On Marriage: An 1842 LDS Declaration

The following originally appeared in Times and Seasons 3/23 (1 October 1842): 939-940.  

From the Book of Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 

According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. - We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination to do so, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: "You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives."  And when they shall have answered "Yes," he shall pronounce them "husband and wife" in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: "may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfil your covenants from henceforth and forever.  Amen." 

The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch. 

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled.  Inasmuch as this church has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.  It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.  All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust.  We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin. 

We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despised.  In support of this position, we present the following certificates: -  

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did.
    S. Bennett,                N. K. Whitney,
    George Miller,           Albert Pettey,
    Alpheus Cutler,         Elias Higbee,
    Reynolds Cahoon,     John Taylor,
    Wilson Law,              E. Robinson,
    W. Woodruff,           Aaron Johnson.

We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage being practised in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate  to the public to show that J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make.
        Emma Smith, President,
        Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counsellor,
        Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor,
        Eliza R. Snow, Secretary,
    Mary C. Miller,        Catharine Pettey,
    Lois Cutler,              Sarah Higbee,
    Thirza Cahoon,         Phebe Woodruff,
    Ann Hunter,             Leonora Taylor,
    Jane Law,                Sarah Hillman,
    Sophia R. Marks,     Rosannah Marks,
    Polly Z. Johnson,      Angeline Robinson,
    Abigail Works.

The passage quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants was, at the time, Section 101.  It was canonized in August 1835 along with the rest of the Doctrine and Covenants at a conference that occurred while Joseph Smith was absent from Kirtland.  However, that section was not removed from the Doctrine and Covenants until 1876.  During the time that the above article was published in the Times and Seasons, that periodical was edited by Joseph Smith himself.  Of the initial signatories of the second certificate, all four of them by that point knew something about the practice of plural marriage.  Emma Smith could not help but be fully aware.  Sarah M. Cleveland, in spite of already being married at the time to John Cleveland (who, while not LDS, was friendly to Joseph Smith), with whom she had children, also married Joseph Smith himself sometime in the first half of 1842.  Elizabeth Ann Whitney, the other Relief Society counselor, consented to give her daughter Sarah Ann Whitney as a plural wife to Joseph Smith in a marriage that occurred on 27 July 1842.  (Her husband also consented, even though he disclaimed any knowledge of such practices by signing the first certificate here.)  Eliza R. Snow had herself become a plural wife of Joseph Smith in a marriage that occurred a month earlier on 29 June 1842, at which Sarah M. Cleveland acted as witness.  

G. K. Chesterton on Mormonism and Religious Understanding

During a significant portion of the first half of the twentieth century, noted Christian author G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) had a weekly newspaper column that appeared in The Illustrated London News.  Many of these columns are worth reading today even if simply for a taste of Chesterton's infamous wit.  In the column that he had published on 13 May 1911, he treated the subject of Mormonism in response to a speech shortly before given in Nottingham by one Elder Ward.  The 'Elder Ward' in question here is probably (or so I would surmise) Elder Clarence T. Ward (1888-1961) of Boise, Idaho, who in 1911 was serving as the clerk of the Nottingham Conference (see the minutes of the Nottingham semi-annual conference of 5 March 1911, as printed as "Minutes of Nottingham Conference", The Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star 73/10 [9 March 1911]: 150-151; and the minutes of the Nottingham semi-annual conference of 3 September 1911, as printed as "Minutes of Nottingham Conference", The Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star 73/36 [7 September 1911]: 572-573) as part of his mission that lasted from 1910 through January 1912 (see History of Idaho: Gem of the Mountains, 2 vols. [Chicago, IL: S. J. Clarke, 1920], 2:321).

Elder Ward's speech was perhaps a response to a great deal of concern about false rumors of LDS missionaries kidnapping English girls to force them into polygamous marriages in Utah.  Indeed, these rumors led to a government investigation, which was carried out by the Home Secretary of that time, Winston Churchill (1874-1965).  The whole atmosphere has been covered by Peter J. Vousden in his BYU Studies article "The English Editor and the 'Mormon Peril' of 1911", while several years ago the excellent LDS history blog Keep-a-pitchin-in provided some relevant excerpts from the actual parliamentary discussion of the issue ("Winston Churchill Investigates the Mormon Question, 1910-1911").  This is the context for Chesterton's meandering column of 13 May 1911, which uses the controversy as a touchstone for a more sweeping reflection on the need to gain an appreciation for religious ideas and motivations.  Chesterton's column was later reprinted in his The Uses of Diversity: A Book of Essays (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1921), 182-189:

There is inevitably something comic (comic in the broad and vulgar style which all men ought to appreciate in its place) about the panic aroused by the presence of the Mormons and their supposed polygamous campaign in this country.  It calls up the absurd image of an enormous omnibus, packed inside with captive English ladies, with an Elder on the box, controlling his horses with the same patriarchal gravity as his wives, and another Elder as conductor calling out "Higher up," with an exalted and allegorical intonation.  And there is something highly fantastic to the ordinary healthy mind in the idea of any precaution being proposed; in the idea of locking the Duchess in the boudoir and the governess in the nursery, lest they should make a dash for Utah, and become the ninety-third Mrs. Abraham Nye, or the hundredth Mrs. Hiram Boke.  But these frankly vulgar jokes, like most vulgar jokes, cover a popular prejudice which is but the bristly hide of a living principle.  Elder Ward, recently speaking at Nottingham, strongly protested against these rumours, and asserted absolutely that polygamy had never been practised with the consent of the Mormon Church since 1890.  I think it only just that this disclaimer should be circulated; but though it is most probably sincere, I do not find it very soothing.  The year 1890 is not very long ago, and a society that could have practised so recently a custom so alien to Christendom must surely have a moral attitude which might be repellent to us in many other respects.  Moreover, the phrase about the consent of the Church (if correctly reported) has a little the air of an official repudiating responsibility for unofficial excesses.  It sounds almost as if Mr. Abraham Nye might, on his own account, come into church with a hundred and fourteen of his wives, but people were supposed not to notice them.  It might amount to little more than this, that the chief Elder may allow the hundred and fourteen wives to walk down the street like a girls' school, but he is not officially expected to take off his hat to each of them in turn.  Seriously speaking, however, I have little doubt that Elder Ward speaks the substantial truth, and that polygamy is dying, or has died, among the Mormons.  My reason for thinking this is simple: it is that polygamy always tends to die out.  Even in the East I believe that, counting heads, it is by this time the exception rather than the rule.  Like slavery, it is always being started, because of its obvious conveniences.  It has only one small inconvenience, which is that it is intolerable.

Our real error in such a case is that we do not know or care about the creed itself, from which a people's customs, good or bad, will necessarily flow.  We talk much about "respecting" this or that person's religion; but the way to respect a religion is to treat it as a religion: to ask what are its tenets and what are their consequences.  But modern tolerance is deafer than intolerance.  The old religious authorities, at least, defined a heresy before they condemned it, and read a book before they burned it.  But we are always saying to a Mormon or a Moslem - "Never mind about your religion, come to my arms."  To which he naturally replies - "But I do mind about my religion, and I advise you to mind your eye."

