Polygamy Not a Core Doctrine of the Gospel

Early LDS Leaders comments about the plurality of wives contradict the scriptural definition of the gospel.

click here for original post to David's Outcasts discussion list, along with feedback comments

  Polemical Commentary

Frank,

Thanks for sending us this extensive compilation of statements by early LDS leaders about the Plurality of Wives [below].  It is not easy to assemble such statements. Someone went through quite a bit of trouble to pull this together.

As is more than amply shown by this  compilation of statement, there is no doubt that the early LDS leaders not only spoke in favor of polygamy but said that it was essentially the most exalted of the gospel principles and that to speak against it was tantamount to spiritual suicide.

So here is Sterling today taking a stand saying that polygamy was a stumbling block to the early saints, and that to set it up as prerequisite to exaltation leads to all manner of follies.
http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Polygamy/

In the face of such statements by early church leaders how could I in good conscience make such a claim and yet at the same time have such affinity for the Restoration through Joseph Smith?

Actually, I find this compilation of statements to support the stumblingblock perspective very well. To me it illustrates the extremes that enter when the practice is promoted as being requisite to exaltation. Human nature is to justify oneself. I find the following statements to be an interesting study in the psychology of the culture of a polygamy-centered gospel. Another aspect of human nature is that when we are challenged or persecuted we become all the more adamant in our view. The persecution of the early church for its polygamy certainly had that effect.

The early brethren equated polygamy with the "heart of the gospel" saying that without polygamy the gospel would be hollow, meaning nothing. Doctrinally, I will say unequivocally that this does not jibe with other scriptures. The only scripture to clearly support this is D&C 132, and one is not sufficient according to the law of witnesses. The Old Testament doesn't support it. The New Testament doesn't support it. The Book of Mormon doesn't support it. The Pearl of Great Price doesn't support it. Nowhere else but section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants supports it (including 131, which could be construed to mean monogamous marriage). However, the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants and PGP all support with many witnesses the basic gospel doctrine of Christ that includes faith, repentance, the baptism of water and of the spirit through the grace of Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. I wrote a book documenting these references and witnesses of the gospel from the scriptures.
http://www.greaterthings.com/Books/MightyChange

Probably the best places in the scriptures where the core elements of the gospel are enumerated are 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11 and 3 Nephi 27. Each of these specify that they are defining the gospel. None of them give even so much as a glimpse of polygamy having any relevance. The 3 Nephi 27 reference begins with the statement, "this is my gospel" (vs. 13) and then concludes with the statement "this is my gospel" (vs. 21). If polygamy were core to the gospel, then at least these defining chapters would have mentioned it. They don't. To the contrary, both of the 3 Nephi dissertations say that to proclaim anything more or less than this and to set it forth as the gospel is to build on a sandy foundation.

The statements cited below, in making polygamy a core part of the gospel, clearly fall under the extraneous category warned about. "Anything more or less than this cometh of evil."

I stand by my assertion that turning polygamy into a prerequisite for exaltation creates a stumblingblock, one of the manifestations being that it becomes so central in the minds of people that they come to think of it and preach of it as though it were a core part of the gospel, which it is not.

Sincerely,

Sterling D. Allan

 

Manti, Utah; July 24, 2000

----- Original Message -----
From: <NephiOne@aol.com>
To: <eagles-of-ephraim@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 5:19 PM
Subject: Early LDS leaders comments about Plurality of Wives (1)


Heber C. Kimball, first counselor to Brigham Young, commented:

Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord's servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny "Mormonism," and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose the doctrine, and the whole of them will be damned (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p.203).

I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman, will be damned, . . . the curse of God will be upon them . . . (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.211).

It would be as easy for the United States to build a tower to remove the sun, as to remove polygamy, or the Church and kingdom of God (Millennial Star, vol. 28, p.190).

President John Taylor boldly asserted:

God has given us a revelation in regard to celestial marriage. I did not make it. He has told us certain things pertaining to this matter, and they would like us to tone that principle down and change it and make it applicable to the views of the day. This we cannot do; nor can we interfere with any of the commands of God to meet the persuasions or behests of men. I cannot do it, and will not do it.

I find some men try to twist around the principle in any way and every way they can. They want to sneak out of it in some way. Now God don't want any kind of sycophany like that. . . . If God has introduced something for our glory and exaltation, we are not going to have that kicked over by any improper influence, either inside or outside of the Church of the living God (Journal of Discourses, vol. 25, pp.309-10).

Apostle Orson Pratt added these resolute comments about polygamy:
God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle; and yet I have heard now and then . . . a brother or sister say, "I am a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy."

Oh, what an absurd expression! What an absurd idea! A person might as well say, "I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in him. "One is just as consistent as the other. . . . If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be divine--from God--and a part of them to be from the devil . . . I did hope there was more intelligence among the Latter-day Saints, and a greater understanding of principle than to suppose that any one can be a member of this Church in good standing, and yet reject polygamy. The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord . . .

Now I want to prophecy a little. . . . I want to prophecy that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent . . . if you want to get into darkness, brethren and sisters, begin to oppose this revelation. Sisters, you begin to say before your husbands, or husbands you begin to say before your wives, "I do not believe in the principle of polygamy, and I intend to instruct my children against it." Oppose it in this
way, and teach your children to do the same, and if you do not become as dark as midnight there is no truth in Mormonism (Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, pp.224- 25).

President Brigham Young was very emphatic in proclaiming that the church could never give up polygamy:

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; . . . take this revelation, . . . and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned (Deseret News, November 14, 1855).

I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God . . . "Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?" If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted (Deseret News, October 10, 1866).

