The First Manifesto

In November 1890 Joseph wrote: 

At the last Semi Annual Conference Prest.W. Woodruff presented the following manifesto to the people:

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year; also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy.

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, not permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties alleged that the marriage was performed in the endowment house, in Salt Lake City in the Sprint of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge.  In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment house was, by my instructions, taken down with out delay.

In as much as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonable construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy, and when any Elder of the Church has need language which appeared to convey and such teaching he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff

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

Prest. Lorenzo Snow moved that the conference sustain this action of Prest. Woodruff.

The vote was unanimous.

President’s Woodruff and Cannon explained the matter fully to the Saints.  Said we had done all we were able to do to show the leading men of the nation that they had no right to legislate against us, as the constitution garunteed us religious liberty.  They have enacted laws, which have been tested to the utmost by the “court of last resort” and now we place the responsibility on this nation.  We have suffered enough.  God does not require more at our hands in this matter.  It was stated that Prest. Woodruff was inspired to write the manifesto up, and I believe it.  I first read it while up at Logan getting married.  It bears the date of 24 Sep 1890. 

If you'd like more information about the Manifesto you can find it here and here and here and here. Three of those links take you to lds.org articles.

Let me just offer one bit of commentary. Pres. Woodruff, the presiding Priesthood holder, expressed his thoughts and beliefs as he experienced them, and he outlined the logic he used to come to his conclusions. His counselors followed with their support of his logic and subsequent conclusions. No counter arguments were presented or considered. No critique of his logic was allowed.

Imagine how this type of process would affect our judicial system when only one opinion on any given issue at hand is allowed to be presented and is offered for consideration. If a person is on trial for his/her life and only the prosecution is allowed to argue its case how do you think the jurors would respond? And visa versa - if there was no evidence presented as to a person's guilt and the jurors only heard a legal, logical defense - how do you think that would affect the outcome of the trial?

It's not a perfect analogy, but definitely worth considering. And actually, it's even more complicated than that. Because when the person offering the oral argument is deemed to have authority and power - direct revelation from God himself - it completely discounts any legitimate argument against any conflicting points of view.

Of course polygamy had to be abandoned. It was cruel. It was inhumane. It hurt EVERYBODY - women as well as men - but MOSTLY women. It was NOT of God.

Ultimately, though, it was a good thing it all happened this way, right? So what's my problem?

A couple of things.

One. It quickly relieved any cognitive dissonance in many of the member's heads and painlessly allowed them to do a complete mental shift without ever having to question the validity of the practice of polygamy in the first place. Even though it was a MAJOR reversal in church doctrine and practice it allowed the members to continue to believe - unequivocally - that one thing was true one minute and the opposite was true the next. Prior to the announcement, God required polygamy in order to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. After the announcement, it was no longer required. I experienced exactly the same thing with the lifting of the Priesthood/temple restriction in June of 1978 although, being a fully practicing, believing member myself at the time I didn't recognize my own mental gymnastics. One minute (and for the entirety of my life up until that point) I was taught to believe that black people were cursed with black skin because they were less valiant in pre-mortality. The very next minute I was expected to believe they were equal in every way to everyone else. There was no curse. They were not less valiant. The prophet, however, was still a prophet and was in constant and direct communication with God. If that's not mental gymnastics I don't know what is.

Two. It perpetuated the members' response to never question. A one-sided, logical argument is presented, it makes sense, it's spoken by a prophet of God, case closed. 

Given that Joseph's world was surrounded with polygamous relationships - his mother, his aunt, his half-sister, just to name a few - how did he take the news?  His journal entry continued:

Could scarcely understand it at first, but through the mercy of God was able to see the point.  We gave no principle up, we only layed it by for a time, to show this nation and all the world that we are willing to obey all law, which has been tested by the Supreme Court and approved.  The regrets will be most with those who have had opportunities to obey that principle and have not done so.  I feel sorry that such a move should become necessary but perhaps it will result in great good in some way or other.

But we all know the Manifesto didn't end polygamy in 1890. Even the church-produced articles state that it "led to the end of plural marriage in the Church." Of course that's not true either - we've yet to see the end of plural marriage in the church. Eternal plural marriage among active, faithful Mormons is still very much alive today. Just ask our current prophet, Russel M. Nelson, and Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency, both of whom claim two eternal companions.

What the Manifesto did was attempt to put a stop to any future plural marriages wherever it was deemed illegal. Plural marriages continued in Mexico and Canada and there is documented evidence that plural marriages were still being performed in Utah after the 1890 Manifesto. In his general conference address Pres. Woodruff was clear that the Manifesto had no bearing on previous plural marriages. According to Wikipedia (here), "Despite Woodruff's explanation, some church leaders and members who were polygamous did begin to live with only one wife. However, the majority of Mormon polygamists continued to cohabit with their plural wives in violation of the Edmunds Act." 

How did this affect the family? By the time the Manifesto was presented in general conference Joseph's mother, Johanna, already lived separate and apart from Joseph's father, John, due to the threat of John being arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for unlawful cohabitation. John remained with his first wife, Christena, until he died. 

And remember Lilian's brother Ben who married Martha Pearson in the Logan Temple the same day Joseph and Lilian were married? In about 14 years he would take his wife, children, and girlfriend to Mexico to "fulfill the commandments of God" and marry his girlfriend as his plural wife.

Joseph would not have living plural wives, but the assurance of eternal exaltation came to him through his sealings to several dead women in the Salt Lake Temple. He had several dead women sealed to his father as well.

Despite the Manifesto, polygamy remained very much alive in the minds, hearts, and practices of the Christenson and Brown families.