About half the history now taught in schools and colleges is made windy and barren by this narrow notion of leaving out the theological theories.  The wars and Parliaments of the Puritans make absolutely no sense if we leave out the fact that Calvinism appeared to them to be the absolute metaphysical truth, unanswerable, unreplaceable, and the only thing worth having in the world.  The Crusades and dynastic quarrels of the Norman and Angevin Kings make absolutely no sense if we leave out the fact that these men (with all their vices) were enthusiastic for the doctrine, discipline, and endowment of Catholicism.  Yet I have read a history of the Puritans by a modern Nonconformist in which the name of Calvin was not even mentioned, which is like writing a history of the Jews without mentioning either Abraham or Moses.  And I have never read any popular or educational history of England that gave the slightest hint of the motives in the human mind that covered England with abbeys and Palestine with banners.  Historians seem to have completely forgotten the two facts - first, that men act from ideas; and second, that it might, therefore, be well to discover which ideas.  The mediaevals did not believe primarily in "chivalry," but in Catholicism, as producing chivalry among other things.  The Puritans did not believe primarily in "righteousness," but in Calvinism, as producing righteousness among other things.  It was the creed that held the coarse or cunning men of the world at both epochs.  William the Conqueror was in some ways a cynical and brutal soldier, but he did attach importance to the fact that the Church upheld his enterprise; that Harold had sworn falsely on the bones of saints, and that the banner above his own lances had been blessed by the Pope.  Cromwell was in some ways a cynical and brutal soldier; but he did attach importance to the fact that he had gained assurance from on high in the Calvinistic scheme; that the Bible seemed to support him - in short, the most important moment in his own life, for him, was not when Charles I lost his head, but when Oliver Cromwell did not lose his soul.  If you leave these things out of the story, you are leaving out the story itself.  If William Rufus was only a red-haired man who liked hunting, why did he force Anselm's head under a mitre, instead of forcing his head under a headsman's axe?  If John Bunyan only cared for "righteousness," why was he in terror of being damned, when he knew he was rationally righteous?  We shall never make anything of moral and religious movements in history until we begin to look at their theory as well as their practice.  For their practice (as in the case of the Mormons) is often so unfamiliar and frantic that it is quite unintelligible without their theory.

I have not the space, even if I had the knowledge, to describe the fundamental theories of Mormonism about the universe.  But they are extraordinarily interesting; and a proper understanding of them would certainly enable us to see daylight through the more perplexing or menacing customs of this community; and therefore to judge how far polygamy was in their scheme a permanent and self-renewing principle or (as is quite probable) a personal and unscrupulous accident.  The basic Mormon belief is one that comes out of the morning of the earth, from the most primitive and even infantile attitude.  Their chief dogma is that God is material, not that He was materialized once, as all Christians believe; nor that He is materialized specially, as all Catholics believe; but that He was materially embodied from all time; that He has a local habitation as well as a name.  Under the influence of this barbaric but violently vivid conception, these people crossed a great desert with their guns and oxen, patiently, persistently, and courageously, as if they were following a vast and visible giant who was striding across the plains.  In other words, this strange sect, by soaking itself solely in the Hebrew Scriptures, had really managed to reproduce the atmosphere of those Scriptures as they are felt by Hebrews rather than by Christians.  A number of dull, earnest, ignorant, black-coated men with chimney-pot hats, chin beards or mutton-chop whiskers, managed to reproduce in their own souls the richness and peril of an ancient Oriental experience.  If we think from this end we may possibly guess how it was that they added polygamy.

Some questions for reflection/discussion:

1. Chesterton notes that the then-current rumors were that LDS missionaries had come to seduce English women into coming to Utah and becoming polygamous wifes.  Chesterton satirizes these rumors by envisioning outlandish scenarios that multiply wives far beyond anything actually seen in the Utah period and underscore the social respectability of the ladies in their monogamous English lives, thus highlighting the absurdity of moving from the one state of life to the other.  What are some likely reasons why such rumors began to come into existence at all?  Why did so many people find them to be credible?  What social factors were at work?  Why was it so often so difficult for LDS missionaries to dispel such rumors?
2. Chesterton observes that Elder Ward gave assurances that "polygamy had never been practised with the consent of the Mormon Church since 1890".  Chesterton goes on to say that he finds it quite likely that Elder Ward is being honest, and that this disclaimer should rightly be disseminated to the public.  Historians of polygamy in the post-Manifesto period, however, have shown that there were indeed hundreds of polygamous marriages performed by church authorities after 1890, and that even a majority of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (as it was then constituted) took additional plural wives after the 1890 Manifesto was issued (see, for instance, discussion in B. Carmon Hardy's book Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage).  Of course, by the time Elder Ward was speaking and Chesterton was writing, the Second Manifesto of 1904 had already been issued by Joseph F. Smith, and new polygamous unions had waned tremendously.  How likely is it that Elder Ward knew about post-Manifesto polygamy?  If Chesterton had been aware of post-Manifesto polygamy, how might he have written this column differently? 
3. Chesterton raises two principal objections to Elder Ward's assurances.  One of these objections is to the careful phrasing about the "consent of the Mormon Church", which Chesterton objects "has a little the air of an official repudiating responsibility for unofficial excesses".  Chesterton goes on to lampoon this sort of strategy as here implemented.  In recent years in LDS-Evangelical dialogue, one major concern of many Evangelical parties is the seeming fixation of LDS participants on plausible deniability over whether some teaching is 'official' doctrine or not, with distantly secondary regard as to whether the teaching is believed or even true.  How has this dynamic played itself out within Latter-day Saint history over the past century?  What sorts of factors would lead one to place such a premium on the 'official'/'unofficial' dichotomy?  What are the advantages and disadvantages to such distinctions in the context of interfaith dialogue?  What criteria are often used?  What do they highlight, and what do they obscure?
4. Chesterton's other objection is that it has only been two decades since the supposed end of polygamous practices, and at any rate, a modern implementation of such a practice must be reflective of a very different underlying moral atmosphere; and if the moral atmosphere itself is really quite different (even "repellent"), there is little cause for assurance in merely the removal of one symptomatic practice.  Does Chesterton have a good point here?  And what is it that makes Chesterton (or other non-Latter-day Saints) regard polygamy as "intolerable" and "repellent"? 
5. Chesterton goes on to discuss a larger issue.  He argues that much historiography of his day, and much public understanding, deliberately avoids an emphasis on the 'theoretical', the understanding of a belief-system as a coherent whole that grounds the particular motivations for actual practices.  Chesterton gives several other examples, as with a history of Puritanism that avoids mentioning John Calvin.  Has the situation improved at all in our day?  Is our society more or less prone to identify the primacy of worldview issues, even religious issues, in understanding the actions of individuals and other entities?  
6. Chesterton raises the point that "modern tolerance is deafer than intolerance".  By this statement, he means that what passes for 'tolerance' of the modern sort is often a mentality that insists on bracketing out people's actual beliefs, insisting that they be checked at the door so that we can relate to one another as bare humans or bare citizens.  However, as Chesterton points out, this is actually quite disrespectful of those beliefs; it fails to take them seriously.  Indeed, at least 'intolerance' takes the beliefs of others seriously enough to treat them as serious beliefs ought to be treated: to identify them and to seek to understand their consequences.  In light of these points, what should we make of now-modern trends toward religious pluralism, relativism, and pragmatism?  How should Latter-day Saints regard others who insist on prioritizing modern 'niceness' and 'tolerance' toward their beliefs, so that everyone is 'fine' so long as everyone keeps their beliefs to themselves and pretends that everyone agrees with this policy?  How should Evangelicals regard Latter-day Saints who take the same approach as a defense mechanism against the possibility of religious critique (and, sadly, I have met many such Latter-day Saints)?
7. Chesterton admits that he does not have an especially astute understanding of the intricacies of Latter-day Saint theology, but he identifies its central tenet as the inherent materiality of God, and thus connects the sensation of such a belief with the determined obedience of the Latter-day Saints during their pioneer treks.  Chesterton also senses something archaically Hebraizing in the religious atmosphere cultivated by Mormonism.  Has Chesterton assessed LDS beliefs correctly?  By speaking of a Hebrew or Oriental conception, does Chesterton mean to imply that the LDS outlook actually replicates how a pre-Christian Jew might have viewed the world?  (And, if Chesterton does mean this, is he right or wrong?)  Chesterton suggests a disconnect between the LDS religious atmosphere (as he conceptualizes it) and that of the New Testament.  What aspects of the New Testament might have suggested this to him?