George Q. Cannon, who was a member of the First Presidency, unabashedly preached:

There has been some agitation . . . respecting plural marriage, and some people, calling themselves Latter-day Saints, have been almost ready to go into the open market, and bid for a State government, at the price of conceding this principle of our religion. . . . They are ready to sell out their belief as Latter-day Saints . . . for the sake of obtaining a little recognition of their rights as citizens. . . . Can such persons retain the Spirit of God, and take such a course as this? No. they cannot (Journal of Discourses, vol. 26, pp.7-8).

If plural marriage be divine, as the Latter-day Saints say it is, no power on earth can suppress it, unless you crush and destroy the entire people. . . . If you are sentenced to prison for marrying more wives than one, round up your shoulders and bear it; prepare yourselves to take the consequences (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p.276).

As the principle of patriarchal marriage is the one now so savagely attacked, this is the one such persons are preparing themselves to yield. I view such men as apostates already in heart. They are more dangerous than our open enemies. . . . if there are any in the Church who cannot stand the pressure instead of talking compromise, let them withdraw quietly from the Church (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 20, p.156).

Apostle George Teasdale bore this testimony concerning plural marriage:

I believe in plural marriage as a part of the Gospel, just as much as I believe in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. The same being who taught me baptism for the remission of sins, taught me plural marriage, and its necessity and glory. Can I afford to give up a single principle? I can not. If I had to give up one principle I would have to give up my religion.
.
. . I bear my solemn testimony that plural marriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from the heavens. I bear my testimony that it is a necessity, and that the Church of Christ in its fulness never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have plural marriage; bound to; and it is one of the marks of the Church of Jesus Christ in its sealing ordinances (Journal of Discourses, vol. 25, p.21).

Wilford Woodruff, who later became the fourth president of the church and issued the manifesto in 1890 which was supposed to stop the practice of polygamy, openly declared in 1869: "If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird. . . . Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, . . . and finally give up our religion altogether. . . . We just can't do that . . ." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.166).
The Latter Day Saints Millennial Star summarized the issue sharply:

. . . the God of Israel . . . commanded Joseph Smith, . . . and the Latter-day Saints, to obey this law, "or you shall be damned," saith the Lord. Now, . . . the Congress of the United States, and the supreme judges of the nation, stand forth and say, "You shall be damned if you do obey it. " .
. . God says, "We shall be damned if we do not obey the law." Congress says, "We shall be damned if we do." It places us precisely in the . . . position that it did the Hebrews in the fiery furnace, and Daniel in the den of lions.
. . . Now who shall we obey? God or man? My voice is that we obey God. . . .
The Congress of 1862, and the supreme judges of 1879, in their acts and decisions, have taken a dangerous and fearful step; their acts will sap the very foundation of our government, and it will be rent asunder . . . (vol. 41, pp.242-43).

The Mormons did everything they could to escape the federal deputies. Kimball Young describes their tactics in the book, Isn't One Wife Enough:

In addition to false names, disguises, and ruses, a whole system of information gathering, signaling, and spotting informers was developed. For example, the church authorities would pass the word down to the smaller communities of movements of federal deputies out of Salt Lake City in the direction of any particular town" (p.396).

At very early ages children were introduced into conspiratorial operations. Not talking to strangers, being part of a warning system, and being taught outright falsification were all elements in their training during those years which would certainly not be considered normal today (p.402).


<Page 268>
Wilford Woodruff had an armed guard to protect him. In a letter written in 1887, Woodruff wrote: "I have a large stout man who goes with me every ______ [where?] night and day carries 2 pistols & a double barrel shot gun and sayes [sic] he will shoot the marshals if they come to take me (Don't tell anybody this) so I am _____ well garded [sic] . . ." (Letter from Wilford Woodruff to Miss Nellie Atkin, dated September 3, 1887, microfilm copy of the original in our possession).

Mormon Leaders Yield The U.S. Government continued to increase the pressure against polygamy, but the Mormons were determined to continue the practice. In an article published in the Millennial Star in 1865, the Mormon people were told that they could not give up polygamy and that there would not be a revelation to suppress the practice:

It is time that members of the Government and the public at large should understand the true state of the question, and the real issues involved in these propositions. The doctrine of polygamy with the "Mormons," is not one of that kind that in the religious world is classed with "nonessentials." It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain. "Mormonism" is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one of its leading principles is acknowledged to be false. . . .

The whole question, therefore, narrows itself to this in the "Mormon" mind. Polygamy was revealed by God, or the entire fabric of their faith is false. To ask them to give up such an item of belief, is to ask them to relinquish the whole, to acknowledge their Priesthood a lie, their ordinances a deception, and all that they have toiled for, lived for, bled for, prayed for, or hoped for, a miserable failure and a waste of life.

All this Congress demands of the people of Utah. It asks the repudiation of their entire religious practice to-day; and inasmuch as polygamy is, in "Mormon" belief, the basis of the condition of a future life, it asks them to give up their hopes of salvation hereafter . . . in requiring the relinquishment of polygamy, they ask the renunciation of the entire faith of this people. . . .

There is no half way house. The childish babble about another revelation is only an evidence how half informed men can talk . . . those who so unwisely seek to stir up the Government to wrath, will yet learn there is but one solution of the "Mormon" problem -- "Mormonism" allowed in its entirety, or "Mormonism" wiped out in blood (Millennial Star, October 28, 1865).


<Page 269>
Under the date of April 6, 1884, Abraham H. Cannon recorded in his journal: "At a Priesthood meeting . . . the strongest language in regard to Plural Marriage was used that I ever heard, and among other things it was stated that all men in position who would not observe and fulfill that law should be removed from their places."

