deseret News, 14 Dec 1889; Messages of the First Presidency 3: 183-87.

38. "The Church Cases," Deseret News, 24 October 1891.

39. Deseret News, 14 November, 1891.

40. As reported by Senator Smoot's secretary, Carlos Ashby Badger Diaries, 19 Feb. 1905, Church Archives.

41. Various records, journals, and sources, too numerous to list here, as summarized in: Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press, p 231.

42. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press, pp. 227-232, Appendix II.

43. Lund Diaries, 1 December 1897.

44. Testimony under oath of Matthias F. Cowley in the trial for his membership, 10 May 1911, "The Trials of Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley," Doctrine of the Priesthood, Collier's Publishing Co. January 1987, p. 32.

45. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press, p 231

46. Ibid., p. 247.

47. For example, see Samuel W. Taylor, "Interviews with Nettie [Janet] Taylor," pp. 18-21. This reference contains a reference of Joseph F. Smith giving his permission for John W. Taylor to marry two half-sisters on 29 August 1901. President Smith gave his permission by speaking in a "parable" which was clearly understood by Elder Taylor, after which he gave him a gentle pat and the following admonishment: "Be careful, John."

48. For example, see Life and Letters of Joseph Charles Bentley, (n.p., [1977]), pp. 7, 77-85.

49. "The Church Cases," Deseret Weekly, 24 Oct 1891.

50. Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1905., Deseret News Press, p. 35.

51. U.S. Congress, Senate, Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold his Seat, 59th Congress., 1st Sess. Doc. No. 486, 4 vols. (Washington D.C.: GPO, 1906) 1: 136-137.

52. April Conference Report, 1904, p. 75.

53. Ibid., pp. 75-76.

54. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press, p 266, citing numerous sources.

55. U.S. Congress, Senate, Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold his Seat, 59th Congress., 1st Sess. Doc. No. 486, 4 vols. (Washington D.C.: GPO, 1906) 4:477.

56. Letter from Anthony W. Ivins to George F. Gibbs, 6 March 1906, George F. Gibbs Letterbox, Church Archives.

57. Heber Grant Ivins, son of Anthony W. Ivins related this account on numerous occasions, for example: "Polygamy in Mexico," 5, 18, 20.

58. Abraham H. Cannon Diaries, 5 Oct. 1890.

59. From Comprehensive History of the Church 6:221.

60. Entry from diary of Brigham H. Roberts, 10 Feb. 1893, quoted in Walker, "B. H. Roberts and the Woodruff Manifesto," 365.

61. Anthony W. Ivins Collection, box 7, fd. 10, p. 9, UHi.

62. "Polygamous Issues," Deseret News, 28 March 1896.

63. Abbie Hyde Cowley Diaries, 6 Oct. 1890, Church Archives.

64. Gibson Condie Diary, film, 108-109, Church Archives.

65. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Complainant. Vs. Church of Christ . . . Complainant's Abstract . . .(Lamoni, Iowa: Herald Publishing House, 1893), 375.

Back to Gospel Discussions Page