The Idaho Campaign

The following item, included here as a somewhat tangential part of our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "The Idaho Campaign: The Manifesto Disconcerts Plans of Both Parties", Salt Lake Herald 21/100 (28 September 1890): 1.

THE IDAHO CAMPAIGN

The Manifesto Disconcerts Plans of Both Parties

WHAT PROMINENT CITIZENS SAY

Willis Sweet's Abusive Speech - Secretary Curtis Says It Is a Fraud - The Politicians are Nonplussed

BOISE CITY, Ida., Sept. 27 - [Special telegram to THE HERALD.]  -  The authoritative declaration of President Woodruff, received here in THE HERALD to-day, created a great deal of surprise and confusion in political circles.  Dubois had frequently declared that no such manifesto could by any possibility be made without an entire disruption of the Mormon church, and during the last week Willis Sweet, the Republican candidate for Congress, had abused the Mormons in the most violent language in a speech made in this city, which the Statesman left out of the printed report, having been informed by Fremont Wood, United States district attorney, who was camped in eastern Idaho, that something was in the wind.

Hon. Milton Kelley, former editor of the Statesman, said he thought something of the kind would have transpired before.

Ex-Delegate Ainslie, chairman of the Democratic central committee, said the Mormons meant to vote, but he feared a majority would go with the Republicans.

S. W. Moody, candidate for state auditor, was taken by surprise and did not know what to say.

Secretary Curtis said that President Woodruff had no authority to issue such a manifesto, that it is a fraud, and intended exclusively for effect in this election.

D. V. Pride said that Senator Edmunds had remarked in the Senate that the Mormons had their citizenship in their own hands, and when they chose to abjure polygamy, they would be citizens as much as anyone else.  He says there is nothing to prevent their voting.

L. H. Hayes, Esq., son of the late chief justice, said that Judge Berry and the Supreme court had held that the Mormon church of Idaho was a branch of the Utah church; that now the mother church having declared against polygamy, the matter seemed settled.  The Mormons could vote.

Fremont Wood, United States attorney, being interrogated, said he had just returned from eastern Idaho, where, through the influence of Bishop Budge, Joe Rich and R. S. Spence, President Woodruff had been induced to issue the manifesto so that the Republican ticket might be elected.

John Lemp, the wealthiest man in the county, who often takes an active part in politics, said he had no time for politics this year.  His business was too pressing.

The politicians all seem nonplussed at the turns affairs have taken and it disarranges the entire campaign work of both parties.  What may come of it no one seems to know.  Nearly all the public men of the city are out of town.  It is admitted that the Mormons hold the balance of power.

There are meetings in Middletown, Star Pomeroy, Pagette and Caldwell precincts of this county to-night.

Another trial of the Boise water works as concerns its adaptability to fire extinguishing purposes, took place this evening, with better results than before reported.

Here we get a fascinating brief glimpse into the political ramifications of the Manifesto.  The voting privileges of the Mormon bloc had been held in the balance, and the Manifesto, being taken as an actual change in stance on the part of the LDS Church, freed the Latter-day Saints of Idaho to have their political voice be heard.

Make Them Tell

The following item, printed here as part of our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "Make Them Tell", Salt Lake Herald 21/99 (27 September 1890): 4.

Make Them Tell

If the Utah commission has reported to the secretary of the interior that it has evidence that forty, or any other number of men in this territory, have violated the anti-polygamy laws of the country within a year, we hold it to be the duty of the grand jury to summon the members of the commission before the inquisitorial body and compel them to disclose that evidence.  The marshal and his deputies are working early and late, and employing more or less shrewdness to discover just a little of the testimony with which the commission claims to be so well supplied.  Just one case of a polygamous marriage within a year would be a God-send to the marshal's office.  The deputy who will dig up or discover a probable case may be certain of a reward, and a conviction would make him a hero in and out of federal court circles.  We believe that the marshal would so highly value a genuine, live case of modern polygamy that he would pay handsomely for one, and for forty cases he would be willing to surrender a quarter's salary and fees.

Anybody who knows the commissioners and is at all familiar with their insane desire to do something that will operate injuriously to the Mormons, will smile at this suggestion that the evidence exists of the polygamous marriage of forty Mormons.  If there were any such evidence the gentlemen would not content themselves with intimations regarding it.  Rather would they endanger their necks in their mad case to reach a court and set officers on the trail of the violators of the law.  Even withered and shrunken WILLIAMS, with so little life in him that he exists in perpetual doubt as to his ability to pump enough of breath to last him a week, would find strength to reach the marshal's office and spread before that official evidence of a man committing polygamy.  Imagine such pronounced and confessed anti-Mormons as GODFREY, ROBERTSON and SAUNDERS nursing information which would send forty Mormons to the penitentiary for five years!  Can anyone conceive the probability of such a thing?  If so, he can think of a cat turning from milk and ducks cutting the webs of their feet and going inland to pick with the chickens.

The fact is, the commission has no evidence of a single polygamous marriage having been celebrated within a year, or within three years, for that matter.  Some of its disreputable tools and agents may have said that in their opinion certain men had violated the anti-polygamy laws, and that is the extent of the commission's evidence that the law has been violated.  To say that such expressions of belief are evidence is to make light of the law and to trifle with the credulity of men.  Especially is this so when the character of some of the fellows employed by the commission for election work is taken into account; that for instance of the late judge of election in the Fourth precinct who threw up his employment as barkeeper and took the first train out of town after the federal judge had called in the grand jury and given it special instructions to investigate his manipulation of ballots.  Perhaps ALLEN told the commission that he believed the Mormons whose ballots he changed for Liberal ones were guilty of polygamy.

We say the inquisitors should call the gentlemen of the commission in and force them to tell what they know, or admit that they have been guilty of maliciously circulating falsehoods.

That "Manifesto"

The following brief blurb, also presented here as part of our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "That 'Manifesto'", Salt Lake Tribune 39/249 (27 September 1890): 5.

That "Manifesto"

Much Uncertainty About Whether or Not It Means a Change

Some citizens are disposed to think the Church is knuckling under and that the Saints will be ordered to give up polygamy at the next Conference.  Others say that manifesto is only a blind, a subterfuge to counteract the report of the Utah Commission, and that the bishops throughout the "kingdom" have instructions not to notice it.  The effect of the manifesto upon the cohabs when asked if they will obey the law will be looked forward to with interest.  The recent sermon of George Q. Cannon at St. George is held not to jibe at all with Woodruff's "advice."  George told as plainly as the English language can tell that the Lord blessed him when he took his second wife, while after his third marriage he prospered exceedingly.  George has now two wives in San Francisco soon to become mothers.  Does this look like giving up polygamy?

That Manifesto

The following item, presented here as the latest installment of our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "That Manifesto", Salt Lake Tribune 39/249 (27 September 1890): 4.

That Manifesto

It is only eight or ten days until the regular semi-annual Mormon conference, and a great many people are wondering why President WOODRUFF put out his manifesto in advance of that conference.  We think it is plain enough why it is done.  One reason is supplied by by the report of the Utah Commission; the other reason is that there will be an election in Idaho, before the Conference meets, and from what we know of the Mormon people there will be an attempt on their part to vote on the ground that they do not belong to any organization that teaches or practices polygamy.  Mr. CAINE writes to the Evening Star in Washington that the object of the dispatches, giving the substance of the report of the Utah Commission, is to crowd through certain legislation now pending before Congress, which if enacted into a law, would disfranchise every member of the Mormon Church by prescribing a test oath which no Mormon could well subscribe to.  It goes on to explain that this proposed legislation would not affect the polygamist Mormon, already disfranchised, but that it would apply to the non-polygamists, the young men of Utah, who have never violated the anti-polygamy law, and have taken oaths that they will not do so in the future; and that the object in disfranchising them is because they will not vote to suit the radical anti-Mormon ring at Salt Lake City.  He further states that this ring wishes to obtain political control of the Territory; to manipulate its affairs in their interest; to collect and expend the people's money, and to shape its destiny.  And he winds up by declaring that he knows that the charges lately made against the Mormons of Utah are false, and that such statements are injurious to them and dangerous to the best interests of Utah.