Shortly before the revelation known as the Manifesto (which put a stop to the practice of polygamy) was given, Lorenzo Snow, who later became president of the Mormon church, was declaring that no such revelation would come. When Lorenzo Snow was on trial for practicing polygamy, Mr. Bierbower, the prosecuting attorney, predicted that if he was convicted, "a new revelation would soon follow, changing the divine law of celestial marriage."

To this Mr. Snow replied:

Whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have secured as a lawyer, he certainly will fail as a prophet. The severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom. Though I go to prison, God will not change His law of Celestial Marriage. But the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against this doctrine and the Church of God, will be overthrown (Historical Record, p.144).

Although Lorenzo Snow said that the "severest prosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divine law," Mormon church President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto in 1890. He claimed that it was given to stop the persecution the church would have to go through if they continued to practice polygamy. He stated: "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would happen if we did not stop this practice . . . all ordinances would be stopped . . . many men would be made prisoners . . . I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write . . ."
(Evidences and Reconciliations, 1 vol. ed., pp.105-6).

Mormon writer John J. Stewart says that "President Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto . . . suspending the general practice of it in the Church, while still retaining it as a doctrine" (Brigham Young and His Wives, pp.29-30).
Before Wilford Woodruff became president of the Mormon church he stated that the church could not give up polygamy (see Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.166). After he became president he even claimed to receive a revelation that he should not yield to the pressure of the government. Under the date of December 19, 1889, Apostle Abraham H. Cannon recorded in his journal:


<Page 270>
During our meeting a revelation was read which Pres. Woodruff received Sunday evening, Nov'r 24th. Propositions had been made for the Church to make some concessions to the Courts in regard to its principles. Both of Pres. Woodruff's counselors refused to advise him as to the course he should pursue, and he therefore laid the matter before the Lord. The answer came quick and strong. The word of the Lord was for us not to yield one particle of that which he had revealed and established. He had done and would continue to care for His work and those of the Saints who were faithful, and we need have no fear of our enemies when we were in the line of duty. We are promised redemption and deliverance if we will trust in God and not in the arm of flesh . . . my heart was filled with joy and peace during the entire reading.
It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue.
Because Wilford Woodruff had previously taught that polygamy could not be discontinued and had even claimed to receive revelation to that effect, the other leaders of the Mormon church were confused by his Manifesto

----- Original Message -----
From: <nephione@aol.com>
To: <eagles-of-ephraim@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 5:24 PM
Subject: [888] Early LDS leaders comments about the Plurity of Wives (3)


After the Manifesto
Russell R. Rich commented:

When the statement called "The Manifesto," which was signed by President Wilford Woodruff, was voted upon for acceptance by the membership of the LDS Church . . . it appeared that there was a unanimous vote of support for abandonment of the practice of plural marriage. As time passed, however, it became apparent that not even among the general authorities of the church was there unanimous support for abolishing the practice (Brigham Young University Leadership Week: Those Who Would Be Leaders, by Russell R. Rich, p.71).

In October, 1891, Wilford Woodruff testified that the Manifesto not only prohibited any more plural marriages, but that it also forbade the unlawful cohabitation of those who were already married in polygamy:

Q. Your attention was called to the fact that nothing was said in that manifesto about the dissolution of existing polygamous relations. I want to ask you, President Woodruff, whether in your advice to the church officials, and the people of the church, you have advised them that your intention was, and that the requirement of the church was, that the polygamous relations already formed before that should not be continued; that is, there should be no association with plural wives; in other words, that unlawful cohabitation as it is named and spoken of should also stop, as well as future polygamous marriages? A. Yes, sir; that

<Page 271>
has been the intention (Testimony of Wilford Woodruff, as quoted in Reminiscences of Early Utah, p.246).

While Wilford Woodruff and other Mormon leaders were publicly stating that members of the church should observe the law, they were secretly teaching that it was alright to break the law concerning unlawful cohabitation. This is evident from a number of entries in the journal of the Apostle Abraham H. Cannon. For instance, on October 2, 1890, he wrote: "It was, however, resolved that 'we use our private influence at present to prevent our brethren from going into Court and promising to obey the law; and as soon as possible we take steps to get some favors from the government for those who already have more wives than one.'"
Under the date of October 7, 1890, Apostle Cannon records some of the statements by Mormon church leaders:

Geo. Q. Cannon [a member of the First Presidency]: "I feel like saying 'Damn the law.' We can expect neither justice nor mercy in the administration of the law with the present corrupt administrators. . . . my family understand [sic] that my liberty depends on refraining from visiting them in their homes, and they are contented." W. Woodruff [President of the Church]: "This manifesto only refers to future marriages, and does not affect past conditions. I did not, could not and would not promise that you desert your wives and children. This you cannot do in honor." . . . Angus M. Cannon:
"Because of the manifesto many will feel justified in promising to obey the
law when brought into Court. I would not feel justified in such a course, but many may" ("Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon," October 7, 1890, BYU Library).

Under the dates of October 17 and 18, 1890, Apostle Cannon recorded the following in his journal:

Uncle David . . . told me that he had a conversation with Lindsey Sprague, a deputy marshal, who told him that there were papers out for my arrest . . . I got Chas H Wilcken to investigate the matter for me and he learned that it was a fact that a warrant was issued and in Doyle's hands for my arrest. . . . Saturday, Oct. 18th, 1890. . . . Bro. Wilcken came and informed me that he had bought Doyle off, and had got his promise that I should not be molested, nor should any other person without sufficient notice being given for them to escape, and to get witnesses out of the way. He gave Bro. Wilcken the names of some 51 persons whose arrest he intended to try and effect. . . . A messenger was therefore despatched to give these people warning. Thus with a little money a channel of communication is kept open between the government offices and the suffering and persecuted Church members."


