The LDS church has issued another press release. This one is on plural wives. The press releases could certainly help combat the "Google
Apostasy" and the "Swedish Apostasy." When Elder L. Tom Perry
went to Europe recently and said he had answers in his briefcase but couldn't
release them, presumably he was referring to the press releases now rolling out
onto the LDS.org website.
The historical stories that have been
taught within the church are generally in conflict with the outside accounts
told by historians. Increasingly, there are LDS historians recounting history
in ways which conflict with the church's narrative. The best way to deal with
these things is to get it all out.
The church's statement on plural wives in
early Utah begins its discussion with the year 1843, ignoring all the history
between 1829 (when I date the beginning of the topic) and 1843 (when the
revelations on the subject were reduced to writing in what is now Section 132
of the D&C). Although the statement mentions someone (not clearly
identifying who) did post-1890 plural marriages, it avoids discussing the deceit
and official involvement at the highest
levels of the church in continuing the practice of sealing plural wives from
1890 to 1904, and thereafter.
The church avoids discussing the full history
from 1832 (Joseph Smith/Fanny Alger) through 1904, which the fundamentalists
make good use of. The problems will not be solved by hiding the unpleasant
parts of the history. Fundamentalists and church critics should be able to
exploit this lack of complete candor.
The statement by the church says the 1890 Manifesto
was "inspired." It reads: "In 1890, the Lord inspired Church
President Wilford Woodruff to issue a statement that led to the end of the
practice of plural marriage in the Church." That is not quite true
according to actual history. This subject was debated in my High Priests Group a
couple of Sundays ago. Some of these fathers and grandfathers have children and
grandchildren falling away from the church over the subject of polygamy. Not
because the practice existed, but because there is very little candor by the
church in its discussion of it. The Manifesto was a political statement. It was
a press release to deal with pressure from the Federal Government. It was not
"inspired" in the LDS vernacular. Rather it was a desperate attempt to
preserve legal rights and church property by making a statement designed to
mislead Congress into believing the practice would end.
Heber J. Grant, an apostle at the time,
was the publisher and managing editor of the Salt Lake Herald. His paper responded
to another newspaper's article that said the Manifesto was a revelation by
writing: "[The Tribune] pretends the declaration is a revelation...
although no one today has heard anyone except the lying sheet say it was a
revelation." (Salt Lake Herald, October 9, 1890.) Heber J. Grant said on
September 26, 1890: "I ...feel that it is merely a public announcement of
the course which we had already decided in our private councils to adopt.
...Yet I believe greater troubles will follow the prominent Elders in the Church
through adoption of this policy." When asked if the Manifesto was a
revelation, "President Smith answered emphatically no... he did not
believe it to be an emphatic revelation from God abolishing plural
marriage." (First Presidency Office Journal, August 20, 1891.) In the
trial for the membership of Apostle Matthias Cowley he testified that President
Joseph F. Smith informed him the 1890 Manifesto did not "mean
anything." Others including George Reynolds, L. John Nuttall, Charles W.
Penrose, John Henry Smith and B. H. Roberts all denied the Manifesto was a
revelation. To the extent the statement by the church is intended to convey the
impression this was an inspired revelation, there is plenty to show that is
inaccurate. It would be more correct to say the church reluctantly abandoned
the practice as a result of legislation passed by Congress which
disincorporated the LDS church, escheated its property, disenfranchised Mormons
from voting, disqualified Mormons from serving on juries, and criminalized
continued plural marriages. But it was abandoned only as a temporary measure to
secure statehood. It was to resume when a state legislature, instead of the US
Congress legislating for the Federal Territory of Utah, could pass laws. The United
States did not trust Mormons, and required Utah’s state constitution to include
the abandonment of plural wives as a condition of statehood. Utah became a
state in 1896, but underground plural wives were continued until the Congressional
hearings during the Senator Reed Smoot controversy in 1904. President Joseph F.
Smith went to Washington, DC and testified under oath about the matter, and
subsequently actually ended the practice. The trauma of testifying during these
hearings resulted in the "Second Manifesto" written in 1904 by
President Joseph F. Smith. This was another attempt to end the underground
practice.
Even the 1904 letter didn't actually end
it. It just became more secret. Apostles Taylor and Cowley were sacrificed when
their continued sealing of plural wives was brought to light by the Salt Lake
Tribune. Their trials removed them from the Quorum of the Twelve for failing to
discontinue the practice of sealing multiple wives in violation of the 1904
letter (NOT the Manifesto). No one contended in the church court proceedings
for Apostles Taylor and Cowley that the Manifesto ended the practice or
required them to cease sealing plural wives as early as 1890.
Interestingly related to this topic is the
ruling by Judge Clark Waddoups on the issue of plural wives. The Waddoups’
opinion does not legalize plural wives. Instead it decriminalizes private
sexual relations between consenting adults which would otherwise violate a
criminal statute adopted by Utah. It also does not prevent criminal prosecution
of bigamy. The distinction between what is legal and what is illegal is driven
by whether the people engaged in the private consensual relationships bothered
to purchase a marriage license and seek governmental authorization for their second
(or more) marriage. If they did, and they have more than one legal marriage,
they violate Utah's bigamy law and can be prosecuted. If they did not, then
they are merely engaging in private conduct which is protected by the penumbra
of the First Amendment.
As a result of the decision, a man could
have concubines, but not plural wives. Which brings to mind a discussion that
took place in a meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve on
April 5, 1894 (four years after the Manifesto): They discussed concubinage as a
means of meeting the technical requirements of the law, while still continuing
sexual relationships with multiple women. George Q. Cannon said: "I
believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together
under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married. Thus our surplus of
girls can be cared for, and the law of God to multiple and replenish the earth
can be fulfilled." President Lorenzo Snow added: "I have no doubt but
concubinage will yet be practiced by this Church, but I had not thought of it
in this connection. When the nations are troubled good women will come here for
safety and blessing, and men will accept them as concubines." President
Woodruff added: "If men enter into some practice of this character to
raise a righteous posterity, they will be justified in it. The day is near when
there will be no difficulty in the way of good men securing noble wives."
(Spellings corrected.) If you put the decision of Judge Waddoups together with
the discussion on April 5, 1894, a resumption of concubinage seems possible.
I'm not expecting it to resume with official sanction. But the fundamentalists
are going to be perking up in Utah, I assume.