Now, about the non-Mormons here wishing to obtain control of this Territory, it is just as well to state the absolute fact, which is, not that they would obtain control of this Territory because they want to collect its taxes or to hold its offices; but they do want to break forever in this Territory the political power of the Mormon Church.  That has been their public aim for many years.  They have never deviated from it, and they are quite as conscientious and not nearly so much given to telling untruths as Mr. CAINE himself.  Mr. CAINE has made many a statement in Washington not substantiated by the facts.  And the reason why those Gentiles desire the disfranchisement of Mormons, whether they have been in polygamy or not, is because they are not free agents; they are not citizens of the United States in any legitimate sense.  There are hereditary aliens, and if Utah was a State to-day, without any restraining clauses in its Constitution, the government of the State within six months would be just such a government as the President of the Mormon Church might dictate; the first presidency would nominate every officer, the people would vote solidly for the nominees.  The Legislature would pass no law until it was first submitted to the first presidency for approval.  It would be the same in the government of the cities.  The government of the State would be that of a perfect theocracy.  The Mormon chiefs have been plotting and planning this for fifty years; and it is to make any such thing as that impossible that the Gentiles have been working and will continue to until that terror shall have been taken away, from this Territory.

There is nothing, when we come to examine it closely, in this manifesto of President WOODRUFF.  He merely says that he advises his people not to engage in polygamy, since the law against it has been declared constitutional.  That law was declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court years ago, and since then the predecessor of President WOODRUFF, in a manifesto very much more imposing than this, declared that for the Saints to abandon polygamy would be damnation.  In this manifesto President WOODRUFF cautiously advises the people.  That is not the style in which manifestos are given to the Mormon people by their chiefs.  That law was the last time declared Constitutional prior to the meeting of last April's conference, and yet at that Conference the same old exactions were insisted upon, the same discipline, the same rules; and there was not one breath of anything that looked like giving up polygamy or of relaxing in the slightest one tenet of their faith.

Hence, we believe, and it is with a feeling which is conclusive evidence on our part, that his manifesto was not intended to be accepted as a command by the President of the Church, but as a little bit of harmless dodging to deceive the people of the East, and especially the men in Congress.  Hence, we say that the Republicans in Congress, on the strength of that proclamation alone, ought to pick up the Struble bill and make it the law at once.  It is not a hardship to deny aliens the right of casting a ballot, or of holding office.  And it will be just as easy after that bill shall have been passed for Mormons to set themselves right, to become citizens of the United States, as it is for any other set of aliens whose homes are in this country.

A Question of Sealing

Reprinted as part of our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto', the following letter to the editor was written by one 'Nemo' of Logan, Utah, and appeared originally as "A Question of 'Sealing'", Salt Lake Tribune 39/249 (27 September 1890): 3.

A Question of "Sealing"
Case Cited in Cache County - Is This the Church Dodge on Polygamy?

EDITOR TRIBUNE: - The child is born at last, thank heaven, and the mountain has brought forth the proverbial mouse.  Our town has been disturbed for twenty-four hours last past in the expectation of a new revelation.  Bets have been freely laid that it was only a "fake" of the most transparent kind, and the extra of the Logan Journal issued to-day at 10 a.m. shows the prescience of the Gentile mind, which "know better."  It has been circulated that a new revelation had been uttered from above to the effect that polygamy was to be relegate to the shades of oblivion, and all the concomitants of that divine order should be sat down upon by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Quite a number of the elite swore that if this was so they'd be d----d if they would stand it, and would apostatize and join the Liberals.  Commissioner Goodwin's office has been besieged steadily by the Gentiles and apostates since last night for "news" in relation to the reports circulated as to the revelation, and not a few of the faithful have also hung around to get "pointers" as to the truth of the rumors.  What need has Brother Woodruff for endowment houses?  Has he not temples which are far better suited for his purposes?  Temples in which no record is kept of these marriages; at least such is the statement of those who have had their washings and anointings.  If Mr. Woodruff's statement is true and he be as honest as his manifesto would make him appear to be, the sooner he investigate the doings in the Logan Temple the better.  It is less than six months ago that a married man residing in Paradise took a young girl through the Logan Temple and tried his "darndest" to get her for a second wife, but her father hearing of the matter put a stop to the proceedings.  It appears that this same man had asked the father of the girl for his consent to take her for a plural wife on two or three occasions, but had been refused.  He then got a "recommend" and took the girl through the house as far as to the marriage room, then the father stepped in and stopped the music.  Some time after this the young woman married another man, and now the former beau claims that she was sealed to him, and that the lucky (?) winner had taken his wife away from him.  Had not Apostle Woodruff better be looking after his deputies in Cache county?  If the sealing of this girl is a fact, about which there seems to be no doubt, what else is it but plural marriage?  I suppose this is the hole which the Church of J. C. of L. D. S. proposes to crawl through, but it won't do, and something less transparent than this will have to be circulated before the American people can be thus hoodwinked.

NEMO.
LOGAN, Sept. 26, 1890.

President Woodruff's Declaration

In the 26 September 1890 issue, the Salt Lake Herald reprinted the "Official Declaration" that had initially appeared the day before in the Deseret Evening News.  Immediately thereafter, they also posted another article, "President Woodruff's Declaration".  What follows, the latest installment in our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "President Woodruff's Declaration", Salt Lake Herald 21/98 (26 September 1890): 4.

President Woodruff's Declaration

The official declaration of President WOODRUFF of the Mormon church, which was referred to in the Associated Press dispatches of Thursday morning, and which appears in full in this issue of THE HERALD, ought not to have been necessary, because everybody hereabouts, Mormon and Gentile, have long known that the facts were precisely as stated by President WOODRUFF.  The court records for years past have furnished fairly conclusive proof that polygamous marriages were discontinued in this community.  Vigilant and eager officers, with greater powers than are enjoyed by officials in any other part of the republic, have failed to learn of such marriages and will testify that if any have taken place, not even the neighbors and associates of the offending parties know of them.  Grand juries specially charged to indict in these cases and jealously eager to obey the instructions, can find nobody to punish.  In hundreds of churches and meeting houses scattered all over the territory there is public preaching by Mormon elders more or less prominent in the church, and at none of these places does one ever hear the practice of polygamy advocated or advised.  If the subject is referred to at all it is mentioned in a way to discourage the practice.  We say that in light of the known facts it ought not to have been necessary for President WOODRUFF to say more than he has said in the pulpit and through the press.  The lying report of the Utah Commission - and we use the word advisedly and with full knowledge of its scope and meaning - has induced the president of the church to make the declaration which we print.  He does this officially as the head of the organization, hence what he says must be accepted as authoritative.  The declaration, which is plain, frank and unequivocal, should end discussion as to whether or not polygamous marriages are now authorized or permitted.  It should also put to shame the members of the Utah commission who have been guilty of prostituting their office and lending themselves and their official influence to further the schemes of a disreputable band of plunderers who are waging wicked and relentless war against helpless Mormons, the latter by showing by their acts and utterances that they are doing their utmost to keep in harmony with the laws of this country.  When the commission said that forty or any other number of polygamous marriages had taken place within the year, it knew that it was stating an untruth, and that it was falsifying for no other purpose than to injure the Mormon people.  It knew that if there were a vague suspicion that forty men had broken the law there would have been forty arrests before the commission had received an intimation of the suspicion.