<Page 272>
Although the leaders of the Mormon church had promised to obey the law of the land, many of them broke their promises. Few people, however, realized to what extent until the leaders were called to testify in the "Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator >From the State of Utah, to Hold His Seat." Frank J, Cannon reported:

The first oracular disclosure made by the Prophets, on the witness stand, came as a shock even to Utah. They testified that they had resumed polygamous cohabitation to an extent unsuspected by either Gentiles or Mormons. President Joseph F. Smith admitted that he had had eleven children borne to him by his five wives, since pledging himself to obey the "revealed" manifesto of 1890 . . . Apostle Francis Marion Lyman, . . . made a similar admission of guilt, though to a lesser degree. So did John Henry Smith and Charles W. Penrose, apostles. . . . So did a score of others. . . . And they confessed that they were living in polygamy in violation of their pledges to the nation and the terms of their amnesty, against the laws and the constitution of the state, and contrary to the "revelation of God" by which the doctrine of polygamy had been withdrawn from practice in the Church! . . . Bishop Chas. E. Merill, the son of an apostle, testified that his father had married him to a plural wife in 1891 . . . Mrs. Clara Kennedy testified that she had been married to a polygamist in 1896, in Juarez, Mexico, by Apostle Brigham Young, Jr. . . . There was testimony to show that Apostle George Teasdale had taken a plural wife six years after the 'manifesto' . . . It was testified that Apostle John W. Taylor had taken two plural wives within four years, and that Apostle M. F. Cowley had taken one; and both these men fled from the country in order to escape a summons to appear before the Senate committee (Under the Prophet in Utah, pp.268-70).

Joseph F. Smith, sixth president of the church, testified as follows in the Reed Smoot Case:
THE CHAIRMAN. Do you obey the law in having five wives at this time, and having them bear to you eleven children since the manifesto of 1890? MR. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I have obeyed the law of the land.
THE CHAIRMAN. That is all.
MR. SMITH. I do not claim so, and I have said before that I prefer to stand my chances against the law" (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, p.197).

MR. TAYLER. You say there is a State law forbidding unlawful cohabitation?


<Page 273>
MR. SMITH. That is my understanding.
MR. TAYLER. And ever since that law was passed you have been violating it?
MR. SMITH. I think likely I have been practicing the same thing even before the law was passed" (Ibid., p.130).

THE CHAIRMAN. . . . you are violating the law?
MR. SMITH. The law of my State?
THE CHAIRMAN. Yes.
MR. SMITH. Yes, sir.
SENATOR OVERMAN. Is there not a revelation published in the Book of Covenants here that you shall abide by the law of the State?
MR. SMITH. It includes both unlawful cohabitation and polygamy.
SENATOR OVERMAN. Is there not a revelation that you shall abide by the laws of the State and of the land?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
SENATOR OVERMAN. If that is a revelation, are you not violating the laws of God?
MR. SMITH. I have admitted that, Mr. Senator, a great many times here. (Ibid., pp.334-35).

The Apostle Francis M. Lyman testified as follows:

SENATOR HOAR. . . . You have said more than once that in living in polygamous relations with your wives, which you do and intend to do, you knew that you were disobeying this revelation?
MR. LYMAN. Yes. sir.
SENATOR HOAR. And that in disobeying this revelation you were disobeying the law of God?
Mr. LYMAN. Yes. sir.
SENATOR HOAR. Very well. So that you say that you, an apostle of your church, expecting to succeed, if you survive Mr. Smith, to the office in which you will be the person to be the medium of Divine revelations, are living and are known to your people to live in disobedience of the law of the land and of the law of God?
Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, p.430).

Charles E. Merrill, the son of Apostle Marriner W. Merrill, testified that he took a plural wife after the Manifesto and that his father performed the ceremony:

Mr. TAYLER. And the next marriage took place in 1891?
MR. MERRILL. Yes, sir.
MR. TAYLER. Who married you in 1891?
MR. MERRILL. My father.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


MR. TAYLER. Was your father then an apostle?
MR. MERRILL. Yes, sir (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, p.409).

Walter M. Wolfe, who was at one time professor of geology at Brigham Young
College, claimed that Apostle John Henry


<Page 274>
Smith made this statement to him: "Brother Wolfe, don't you know that the
Manifesto is only a trick to beat the devil at his own game?" (Reed Smoot
Case, vol. 4, p.13).
Anthony W. Ivins, who later became a member of the First Presidency of the
Mormon church, was appointed by the church leaders to perform plural
marriages in Mexico after the Manifesto. Stanley S. Ivins, the son of
Anthony
W. Ivins, told us that his father received instructions after the Manifesto
to perform marriages for time and all eternity outside the Mormon temples.
He
received a ceremony for these marriages, which Stanley S. Ivins had in his
possession. He was sent to Mexico and was told that when the First
Presidency
wanted a plural marriage performed they would send a letter with the couple
who were to be married. Whenever he received these letters from the First
Presidency, he knew that it was alright to perform the ceremony. He
performed
regular marriages as well as plural marriages and kept a record of each
marriage in a book. After his father's death Stanley S. Ivins copied the
names of those who had been married in polygamy into another book and then
gave the original book to the Mormon leaders.
Wallace Turner relates the following:

In Salt Lake City I talked to . . . Stanley S. Ivins, one of the great
authorities on Mormon polygamy. His father was Anthony W. Ivins, who was an
apostle and first counselor to President Heber J. Grant.

