Analysis of Excerpt from Smith and Sjodahl's
Doctrine and Covenants Commentary:
Correcting the Traditional LDS Historical Context of the Manifesto
by John W. Pratt
The following excerpts from Doctrine and Covenants Commentary (Smith and Sjodahl, Deseret Book, 1923, pp 836-;837), illustrate the false and misleading history the Mormon people have been taught about the history of the LDS church at the time surrounding the Manifesto. This particular D&C Commentary by Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl was published at a time when the LDS church had undergone terrible pressure from the outside world with regards to plural marriage, but more precisely because of the innumerable "violations" of the LDS Church commitment in 1890 to discontinue plural marriage. This particular D&C commentary has remained in very common LDS use up to the present day.
The false points regarding LDS Manifesto history related in the excerpt below were a result of the fact that there continued to be plural marriages solemnized in the LDS church well after the Manifesto, and many of these involved the highest leaders in the LDS church. The media of the day put tremendous pressure on the church because of this, which resulted in tremendous embarassment. To counter this, the LDS church adopted a policy of complete denial that there had been any Post-Manifesto polygamous activities sanctioned by the LDS leadership, which idea is manifestly false. In addition, The brethren of the day did NOT consider the Manifesto to be at all a revelation from God, and made many such public statements. The false statements of the day regarding this crucial point in history and about this critical, celestial principle have, unfortunately, continued to be the "official line" of the LDS leadership to both the public and to the LDS church people today.
From the commentary, quote:
The first Congressional enactment against plural marriage, passed in 1862, remained a dead letter for twenty years. By that time, the anti-Mormons had evidence that the Supreme Court would uphold legislation of that kind, and laws more drastic than the first were passed by Congress. The Church leaders appealed to the Supreme Court, as was their prerogative. For years there was a legal conflict. At last, when the Supreme Court had declared the anti-polygamy laws constitutional and there was no prospect that there would be a reversal of this decision, the Church loyally and gracefully accepted it. President Wilford Woodruff issued his Manifesto against the practice of plural marriage, and this was accepted by a unanimous vote of the General Conference assembled in Salt Lake City, Oct. 6th, 1890. This was done by divine revelation to President Wilford Woodruff.
[Manifesto text follows]
By this action [the Manifesto] the Church voted to conform to the laws of the land as interpreted by the highest tribunal, and to leave the issue with God. Since that conference, and, in fact, for some time previous to the acceptance of the Manifesto, no plural marriage has been performed anywhere with the sanction of the Church, or the approbation of the First Presidency, or anyone representing them, as was fully proved during the so-called Smoot investigation in the United States Senate, which commenced January 16, 1904.
End of quote.
The truth of this matter is that the U.S. Supreme court rendered the Reynolds Decision in January of 1879, about eleven and one half years before the Manifesto. A second critical truth of this matter is also that the LDS church did not in any way at all "loyally and gracefully" accept this decision. In the eleven and one half years from the decision to the Manifesto, the LDS Church continued to resist obedience to the "anti-bigamy" laws, and many faithful saints went to prison because of this.
It should be remembered that during most of this time John Taylor was the LDS Church leader, and he went to his grave, mostly living in hiding to escape "justice" regarding his own plural wives, while utterly refusing to compromise the revealed word of the Lord on this high and holy principle. Not only that, but a number of revelations were received from the Lord after the Reynolds Decision during those eleven and one half years by both John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff--revelations that the LDS church conveniently either forgets or ignores--which commanded the saints to not give up on this principle or to make compromise with their enemies regarding it. These revelations were all properly received, contained the verbiage "Thus saith the Lord," and are genuine, the evidence for each being incontestable if one only looks at it.
The Manifesto was not accepted by "unanimous vote" during the conference of October 1890. There were many abstentions, including at least one from a General Authority, as well as at least one negative vote documented by name in the Deseret News. Many of those members surprised by this action at the conference came away disillusioned also.
Nor was the Manifesto any sort of divine revelation. First of all, the document itself makes no such claim. Secondly, no secondary text claiming to be a revelation from the Lord has ever surfaced to "back up" the Manifesto which was an "official act" of desperation rather of Wilford Woodruff and not a revelation. Furthermore, many of the Presiding General Authorities of the LDS Church at the time declared publicly that the Manifesto was not a revelation (please read "Analysis of the Manifesto" for more in-depth information):
[The Manifesto was] a cowardly proceeding, the more I thought of it the less I liked it. (B.H. Roberts, As quoted in Walker, B. H. Roberts and the Woodruff manifest, pp. 363-366.)
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, Marriner Wood Merrill Diaries, 20 Aug 1891.)
The Manifesto was not a divine production but something manufactured to outwit the church's enemies (Apostle Charles W. Penrose, Thomas Jr Rosser claims that he was present in a missionary conference with Penrose in England 1908, as reported in Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 1992, University of Illinois Press.)