President WOODRUFF's declaration will have little or no effect here, for the reason that the facts as he states them were known by everybody to exist.  Let us hope that what the venerable chief official of the church says will convince the press and people elsewhere that what has been asserted so many times, namely, that polygamy has practically ceased, is true.

That Manifesto

The following item, the next installment in our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "That Manifesto", Salt Lake Tribune 39/249 (26 September 1890): 4.

That Manifesto

It seems that President WOODRUFF of the Mormon Church has caused a dispatch to be sent through the Associated Press to the newspapers of the United States, giving his advice to the Latter-Day Saints to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.  It is unnecessary to say that that is not the usual way by which the President of the Mormon Church makes his decrees known.  In private conversation, President WOODRUFF has more than once in the last year and a half stated that if plural marriages were being celebrated they were without his knowledge.  It seems this dispatch was called out probably because of the statement of the Utah Commission that they had evidence which convinced them that the practice is being indulged in more or less throughout the Territory.  But there is something about this dispatch itself which causes people familiar with Mormonism to be suspicious.  It does not come in the authoritative manner in which the orders of the Church are generally clothed.  President WOODRUFF says: "My advice to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the laws of the land."  He speaks merely as an individual.  He does not speak as though that advice had come authoritatively by revelation, but as a poor human being in perplexity he gives to his flock the advice of a patriarch.  The question is, how will they understand it?  It is not at all as JOHN TAYLOR announced to a convention of the priesthood that in his bath-room he had received a revelation that Mr. YOUNG was to have one office, and Mr. Somebody else another office.  It is not at all in the same tone that President WOODRUFF at the last conference announced to the people that the blood of the prophets HYRUM and JOSEPH were yet to be avenged; that so far they had not been avenged.  We cannot resist the thought that this was not prompted by President WOODRUFF at all, but that it was prompted by shrewd men in the Church, and that the object is purely political.  Of course it is all right with Eastern people.  There, it is the advice of the President of the Mormon Church.  But it seems to us if it had been genuine, the president himself in the Tabernacle, backed by more than one apostle, would have said to his people, "There is a new deal.  You are not to involve yourselves in plural marriages any more, so long as the laws of the United States forbid.  While ours is a distinct creed, it is subject to the laws, and you will not disobey the laws in the matter of taking more wives."  That would have been the usual way.  That would not only have been sounded in the Tabernacle, but it would have been echoed in every ward meeting-house in the city and Territory.  If we had to make a diagnosis of this case we should say it came about like this:  Mr. CANNON said to President WOODRUFF, "The Nation is greatly exercised about our affairs.  A good many of our brethren in Idaho are in trouble; they want to vote.  Legislation is pending which threatens to disfranchise us, and the ground is that we still adhere to and persist in plural or celestial marriage as a sacrament which we are bound to respect and comply with.  Now, it would be a good thing to send to the country something which would give the country an idea that we had abandoned polygamy because of our respect for the laws.  We will not put it in the usual way of an edict from the Church, but you, as the president of the Church can sign this dispatch to go to the country, which merely gives your personal, individual, human advice to the Saints, and which, of course, does not count any more than the advice of any other man, it not pretending to be in the nature of an authoritative mandate to the people."

President WOODRUFF is an easy-going, quiet old gentleman, but down deep he is a genuine fanatic.  He has never said a word yet that indicated that he thinks he went too far in that dedicatory prayer at St. George; indeed, his words in the last conference were a fair supplement to that prayer, considering the changed conditions here, and, hence, it is natural for even a man like him to think that a little trick is not out of the way when by it he is serving the Lord.  So we take it that he subscribed to the opinion of Mr. CANNON, and it was for that his dispatch was sent out.  And we believe that yesterday, being Thursday, there was more than one plural marriage celebrated in one or other of the Temples of this Territo[r]y, and that, while President WOODRUFF himself knew nothing of it, the parties engaged in it knew that if President WOODRUFF ever heard of it, notwithstanding his advice, he would look upon it as an act of grace on the part of the parties engaged in it.

And, in a brief blurb following a line break, they similarly wrote:

THE best review of President WOODRUFF's "advice" to the people was made by a newsboy last evening.  He was selling the paper, and as an inducement to purchases was crying: "All about President WOODRUFF abandoning polygamy."  A by-stander said: "So he has come to it at last, has he?"  "Yes," said the boy, "and I wish my father would, but he never will."  And that, we take it, is about the fact of the case.  The President advises, but the people know that the old man would not state it that way if he wanted the people to follow the advice, and so will continue to do business at the old stand.

A Frantic Mormon Lobby

The following item, the next installment of our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "A Frantic Mormon Lobby", Salt Lake Tribune 39/249 (26 September 1890): 1.

A FRANTIC MORMON LOBBY

Me Too Caine Issues a Little "Manifesto" of His Own.

ANYTHING TO HOODWINK THE PUBLIC.

Woodruff's Vagabond "To Whom It May Concern" Bulwarked by Our Delegate With the Usual Rubbish - The Washington Stake of Zion Badly Scared.

The report of the Utah Commission, with its vigorous denunciations of polygamy, still practiced and persistently denied in Utah, has spurred the Mormon lobby in Washington in its depths.  Immediately upon its publication, several days after the announcement of its receipt by the Interior Department, John T. Caine placed himself in communication with the Church, and urged the necessity of a pronunciamento to counteract the effect.

The result was Wilford Woodruff's letter, published this morning, addressed "to whom it may concern," denying that plural marriages are still being solemnized in Utah, and affirming that all the influence of the Church will be used to make the Saints obey the law of the land.

The precious document is emphasized tonight by a letter from the smooth-tongued Caine, who is panic-stricken over the effect which the Commission's report may have upon pending legislation.  His letter, printed in the Evening Star, is as follows:

"There have recently been published in your paper extracts from the last report of the Utah Commission, telegraphed from Salt Lake in advance of its receipt by the Secretary of the Interior.  These convey the idea that polygamous marriages are still being entered into by the Mormons, and that the leaders of the Mormon Church continue to teach and enforce the doctrine and practice upon the adherents of that faith.

"The object of this and similar dispatches about the practice of polygamy among the Mormons is well understood here.  There are pending before Congress two or three bills, which, if enacted into a law would disfranchise every member of the Mormon Church by prescribing a test oath such as no Mormon could conscientiously subscribe to.  This proposed legislation would not affect the polygamous Mormons, they are already disfranchised - can neither vote, hold office, nor sit on juries - but it would apply to the non-polygamous Mormons, the young men of Utah who have never violated the anti-polygamous laws and have taken oaths that they will not do so in the future, who have always been loyal to their country and its laws.  They are to be disfranchised because they will not vote to suit the radical anti-Mormon ring at Salt Lake City.  The minority wish to obtain political control of the Territory, to manipulate its affairs in their interest, to collect and expend the people's taxes and to shape its destiny.  To do this all the non-polygamous Mormons, the sons of the hardy pioneers who discovered and settled that arid region, must be disfranchised for no reason but that some few members of the Mormon Church believe and have heretofore practiced polygamy.

"Knowing as I do that the charges lately made against the Mormons of Utah are false, and that such statements are injurious to them and dangerous to the best interests of the Territory, I take the great pleasure of handing you a declaration of the President of the Mormon Church which I have just received by telegraph from Salt Lake, and request its publication as an act of justice to a much maligned and persecuted people, and as a complete refutation of the malicious statements heretofore published.

Very respectfully,
JOHN T. CAINEDelegate in Congress from the Territory in Utah"

Caine is evidently thoroughly alarmed over the situation, and he may well be.  The Commission report has opened the eyes of many who have heretofore believed that politics have colored the views of those delegated to note the actual situation in Utah, and who now see their mistake.