Anthony Ivins was an elder in the church in the mid-1890s when he was called
in and told to go to Mexico to be president of the stake there. He was told
that he was to have authority to perform plural marriages for those who were
sent to him for that purpose. He would be able to identify them from the
letters of introduction they would present, he was told.

After Anthony Ivins died in 1934 . . . his family found the records of these
marriages among his papers. They were turned over to the LDS church. More
than fifty polygamous marriages were easily identifiable, beginning in June,
1897, when three men from Utah were married at Juarez, just across from El
Paso. They had crossed over into Mexico just for the marriage ceremony, then
went back into the United States. However, Ivin's refused to perform
marriages for the regular population of the Mormon colonies because the men
lacked the letters from salt Lake City which he considered to be his
authority for the ceremony. However, by 1898 polygamous marriages were being
performed routinely in Mexico by other Mormon leaders (The Mormon
Establishment, by Wallace Turner, 1966, p.187).

Stanley Ivins claimed that his father continued to perform


<Page 275>
plural marriages for the church until the year 1904, some fourteen years
after the Manifesto.

In the Reed Smoot Case, Walter M. Wolfe testified:

MR. WOLFE. In the summer of 1897 I was in Colorado. On my return, at the
beginning of the school year, I found that Ovena Jorgensen was not in
attendance. She returned to school some time during the month of October.
Shortly after her return, she came to my house and asked to see me
privately.
She said: "Brother Wolfe, I have something that I must tell you, the reason
why I have been late in coming back to school. I have been married." I said,
"Not in polygamy." She said: "Yes, sir; in polygamy. I have married Brother
Okey."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. WORTHINGTON. I say, it was in October, 1897, that she told you?
MR. WOLFE. Yes, sir . . . she said that some years before she had gone into
service at the house of this man Okey; that he had loved her and she loved
him. He had asked her to marry him and she had declined, saying that it was
impossible on account of the manifesto. . . . In August, 1897, Okey and the
girl went together to see President Wilford Woodruff, and they laid the case
before him. He brushed them aside with a wave of his hand and said he would
have nothing to do with the matter, but referred them to President George Q.
Cannon. George Q. Cannon asked if the girl had been through the Temple and
received her endowments. They told him no. He said that that must be done
first and then he would see as to the rest of it. They went through the
Temple and the girl received her endowments. Then they were given a letter
by
President George Q. Cannon to President Ivins, of the Juarez Stake, and they
went to Mexico.
THE CHAIRMAN. Who was this letter to?
MR. WOLFE. President A. W. Ivins, of the Juarez Stake.
THE CHAIRMAN. Mexico?
MR. WOLFE. Mexico; yes, sir. They went to Mexico, and there the girl told me
the marriage ceremony was performed, and they returned to Utah (The Reed
Smoot Case, vol. 4, pp.10-1l).

Stanley S. Ivins confirmed the fact that his father, Anthony W. Ivins,
performed the marriage ceremony and recorded it in his record book. Stanley
Ivins claimed that Walter Wolfe's testiony concerning this marriage hurt the
church's image so much that the First Presidency of the church sent Anthony
Ivins a letter requesting him to go back to Washington, D.C. and give false
testimony before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United
States Senate. The First Presidency of the Mormon church actually wanted him
to lie under oath and State that he did not perform the ceremony. Mr. Ivins
stated that his father refused to go back to Washington and lie about the


<Page 276>
marriage, even if Wolfe's testimony did damage the image of the church.
Frank J. Cannon, the son of George Q. Cannon and formerly the senator from
Utah, gives this important information:

Late in July, 1896, when I was in New York on business for the Presidency, I
received a telegram announcing the death of my brother, Apostle Abraham H.
Cannon. . . . I realized that my father would have a greater stroke of
sorrow
to bear than I. . . .

I found him and Joseph F. Smith in the office of the Presidency . . . "I
know
how you feel his loss," he said hoarsely, "but when I think what he would
have had to pass through if he had lived--I cannot regret his death." . . .

With a sweep of his hand toward Smith at his desk--a gesture and a look the
most unkind I ever saw him use--he answered: "A few weeks ago, Abraham took
a
plural wife, Lillian Hamlin. It became known. He would have had to face a
prosecution in Court. His death has saved us from a calamity that would have
been dreadful for the Church--and for the state."

"Father!" I cried. "Has this thing come back again! And the ink hardly dry
on
the bill that restored your church property on the pledge of honor that
there
would never be another case--" I had caught the look of Smith's face, and it
was a look of sullen defiance. "How did it happen?"

My father replied: . . . "I was asked for my consent, and I refused it.
President Smith obtained the acquiescence of President Woodruff, on the plea
that it wasn't an ordinary case of polygamy but merely a fulfillment of the
biblical instruction that a man should take his dead brother's wife. Lillian
was betrothed to David, and had been sealed to him in eternity after his
death. I understand that President Woodruff told Abraham he would leave the
matter with them if he wished to take the responsibility--and President
Smith
performed the ceremony." . . . here was the beginning of a policy of
treachery which the present church leaders, under Joseph F. Smith, have
since
consistently practised, in defiance of the laws of the state and the
"revelation of God," with lies and evasions, with perjury and its
subornation, in violation of the most solemn pledges to the country, and
through the agency of a political tyranny that makes serious prosecution
impossible and immunity a public boast (Under the Prophet in Utah, pp.176,
177, 179).