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, as reported in the Abraham H. Cannon Diaries, 5 April 1894.)
[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, 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.)
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) (As reported by Senator Smoot's secretary, Carlos Ashby Badger Diaries, 19 Feb. 1905, Church Archives.)
The greatest evidence of all that the Manifesto was no revelation but rather a step in the direction of overall LDS apostasy was the fact that virtually all of the LDS church authorities from 1890 and for about 15 years continued to marry additional plural wives, to perform new plural marriage ceremonies, or to arrange for the same for others. This includes the members of the First Presidencies during that time, and this in spite of their many false statements to the contrary. Wilford Woodruff married a new plural wife, for example, in 1897, the year before he died.
The false statements by the LDS Church and leadership were what had the public (including the Smoot Congressional Investigative Committee) in such a mocking uproar against the LDS Church during those times, and were what prompted the LDS church after the turn of the century to make such a false and sanctimonious turnabout regarding plural marriage, and its image in the public eye on this principle. This was because of great duplicity in their dealings. These facts are incontestable and undeniable if one were but to take the time to investigate. The statement by Smith and Sjodahl in this Commentary that:
Since that conference, and, in fact, for some time previous to the acceptance of the Manifesto, no plural marriage has been performed anywhere with the sanction of the Church, or the approbation of the First Presidency, or anyone representing them.
is nothing more than a purposeful, misleading falsehood--a blatant lie --by the LDS leaders to the LDS people as well as the world. This D&C Commentary by Smith and Sjodahl was certainly reviewed and approved by the LDS church at the highest levels.
Smith and Sjodahl are again lying to the LDS church and world when they declare that the Smoot investigations in the United States Senate exonerated the Church from having grossly misrepresented the facts in this issue. The facts here are that the Smoot investigating committee members were seeing through the duplicity of Joseph F. Smith, the LDS Church, and its witnesses. This is plain from the congressional record. The fact that Apostles Matthias F. Cowley and John W. Taylor were dismissed from the Quorum of the Twelve was because the Smoot Committee found out about their continued activities in taking new plural wives and in performing and arranging for new plural marriages for others--many years after the Manifesto. They were no more "guilty" than most of the other LDS leadership, but their activities caught the attention of the investigating committee, even though the LDS leadership through Joseph F. Smith continued to aid them in resisting subpoena through stratagem and staying out of the country.
After at least three years of grueling and very public testimony, which included many people who revealed all details of the endowment ceremony (the entire endowment ceremony is therefore in the Congressional Record), the majority of the members of the U. S. Senate still refused to seat duly-elected LDS Apostle Reed Smoot as the Senator from Utah. However, he was indeed seated since the opposition could only muster a simple majority against him, instead of the required two-thirds vote to refuse to seat Senator Smoot. No, the Smoot investigations most certainly did not "fully prove" that no plural marriage had been "performed anywhere with the sanction of the Church, or the approbation of the First Presidency, or anyone representing them" since the Manifesto and especially "for some time previous to the acceptance of the Manifesto," as Smith and Sjodahl so falsely claim. With these authors having lived during that era, they will not be able to claim ignorance on these facts or immunity for having misrepresented them.
We would implore any and all who might read this to investigate carefully for yourself the truth of the facts stated herein. There are many sources of information that now are available that testify of these things. You will then know. The Lord did intend that plural marriage be an integral required celestial principle for the duration of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. The Manifesto was not a declaration from the Lord, but a manifestation of human weakness both in the LDS leaders of 1890 and the people. This is a result of the inability of the saints to properly live God's true laws, such as plural marriage, gathering, and consecration, or the rejection of the same. These circumstances, the actions of the LDS leadership at the time, as well as intuitive reasoning for principles revealed to be part of the Dispensation all testify of this. God does not change. Plural marriage is doctrinal, contrary to recent public statements (Sept 1998) of Gordon B. Hinckley to the contrary. Observe the following quotes:
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, Jan 13, 1884, Journal of Discourses 25:21)
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, July 16, 1883, Millennial Star 45:454)
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, Deseret News, April 23, 1885)
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, Historical Record, 1887, vol. 6, p. 144)
. . . 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, 18 July 7 1880, Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 296)
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, 6 October, 1884, Journal of Discourses, vol.25, pp.309-310.)
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. 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. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good men--it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with eternity. (John Taylor, JD 11:220)
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. ("Expressions from the People," Deseret News, 14 April 1885.)
They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false Prophet, and many other things which I do not now remember; but I am no false Prophet; I am no impostor; I have had no dark revelations; I have had no revelations from the devil; I made no revelations; I have got nothing up of myself. 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 (D&C 132) 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 my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. O, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction. (Joseph Smith Jun., 1843, the "Contributor"5:259.)
We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. * * * The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. (Brigham Young, JD 11:268-69)
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. (Heber C. Kimball, 12 October 1856, JD 5:203)
Back to Gospel Discussions Page