The "Mormon" Perplexity

The following item, the first 'regular' installment in our 'Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto' series, appeared originally as "The 'Mormon' Perplexity", Deseret Evening News 23/258 (23 September 1890): [2].  This was an editorial printed two days before the publication of the 1890 Woodruff Manifesto (for which, stay tuned); in it, the Deseret Evening News replies to an editorial from the Globe-Democrat of St. Louis, Missouri.

The 'Mormon' Perplexity

The annexed article appears as an editorial in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat of September 19th:

"The report of the Utah Commission for the past year resembles all preceding ones in the important respect that it urges the necessity of more stringent legislation to solve the Mormon problem.  Congress has been passing laws for that purpose from time to time for many years, and still the perplexity remains.  Mormonism seems to be practically just as strong as it ever was.  The successive blows inflicted upon it have done it some harm, doubtless, but in each instance it has recovered and gone on growing.  There are more Mormons in Utah now than ever, and they keep coming from different quarters, principally beyond the Atlantic, the same as if nothing had been done by the Government to suppress the monstrous iniquity which has so long made Utah a national reproach.  The Mormon Church maintains its absolute power over its members, both spiritually and temporally; the edicts of the priesthood are implicitly obeyed, and there are no signs of that revolt against ecclesiastical tyranny which has so often been predicted.  After all the penalties that have been provided for those who indulge in a plurality of wives, the commission declares that polygamy continues to be practiced; and the opinion is added, curiously enough, that the only real hope of abating the evil lies in the possible renunciation of the doctrine as a part of the Mormon creed.

"It is astonishing, to say the least, that no way can be found to deal effectively with this great wrong.  The power of the government is practically unlimited in the case, and public sentiment is decidedly inimical to Mormon interests of every kind.  This implies that the task should be an easy one, but some how it is not.  Some of the legislation upon the subject has been very drastic, and the courts have enforced it with reasonable rigor, and yet the much-desired consummation does not come to pass.  There is something lacking somewhere, it is easy to understand; but it not so easy to say what or where the trouble is.  Most likely, however, the chief mistake has been in not directly and thoroughly taking away the occupation of the priesthood.  The leaders of the Church are its chief strength.  They rule as so many autocrats, acknowledging no sense of duty except their own inclinations, and recognizing no law except those which they personally make or dictate.  The Mormon problem will never be solved, it is safe to say, so long as they are permitted to exercise such sway over their followers.  They are men of extraordinary ability in their way, thoroughly acquainted with the weaknesses of human nature, and quick to seize every advantage that may be presented.  If these adroit and unscrupulous individuals could be deprived of their power for mischief the whole matter would soon adjust itself in a sound and wholesome manner.  They are the principal stumbling-blocks, and no legislation can prove satisfactory that leaves them in possession of such authority as they now have.  How to dislodge them is a difficult question, but it is nevertheless the vital question, and Congress can not afford to evade or postpone it."

These remarks were prompted by the dispatches which have been sent from this city giving garbled extracts from the report of the Utah Commission for 1890.  The urging of more legislation to solve the "Mormon" problem, is the annual effort of that body in the interest of the "Liberal" faction in this Territory.  Its object is to deprive that part of the "Mormon" people who have not broken the law, of every political right and privilege.  This is what they mean by "solving the Mormon problem."

The Globe-Democrat, in common with the greater part of the American press, evidently regards polygamy as "Mormonism" and "Mormonism" as polygamy.  The Utah Commission know better than that.  They understand that all the legislation necessary, and a great deal more, to handle the polygamy question has been enacted.  And further, that the doctrine of plural marriage, even when it was openly advocated and practiced, was but one out of a very large number of tenets that made up the creed of "Mormonism."  Also that plural marriage apart, the religion of the Latter-day Saints is as much above the reach of law as the religion of any body of worshippers in the land.

Does the Globe-Democrat seriously claim that Congress has of right any authority or power to interfere with such a religion?  If not, why should accessions to the "Mormon" Church trouble the editors of that paper or anybody else?  Or do they mean to say that the "practically unlimited power of the government" extends to the regulation of religious belief?

They may answer that all they mean by that power is the authority to suppress practices that are declared to be criminal.  If that is the case, we unhesitatingly affirm that laws to that effect are in force in Utah more potently and effectually than in any other part of the United States.  Moreover, there have been less convictions for polygamy for two or three years past than there have been for bigamy in other parts of this great and moral country.  The records of courts will demonstrate the truth of this statement.

If it be urged that the report of the Utah Commission alleges to the contrary, we answer, we do not believe it.  The concocter of false dispatches in this city may have stated that the Commissioners have so declared, but that is another thing.  We are of the opinion that the report when published will disprove his assertion.  But whether they have stated or not that eighty or forty or twenty polygamous marriages have been solemnized in Utah during the last few months of the last year, that is something that neither they nor any other body can prove, and it has been made with malicious intent, that is, to injure the law-obeying "Mormon" people and deceive the American press and public.

The statement that the leaders of the Church "rule as so many autocrats" and that "they recognize no law except those which they personally make or dictate" is grossly untrue and absurd, and can only be excused by the evidence ignorance of the writer.  Such a rule, if it existed, would be the very antipodes of "Mormonism."  It would be destructive of the system.  The "edicts of the priesthood" have no existence except in the imagination of persons who are too prejudiced to look into the facts, and the "Mormon" leaders are today more strictly observant of every law of the land than ninety-nine hundredths of their accusers.

That oft predicted "revolt against ecclesiastical tyranny" of which there are "no signs," has never come because there is no such tyranny to revolt from.  All things in the "Mormon" Church are and must be done "by common consent."  The "Priesthood" is composed of nearly all the adult male members.  Women as well as men vote on all Church questions and officers, and the "occupation of the priesthood" is beyond the legitimate reach of any secular power.

Of course in the attempt to solve "the Mormon perplexity" there is "something lacking," and there always will be.  What is it?  It is a failure to get at the truth.  Its opponents are figuring, and thrusting, and plunging in the dark.  They do not know what they are fighting.  It is not these formidable leaders that stand in the way, as supposed.  If the vindictive befugs who desire their extinction could kill every one of these leaders or immure them for life in dungeons, the "perplexity" would remain and the "problem["] would remain unsolved.

The abatement of the evil, the Globe-Democrat says, in the opinion of the Commission depends upon the "renunciation" of a certain ["]part of the Mormon creed."  And does any one who is sane believe that can be accomplished by "more stringent legislation."  Does not the Globe-Democrat understand that drastic laws against a belief are more likely to confirm than destroy that belief?  And if the belief of the Latter-day Saints is the real root of the trouble, why not try to reach it by reason instead of seeking to crush it out by force?

We submit for the consideration of the reflecting that a more rational and Christian method of combating "Mormonism," would be first to find out what it is, and to overcome the power of its Priesthood, to ascertain in what it consists.  Then instead of misrepresenting and abusing and maltreating the "Mormons," show them "a more excellent way."  They are a good, honest, industrious, temperate and cheerful people, able to comprehend an argument and highly appreciative of kindness.  They have convictions which are personal, and for these they have suffered much.  They will never be coerced into renunciation of their belief, and while falsehood and force continue to be the means employed, the "Mormon" perplexity will remain to vex sectarians and puzzle politicians.

Newspaper Wars Over the Manifesto

Lately I've been finishing up the reading of B. Carmon Hardy's excellent book Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage.  While reflecting on some of the newspaper sources he used with reference to the 1890 Woodruff Manifesto, I started looking through them and found them (and a few others not there cited) quite interesting.  With that in mind, I'm setting in motion a brief but dense series here in which I hope to provide noteworthy articles from the Deseret News, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Salt Lake Herald from late September and October 1890.  While the main subject for many is polygamy or the status of the Manifesto itself, the exchange of heated editorials back and forth provide insight into a variety of other secondary issues involved as well.  This post will serve as a hub to be updated with each new installment; I hope to release each on the corresponding date in late April and May, so as to provide the sensation of attempting to keep up with the war of words as it happened.