----- Original Message -----
From: <nephione@aol.com>
To: <eagles-of-ephraim@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 5:37 PM
Subject: [888] Early LDS leaders comments about the Plurity of Wives (4)


"Manifesto a Deception"
After their investigation the Committee on Privileges and Elections submitted
a report in which the following was stated:

A sufficient number of specific instances of the taking of plural wives since
the manifesto of 1890, so called, have been shown by the testimony as having
taken place among officials of the Mormon Church to demonstrate the fact that
the leaders in this church, the first presidency and the twelve apostles,
connive at the practice of taking plural wives, and have done so ever since
the manifesto was issued . . . as late as 1896 one Lillian Hamlin became the
plural wife of Abraham H. Cannon, who was then an apostle . . . it was
generally reputed in the community and understood by the families . . . that
they had been married on the high seas by Joseph F. Smith. Lillian Hamlin
assumed the name of Cannon, and a child to which she afterwards gave birth
bears the name of Cannon . . . .

George Teasdale, another apostle of the Mormon Church, contracted a plural
marriage with Marion Scholes since the manifesto of 1890. . . . Charles E.
Merrill, a bishop . . . took a plural wife in 1891. . . . The ceremony . . .
was performed by his father,

an apostle in the Mormon Church. It is also shown that John W. Taylor,
another apostle of the Mormon Church, has been married to two plural wives
since the issuing of the so-called manifesto.

Matthias F. Cowley, another of the twelve apostles, has also taken one or
more plural wives since the manifesto. . . . Apostles Taylor and Cowley,
instead of appearing before the committee and denying the allegation, evade
service of process issued by the committee for their appearance, and refuse
to appear after being requested to do so. . . .

It is also proved that about the year 1896 James Francis Johnson was married
to a plural wife, . . . the ceremony in this instance being performed by an
apostle. . . . To these cases must be added that of Marriner W. Merrill,
another apostle; J. M. Tanner, superintendent of church schools; Benjamin
Cluff, jr., president of Brigham Young University; Thomas Chamberlain,
counselor to the president of a stake; Bishop Rathall, John Silver, Winslow
Farr, Heber Benion, Samuel S. Newton, a man named Okey, who contracted a
plural marriage with Ovena Jorgensen in the year 1897, and Morris Michelson
about the year 1902. . . .


<Page 282>
It is morally impossible that all these violations of the laws of the State
of Utah by the contracting of plural marriages could have been committed
without the knowledge of the first presidency and the twelve apostles of the
Mormon .....

SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY BY MORMON LEADERS.

It is a fact of no little significance in itself, bearing on the question
whether polygamous marriages have been recently contracted in Utah by the
connivance of the first presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church,
that the authorities of said church have endeavored to suppress, and have
succeeded in suppressing, a great deal of testimony by which the fact of
plural marriages contracted by those who were high in the councils of the
church might have been established beyond the shadow of a doubt. Before the
investigation had begun it was well known in Salt Lake City that it was
expected to show on the part of the protestants that Apostles George
Teasdale, John W. Taylor, and M. F. Cowley, and also Prof. J. M. Tanner,
Samuel Newton and others who were all high officials of the Mormon Church had
recently taken plural wives, and that in 1896 Lillian Hamlin was sealed to
Apostle Abraham H. Cannon. . . . All, or nearly all, of these persons except
Abraham H. Cannon, who was deceased, were then within reach of service of
process from the committee. But shortly before the investigation began all
these witnesses went out of the country.

Subpoenas were issued for each one of the witnesses named, but in the case of
Samuel Newton only could the process of the committee be served. Mr. Newton
refused to obey the order of the committee . . . John W. Taylor was sent out
of the country by Joseph F. Smith on a real or pretended mission for the
church. . . .

It would be nothing short of self-stultification for one to believe that all
these most important witnesses chanced to leave the United States at about
the same time and without reference to the investigation. All the facts and
circumstances surrounding the transaction point to the conclusion that every
one of the witnesses named left the country at the instance [sic] of the
rulers of the Mormon Church and to avoid testifying before the committee. . .
. The reason why the said witnesses left the country and have refused to come
before the committee is easy to understand, in view of the testimony showing
the contracting of plural marriages by prominent officials of the Mormon
Church within the past few years.

It was claimed by the protestants that the records kept in the Mormon temple
at Salt Lake City and Logan would disclose the fact that plural marriages
have been contracted in Utah since the manifesto with the sanction of the
officials of the church. A witness who was required to bring the records in
the temple at


<Page 283>
Salt Lake City refused to do so after consulting with President Smith. . . .

The witness who was required to bring the records kept in the temple at Logan
excused himself from attending on the plea of ill health. But the important
part of the mandate of the committee--the production of the record--was not
obeyed by sending the records, which could easily have been done.

In the case of other witnesses who were believed to have contracted plural
marriages since the year 1890 all sorts of shifts, tricks, and evasions were
resorted to in order to avoid service of a subpoena to appear before the
committee and testify. . . .

Aside from this it was shown by the testimony, and in such a way that the
fact could not possibly be controverted, that a majority of those who give
the law to the Mormon Church are now, and have been for years, living in
open, notorious, and shameless polygamous cohabitation. The list of those who
are thus guilty of violating the laws of the State and the rules of public
decency is headed by Joseph F. Smith, the first president, "prophet, seer,
and revelator". . . .

The list also includes George Teasdale, an apostle; John Henry Smith, an
apostle; Marriner W Merrill, also an apostle; Heber J. Grant, an apostle; M.
F. Cowley, an apostle; Charles W. Penrose, an apostle; and Francis M. Lyman,
who is not only an apostle, but the probable successor of Joseph F. Smith as
president of the church. Thus it appears that the first president and eight
of the twelve apostles, a considerable majority of the ruling authorities of
the Mormon Church, are noted polygamists. . . .

These facts abundantly justify the assertion made in the protest that "the
supreme authorities in the church, . . . the first presidency and twelve
apostles, not only connive at violation of, but protect and honor the
violators of the laws against polygamy and polygamous cohabitation."