•  "The 'Mormon' Perplexity" - Deseret Evening News, 23 September 1890
•  "Official Declaration" - Deseret Evening News, 25 September 1890
•  "Why the Devious Way?" - Salt Lake Tribune, 25 September 1890

The Mormon Question and the Limits of Liberty: Thoughts from 1884

The following two-paragraph editorial remark on the subject of "The Mormon Question" appeared in the 25 July 1884 issue of the New Holland Clarion and illustrates one on-the-ground perspective of LDS polygamous practices in light of the American tradition of religious liberty:

Religious liberty is the right of every citizen of the Republic. Congress is forbidden by the Constitution to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For a century, under this guarantee, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, have worshipped God according to the dictates of conscience. But religious liberty must not be perverted to the justification of offenses against the law. A religious sect, strongly intrenched in one of the Territories of the Union, and spreading rapidly into four other Territories, claims the right to destroy the great safeguard and muniment of social order, and to practice as a religious privilege that which is a crime punished with severe penalty in every State of the Union. The sacredness and unity of the family must be preserved as the foundation of all civil government, as the source of orderly administration, as the surest guarantee of moral purity.

The claim of the Mormons that they are divinely authorized to practice polygamy should no more be admitted than the claim of certain heathen tribes, if they should come among us, to continue the rite of human sacrifice. The law does not interfere with what a man believes; it takes cognizance only of what he does. As citizens, the Mormons are entitled to the same civil rights as others, and to these they must be confined. Polygamy can never receive national sanction or toleration by admitting the community that upholds it as a State in the Union. Like others, the Mormons must learn that the liberty of the individual ceases where the rights of society begin.

What do we make of this asserted principle here, "the liberty of the individual ceases where the rights of the society begin"?

A Generous Offer

This little anecdote, which I personally found amusing, is taken from the 30 July 1910 issue of the New Holland Clarion:

During the days when polygamy was the universal rule among the Mormons a woman doctor from one of the eastern states went into one of the Mormon communities to practice her profession. She was a pleasant lady as well as skillful, and her patients were very fond of her.

"How I wish," said one of them, "that I could convert you to our religion. If you would only marry my husband and come and live with us" -

The doctor fled in horror to another friend, to whom she told the story. Her self respect began to revive, and she felt comforted, seeing how the eyes of her listener blazed.

"I don't wonder you feel as you do," replied the friend indignantly. "The idea! Why, that Mr. ----- is perfectly horrid! What you want to do is marry my husband and come and live with us."

What sort of perception of plural marriage in Utah and the conflicting perceptions of Mormons and non-Mormons at the time does this sort of story reflect?

Zion's Freedom: An 1889 LDS Poem

The following poem by T. W. Brookbank is taken from The Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star 51/49 (9 December 1889): 784. The historical context, I'd surmise, is the legal repression that the Latter-day Saints faced for their continued violations of the anti-polygamy laws of the day, as warranted by the Edmunds Act of 1882 and later the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887; this state of affairs reached a turning point when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly renounced polygamy in the Manifesto of 1890, though continuing to practice it covertly until this was exposed, requiring a Second Manifesto (1904).

Christ the Lord will succor Zion -
King of mighty Kings is He -
'Tis His arm the Saints rely on.
For their promised victory:
Gentile sway shall soon be broken;
Haughty foes before Him flee;
For this word our God hath spoken,
"Zion's people shall be free."
Then, O foemen, bind your chains,
Saints of God despise their pains,
Nor can death their souls appall;
And your tribes ere long shall see
Dearest Zion strong and free;
High enthroned above you all.

Though the Saints you hail to prison,
Boast not rashly in your pride;
Never yet have there arisen
Tyrant hopes no ills betide:
Zion's armies do surround her,
Marshalled there from heavens wide,
And in their glory they will found her,
When her sons are fully tried.
Then, O foemen, build your jails,
Not one hero spirit quails,
Freedom's hosts you'll ne'er subdue;
But your tribes ere long shall see
Dearest Zion strong and free,
And enthroned in glory too.

Spoil our rights by charter granted;
Plunder consecrated gains;
Breathe out war, where now implanted,
Smiling peace so sweetly reigns;
Tear protection from the mother;
Seize our homes and fertile plains;
Zion's hopes you cannot smother,
E'en when bound in felons' chains.
Then, O foemen, fill ye up
Direst woe's most bittter cup,
You shall drink its dregs at last;
While the Saints in Zion free
Shall outspread from sea to sea;
Glorified by troubles past.

You may safely hunt the lion
When no lion is in view;
But your safety don't rely on
When the lion is hunting you;
Thus you war against Jehovah,
And you wage it fiercely, too;
But before your days are over,
He will wage a war with you.
Then, O foemen, fill ye up
Direst woe's most bitter cup;
You shall drink its dregs at last;
While the Saints in Zion free,
Shall outspread from sea to sea;
Glorified by troubles past.

Rose Eytinge Reminisces About Brigham Young

Rose Eytinge (1838-1911) was a prominent American actress of the nineteenth century who performed in a wide variety of venues. In 1905, she published her Memories, containing brief chapters on her experiences meeting a variety of notable people and her visits to not a few noteworthy places. The thirty-fourth chapter concerns her visit to Salt Lake City, and I reprint the chapter in full here, as taken from Rose Eytinge, The Memories of Rose Eytinge: Being Recollections and Observations of Men, Women, and Events, During Half a Century (New York City, NY: Frederick A. Stokes, 1905), 276-280:

Salt Lake City is to-day, as I understand from recent visitors there, a typical, thriving, Western business centre, differing in no special features from any town of like size; but a quarter of a century ago it was unique. I think no other spot on earth was like it, and it was like no other spot on earth; it was such a mingling of the savage and the civilised, the fervid pietist and the reckless agnostic, the thrifty money-spinner and the careless spendthrift.

The same strong contrasts that marked its social aspects characterised its natural features. It was a great strip of sandy desert, backed by frowning mountains, and made all the more awe-inspiring by the mysterious presence of the Great Salt Lake. But this sandy desert had, by the marvellous energy of the sect that had put up its tents in it, been transformed into a garden. The streets were shaded by trees, and made sweet and refreshing by pure water, both having been brought down from those frowning mountains. Cleanliness, order, quiet, and apparent peace reigned everywhere.

To this most interesting spot I was invited to come and play an engagement. I timed my acceptance so that my season would close there, and thus I might devote a brief time to a visit in the city and its neighbourhood. On my arrival I was waited upon by a couple of white-whiskered, reverend-looking men, the bearers of an invitation from Brigham Young to become his guest during my stay. When I learned that I was to be entertained at the best hotel in the place, where the best suite had been reserved for me, and not in any one of the score or so of his marital establishments, I promptly accepted the great polygamist's hospitality.

The next morning a fine carriage, drawn by a pair of spanking bays, drew up in front of the hotel, and a message was sent me that this carriage was at my disposal for the period of my stay. Promptly at nine o'clock every morning it appeared, and a great joy and comfort it was to me.

I lost no time in paying my respects to my host, and a very interesting old man I found him. He certainly was a most courteous, thoughtful, and attentive host, and he lost no opportunity to make my visit agreeable. Day after day parties were formed to go to some one of the many marvellous spots with which the surrounding country abounded, and these parties were usually recruited from members of his very numerous families. There were scores of young and middle-aged men and women who called him father, and they one and all treated him with great respect and deference. I soon found, however, that his many wives were very chary of meeting, and always referred to each other in cold, grudging terms. This state of feeling seemed to be universal among Mormon wives.