It will be seen by the foregoing that not only do the first presidency and
twelve apostles encourage polygamy by precept and teaching, but that a
majority of the members of that body of rulers of the Mormon people give the
practice of polgyamy still further and greater encouragement by living the
lives of Polygamists, and this openly and in the sight of all their followers
in the Mormon Church. . . .

And not only do the president and a majority of the twelve apostles of the
Mormon Church practice polygamy, but in the case of each and every one guilty
of this crime who testified before the committee, the determination was
expressed openly and defiantly to continue the commission of this crime
without regard to the mandates of the law or the prohibition contained in the


<Page 284>
manifesto. . . . those who are in authority in the Mormon Church, of whom Mr.
Smoot is one, are encouraging the practice of polygamy among the members of
that church, and that polygamy is being practiced to such an extent as to
call for the severest condemnation in all legitimate ways (Reed Smoot Case,
vol. 4, pp.476-82).

Finally, some sixteen years after the Manifesto was issued, President Joseph
F. Smith was brought to trial for unlawful cohabitation. The following
appeared in the Deseret News: ". . . President Smith appeared forthwith and
entered a plea of guilty and was fined three hundred dollars. The fine was
promptly paid and the defendant discharged" (Deseret Evening News, November
23, 1906).
Heber J. Grant, who served as the seventh president of the Mormon church from
1918 until 1945, was also convicted of unlawful cohabitation after the
Manifesto was issued. This occurred in 1899, some nine years after Woodruff
issued the Manifesto (see the Daily Tribune, September 9, 1899). In 1903
Heber J. Grant fled the country to avoid being arrested again. Charles Mostyn
Owen testified as follows:

THE CHAIRMAN. Where did you say Grant was?
MR. OWEN. Grant is in England.
THE CHAIRMAN. When did he go to England?
MR. OWEN. He left suddenly on the night of the l0th of November last
year--1903.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. OWEN. . . . he made a statement before the students of the State
university at Salt Lake City, in which he held out in a very objectionable
manner his association with two women as his wives. . . . I went before the
county attorney and swore to an information for him, and a warrant was issued
on that information. Before Mr. Grant was served, however, he left the
country.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE CHAIRMAN. Has he returned since that time?
MR. OWEN. No, sir.
SENATOR PETTUS. Is he still an apostle?
MR. OWEN. Yes, sir (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 2, pp.401-2).

Because of the insincerity of the Mormon leaders after the Manifesto
thousands of people in Utah are still living in polygamy today. Mormon author
John J. Stewart wrote the following regarding current polygamist groups:

Secondly, Satan is exploiting the doctrine and history of plural marriage in
our Church by persuading many men and women to rebel against current Church
policy on the matter, and thus forfeit their membership in the Church and
Kingdom of God. More


<Page 285>
than seventy years after the first Manifesto was issued, as a step in
suspending the practice of plural marriage, apostate sects are mushrooming
throughout Mormondom in greater numbers than ever before, with the basic
doctrine that plural marriage must be lived regardless of what the Church
policy is (Brigham Young and His Wives, p.15).

On November 21, 1955, Newsweek magazine reported that "Utah polygamists may
well number 20,000." Ten years later Wallace Turner said that "one expert
estimates that as many as 30,000 men, women and children live in families in
which polygamy is practiced" (New York Times, December 27, 1965). The Mormon
writer Leonard J. Arrington felt that this was a "far-fetched estimate." Ben
Merson, on the other hand, seems to feel that more than 30,000 people are
involved:

In Utah . . . the practice of polygamy has never ceased. It is more
widespread than ever. And increasing year by year.

In metropolitan Salt Lake City alone, 10,000 are living in plural marriage. .
. .

"Today in Utah," declares William M. Rogers, former special assistant to the
State Attorney General, "there are more polygamous families than in the days
of Brigham Young. At least 30,000 men, women and children in this state are
now living in plural households--and the number is rapidly increasing."
Thousands more live in the adjoining states of Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming,
Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona--plus sizable populations in Oregon,
California, Canada and Mexico.

The majority live in Utah. And, says Rogers, neither the state law, . . . nor
the Mormon church, which prohibits it on pain of excommunication, has been
able to stem the rising tide of plural marriage.

Strangely, it also remains the chief obstacle to law enforcement. For 72
percent of Utah's 900,000 citizens are Mormon. And while most practice
monogamy, they are aware of their polygamous heritage. . . . This, coupled
with the Mormon history of persecution," says Rogers, "makes them sympathetic
toward the Fundamentalists. They feel that prison--and excommunication--is
too harsh a penalty. And they refuse to testify against their polygamous
neighbors."

So do the non-Mormons, who are referred to as Gentiles (Ladies Home Journal,
June 1967, p.78).

Those who believe in practicing polygamy today are usually known as
"fundamentalists," because they claim to go back to the fundamental doctrines
of Mormonism.


<Page 286>
The Dilemma
The Mormon leaders find themselves in a rather strange situation. On the one
hand, they have to uphold polygamy as a righteous principle, but on the
other, they have to discourage the members of the church from actually
entering into its practice. If they repudiated the doctrine of polygamy they
would be admitting that Joseph Smith was a deceiver, and that the church was
founded on fraud. If, however, they openly preached and defended the
doctrine, many people would probably enter into the practice and bring
disgrace upon the church. Their position is about the same as a person
saying, "My church believes in water baptism, but we are not allowed to
practice it." Because of this peculiar dilemma, church leaders prefer that
there is not much discussion of polygamy. Mormon writer Klaus J. Hansen
depicted the sentiment in these words:

Admittedly, descendants of polygamous families still proudly acknowledge
their heritage; but many Mormons clearly wish it had never happened. A
leading historian at the leading state university in Utah for years avoided
any mention of the subject; references to it in graduate theses were
eradicated with the remark, "Too controversial!" Preston Nibley, it will be
remembered, wrote an entire book on Brigham Young without mentioning the
dread word once (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1966, p.107).

To show the confusion of the Mormon leaders in regard to polygamy we have
only to quote from a statement made by Apostle Bruce R. McConkie. In the same
statement he says that millions of people have gained eternal exaltation by
the practice of polygamy, that Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders entered
the practice in virtue and purity of heart, that polygamy will be practiced
after the second coming of Christ; yet he states that anyone who enters
polygamy today is living in adultery, has sold his soul to Satan and will be
damned in eternity:

. . . the Lord frequently did command his ancient saints to practice plural
marriage . . . the whole history of ancient Israel was one in which plurality
of wives was the divinely accepted and approved order of matrimony. Millions
of those who entered this order have, in and through it, gained for
themselves eternal exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world...
the Prophet and leading brethren were commanded to enter into the practice,
which they did in all virtue and purity of heart . . . plural marriage was
openly taught and practiced until the year 1890. At that time conditions were
such that the Lord by revelation with-


<Page 287>
drew the command to continue the practice. . . . Obviously the holy practice
will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the
ushering in of the millennium. . . .

Any who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the
one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are
guilty of gross wickedness. They are living in adultery, have already sold
their souls to Satan, and (whether their acts are based on ignorance or lust
or both) they will be damned in eternity (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, pp.522-23).

Is it any wonder that many Mormon people are confused over the practice of
polygamy? They are taught that Joseph Smith entered polygamy in "virtue and
purity of heart," yet they are taught that if they follow his example they
are living in "adultery."
The Mormon people are taught that plural marriage is still practiced in
heaven and will be practiced in the millennium. John J. Stewart stated: ". .
. the restoration of the Church and Gospel of Jesus Christ, is to prepare for
the second coming of the Savior, which is nigh at hand; to help usher in His
great millennial reign, when the Gospel in its fulness including plural
marriage, will be lived by worthy members of the Church" (Brigham Young and
His Wives, p.73).
Apostle Orson Pratt once stated: "Does not everything that is consistent and
reasonable, and everything that agrees with the Bible show that plurality of
wives must exist after the resurrection? It does . . ." (Journal of
Discourses, vol. 14, pp.244-45).
Since the Mormon people are taught that polygamy was right in Joseph Smith's
time and that it will be practiced in heaven, is it any wonder that many of
them are entering into the practice today? As long as the Mormon leaders
continue to publish Joseph Smith's revelation on polygamy (Doctrine and
Covenants, 132), there will, no doubt, be many people who will enter into the
practice. They cannot completely repudiate this revelation, however, without
repudiating their doctrine concerning temple marriage as the two doctrines
are found in the same revelation.
Although the Mormon leaders will not give up the idea that this revelation is
from God, they have already repudiated many of the teachings of the earlier
leaders with regard to polygamy. For instance, Brigham Young taught: "The
only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into
Polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.269). The Millennial Star (vol.
15, p.226), contained this statement: "The order of plurality of wives is an
everlasting and ceaseless order, de-


<Page 288>


Click on above image to enlarge
A photograph of the Deseret News, Sept. 17, 1873. Brigham Young maintained
that a man with just one wife will have her taken from him and given to a
polygamist in heaven.


<Page 289>
signed to exalt the choicest men and women to the most superlative
excellence, dominion, and glory."
Today, however, Mormon leaders teach that polygamy is not essential for
exaltation. Bruce R. McConkie flatly stated: "Plural marriage is not
essential to salvation or exaltation" (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.523).
Brigham Young once became so zealous to establish polygamy that he declared a
man who would not enter into polygamy would have his wife taken from him in
the resurrection and given to another:

Now, where a man in this church says, "I don't want but one wife, I will live
my religion with one." He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial kingdom; but
when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.
He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, "Here
is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one
talent," and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those
who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without
any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever. . . . I recollect a
sister conversing with Joseph Smith on this subject. She told him: "Now don't
talk to me; when I get into the celestial kingdom, . . . I don't want any
companion in that world; and if the Lord will make me a ministering angel, it
is all I want." Joseph said, "Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not
know what you will want." He then said to me: "Here brother Brigham, you seal
this lady to me." I sealed her to him. This was my own sister according to
the flesh (Deseret News, September 17, 1873).

Mormon leaders today would not think of teaching that a man with only one
wife would have her taken from him and given to a man who had taken more.
Bruce R. McConkie states: "In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the
whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man
to one woman" (Mormon Doctrine, p.523).
Although Mormon leaders have changed many of the teachings concerning
polygamy, they still teach that it was a righteous practice in Joseph Smith's
time. John J. Stewart makes it very clear that it is still an "integral part
of LDS scripture":

. . . the Church's strictness in excommunicating those advocating and
practicing plural marriage today has apparently been misconstrued by not a
few loyal Church members as an acknowledgment that the evil falsehoods . . .
and other misconceptions about plural marriage, are true, and that the
Church's near silence on the doctrine today is further evidence that it
regrets and is embarrassed by the whole matter of plural marriage. Such an


<Page 290>
inference is, of course, unjustified and unrealistic. The Church has never,
and certainly will never, renounce this doctrine. The revelation on plural
marriage is still an integral part of LDS scripture, and always will be. If a
woman, sealed to her husband for time and eternity, precedes her husband in
death, it is his privilege to marry another also for time and eternity,
providing that he is worthy of doing so (Brigham Young and His Wives,
pp.13-14).