In all essentials, but not in name, Brigham Young was a sovereign, and his rule was absolute. Nothing could exceed his pride in his principality and in his own part in its establishment. He would point to the great range of mountains all around us, and say, "Look at 'em; all the gold in California is nothin' compared with the wealth that's in them mountains." And when I put to him the pertinently natural question why he did not get some of it out, he would answer: "If I did, we would be swarmed out and trodden down by armies of Gentiles, for the Gentiles love gold a heap better than they do their God, for all their talk."

We had many talks on the subject of his peculiar faith, more particularly the feature of polygamy, which he, of course, strenuously defended, while I as strenuously opposed it.

I particularly remember one little incident. He took me one day, on a visit of inspection, to a house in course of erection. As we passed from room to room this subject of polygamy was under discussion, and by way of illustrating his argument he pointed out the many spacious advantages of the house, and said:

"Now suppose you were living in this house, and say you were sealed to me, and I were to bring in another wife and establish her in another wing, why should you object? What would you do?"

To which I replied:

"Do? I would dance on her!"

The old man dropped on a pile of lumber that lay conveniently near, and laughed until I thought he would do himself an injury.

Parley Pratt on Plural Marriage

As with other nineteenth-century book-length presentations of LDS thought, Parley Pratt's Key to the Science of Theology (1855) ends with a chapter on marriage, in which - among other things - Pratt discusses plural marriage. Although Pratt discussed this issue at great length elsewhere also, I'd like to present a few choice quotes from this work here (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology [Liverpool, UK: F. D. Richards, 1855], 163, 165, 167, 171-172):

Again, it was a law of the ancient Priesthood, and is again restored, that a man who is faithful in all things, may, by the word of the Lord, through the administration of one holding the keys to bind on earth and heaven, receive and secure to himself, for time and all eternity, MORE THAN ONE WIFE. Thus did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the Patriarchs and Prophets of old. The principal object contemplated by this law, is the multiplication of the children of good and worthy fathers, who will teach them the truth, and train them in the holy principles of salvation. This is far preferable to sending them into the world in the lineage of an unworthy or ignorant parentage, to be educated in error, folly, ignorance, and crime....

Marriage, and its duties, are therefore, not a mere matter of choice, or of convenience, or of pleasure to the parties; but to marry and multiply is a positive command of Almighty God, binding on all persons of both sexes, who are circumstanced and conditioned to fulfil the same. To marry, propagate our species, do our duty to them, and to educate them in the light of truth, are among the chief objects of our existence on the earth. To neglect these duties, is to fail to answer the end of our creation, and is a very great sin....

Indeed, it should be the privilege of every virtuous female, who has the requisite capacity and qualifications for matrimony, to demand either of individuals or government, the privilege of becoming an honoured and legal wife and mother; even if it were necessary for her to be married to a man who has several wives; or, as Jesus said in the parable, to take the one talent from the place where it remains neglected or unimproved, and give it to him who has ten talents....

The eternal union of the sexes, in and after the resurrection, is mainly for the purpose of renewing and continuing the work of procreation. In our present or rudimental state, our offspring are in our own image, and partake of our natures, in which are the seeds of death. In like manner, will the offspring of immortal and celestial beings, be in the likeness and partake of the nature of their divine parentage. Hence, such offspring will be pure, holy, incorruptible and eternal. They will in no wise be subject unto death, except by descending to partake of the grosser elements, in which are the inherent properties of dissolution or death. To descend thus, and to be made subject to sorrow, pain and death, is the only road to the resurrection, and to the higher degrees of immortality and eternal life. [...] Hence, the highest degrees of eternal felicity are approached by the straight gate, and the narrow path which leads through the dark valley of death, to eternal mansions in the realms of endless life. This path has been trodden by the eternal Father, by His son Jesus Christ, - and by all the sons and daughters of God, who are exalted to a fulness of joys celestial.

How does Parley Pratt's picture of marriage and exaltation here relate to that of Charles Penrose, or that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today?

Some Plural Marriage Anecdotes

I found the following excerpt while glancing through the unfortunately anonymous 1881 book - billed only as being "by an apostle's wife" - The Mysteries of Mormonism: A Full Disclosure of Its Secret Practices and Hidden Crimes. A shame about the sensationalistic title, but I suppose that's par for the course. I think these stories are worth sharing, though; the following comes from page 56:

As the Mormons are a most prolific people, every divorced woman having two or three children by a different husband, and the husband having so many children by different wives, their relations sometimes get so mixed that no one could understand them. One man I was acquainted with married a divorced woman with three little girls, all under the age of seven. When the girls grew up he married all three, thus becoming the husband of four women, though he had but one mother-in-law, that mother-in-law being his own wife. But this is easy compared to some of their problems of relationship, which they almost go crazy themselves trying to work out. Here, for example: A man married a woman with a daughter nearly grown. When she reached womanhood, she was married to the father of her mother's husband, making him his step-daughter's step-son, and when a son was born to the father, the mother's husband became half brother to his own grandchild. The original pair also had a child - but this is getting so mixed, like everything else in Utah, that I leave it to wiser heads than mine to work out.

Thoughts?

Charles Penrose on Plural Marriage

In 1882, the Juvenile Instructor Office published Charles William Penrose's short book "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple: Or, Leaves from the Tree of Life. Charles Penrose (1832-1925) later taught theology at Brigham Young Academy, because a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1904, and became a member of the First Presidency in 1911. In one of those 'leaves', the one dedicated to the subject of marriage, Penrose naturally takes a few paragraphs to explain plural marriage. In order to understand what he says later, one must know this:

No man or woman, separate and single, can attain the fullness of celestial glory. Perfection of being, happiness, exaltation or dominion, is unattainable by either sex alone. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 48)

Men and women may be saved in a separate and single state, but they cannot be exalted into the fullness of celestial glory without union in celestial marriage, because that is a state of perfection and comprehends the gift of perpetual increase, in which there are endless dominion and the exercise of all the powers of immortal manhood and womanhood united as one in the everlasting covenant. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 50-51)

Now, as for plural marriage in particular:

In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. Is there any reason why this should not be so? Is not each of these wives entitled to her position in eternity, by virtue of the sealing power which made her part of the man? Why should one enter into the exaltation of the celestial world, and the other be relegated to singleness and servitude? They all become one in the patriarchal order of family government. And if this be the case in heaven, why should not similar positions so far as possible exist on earth? Is earth holier than heaven? If a man receives from the Lord more wives than one under the sealing ordinances of celestial marriage, where is the moral wrong? They belong to no other man, but are his by mutual consent of all the interested parties, and they live together in the marriage stage, one as much as the other.

In this position there are occasions for the exercise of patience, forebearance, charity, self-sacrifice and the exercise of all the virtues to a far greater degree than in any other. In this plural family relation, an experience can be gained that no other condition in life affords, and the parties who so live and keep the law will be, in the very nature of things, prepared for a wider sphere of dominion, and power, and dignity, and might in the eternal world, than those who have only experienced the monogamic condition. They will, therefore, if they endure unto the end, go forward into the highest degree of exaltation, while their posterity will multiply at an ever-increasing ratio, until worlds will be filled by their generations and they will ascend to the majesty and splendor of the Gods on high. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 51-52)

What sort of view of women and of marriage is embodied in Penrose's writing? Given how he argues for eternal polygyny, how might he approach the relatively few instances of genuine polyandry in LDS history, such as Joseph Smith's marriages to a number of already-married women? What does one make of Penrose's justification of plural marriage? For Latter-day Saints in particular, how do you approach his stated rationale given that earthly polygamy is now forbidden by the mainstream LDS Church?

Thoughts?