THE DOCTRINE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE Compilation by Tim Rathbone Patriarchal, Celestial & Plural Marriage 1. The Seer, Prospectus; January, 1853; Orson Pratt. The views of the Saints in regard to the ancient Patriarchal Order of Matrimony or Plurality of Wives as developed in a revelation given through Joseph the Seer, will be fully published. 2. Millennial Star., Vol. 22:498-99; 1860. The polygamy of the "Mormons" is a renewal of the ancient patriarchal order. 3. Affidavit of Joseph B. Noble signed June 26, 1869; Historical Record, Vol. 6:221. . . .that in the fall of 1840, Joseph Smith taught him the principle of celestial or plural marriage, or a plurality of wives; and that. . . 4. Affidavit of John Benbow signed 28 August 1869; Historical Record, Vol. 6:222. President Joseph Smith taught him and his wife, Jane Benbow, the doctrine of celestial marriage, or plurality of wives, Hyrum being present. 5. J.D. 13:197; October 9, 1869; George Q. Cannon. We have heard, during Conference, a great many precious instructions, and in none have I been more interested than in those which have been given to the Saints concerning that much mooted doctrine called Patriarchal or Celestial Marriage. 6. Affidavit of Benjamin F. Johnson signed March 4, 1870; Historical Record, Vol. 6:221. . . .where, to my great surprise, he [Joseph] commenced to open up to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage. 7. Affidavit of William Clayton signed February 16, 1874; Historical Record, Vol. 6:225. After giving me lengthy instructions and information concerning the doctrine of celestial or plural marriage, he concluded his remarks. . . 8. Affidavit of Eliza R. Snow published in the Deseret News October 22, 1879; Historical Record, Vol. 6:224. . . .he could not do it more effectually than by proving her denial of any knowledge of polygamy (celestial marriage), and its practice by her husband. 9. Deseret News, May 20, 1886; Historical Record, Vol. 6:220; Joseph F. Smith. . . .they are not denials of plural or celestial marriage as taught by Joseph and Hyrum. . . 10. Historical Record, Vol. 6:223; Andrew Jensen. Further, the fact is established that Joseph Smith received the revelation on celestial or plural marriage, and the eternity of the marriage covenant. 11. Spencer's Letters, p. 193; Orson Spencer. When God sets up any portion of His Kingdom upon the earth, it is patterned after his own order in the heavens. When He gives to man a pattern of family organization on the earth that pattern will be just like his own family organization in the heavens. The family of Abraham was a transcript of a celestial pattern. . .This family order of Abraham was spread out before God, and met with His entire and full approbation. And why did God approve of it? Because it is the only order practiced in the celestial heavens, and the only peaceful, united, and prosperous order that will endure, while man invented orders and devices will utterly deceive and perish with the using. The New & Everlasting Covenant of Marriage 1. Utah Stake Historical Record #64904/CH0/1877-1888. Quarterly Conference held March 3rd and 4th, 1883; Sunday, 2 PM (page 271- ); President Wilford Woodruff. The new and everlasting Covenant is marriage, plural marriage - men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted, why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four, many question me in this manner I suppose they are afraid of Edmunds, what is the Covenant? it is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a plurality of wives and takes both to make the law - the Lord leads the mind step by step to this point - first that all covenants must be made by his power - next the eternity of the covenant reaching into Eternity after this the Lord tells us what the Law is and how he justified his servants. God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because this was the law ordained for the fullness and glory of God before the world was. This was the law and from Hagar sprang many nations, the Lord has said that to whom this Revelation is given, that they are eligible to this law, its blessings and its requirements - the men can only be saved by acts of Righteousness and the woman are under the same law. Joseph Smith declared that all who became heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ must obey his law or they cannot enter into the fullness and if they do not they may loose the one talent, when men are offered knowledge and they refuse it they will be damned and there is not a man that is sealed by this priesthood by covenants to enter into the fullness of the law and the same with the woman she says she will observe all that pertains to the new and everlasting Covenant both are under the Covenant - and must obey if they wish to enter into a continuation of the lives or of the seeds. 2. Declarations of the First Presidency on Temple Work, Vol. 5:44; May 22, 1888. President's office Salt Lake City, Utah May 22, 1888 Bishop S.A. Woolley, 19th Ward, Salt Lake City, Dear Brother: . . . You asked whether a person who has once been married in the Endowment House or Temple, and is left a widow or a widower, commits adultery by marrying again when the ceremony is performed by a justice of the peace or a civil officer. There is a manifest impropriety, which every Latter-day Saint who has had his or her endowments should perceive, in such a person going to a civil officer to have a ceremony of marriage performed. The fact that such a person does so is in evidence that he or she is falling away, because if in good standing a recommendation could be obtained for the temple, where the ceremony could be performed, should be performed according to the order which God has instituted. But a person marrying under such circumstances does not commit adultery. You ask some other questions concerning how many living wives a man must have to fulfill the law. When a man, according to the revelation, marries a wife under the holy order which God has reveals and then marries another in the same say, he enters into the new and everlasting covenant, so far as he has gone he has obeyed the law. I know of no requirement which makes it necessary for a man to have three living wives at a time. With kind regards, I remain, Your Brother, W. Woodruff. 3. First Presidency Letterpress Copybooks, 1877-1949, p. 385; CR/1/20/#17. Feb. 25th, 1889 Elder Martin Johansen, Ferron Dear Brother:--Your letter of Feb. 20th, asking certain questions, has been received. It would be quite proper for you to submit all such questions to the Bishop of you[r] Ward or the President of your stake. However, in reply to your question as to what is meant in Sec. 131 Book of Doc. & Cov.--viz: "If a man hath one wife seal[ed] to him in the Temple for time and for all eternity, will he enter into the celestial glory and have increase, or hath it reference to a man who hath more than one wife sealed to him?" It may mean one wife, under certain circumstances; but when circumstances will permit it means more. The words through the Prophet Joseph, as recorded in Sec. 131 Doctrine and Covenants, are correct and mean what they say. With kind regards, Your Brother, W. Woodruff The Patriarchal Law of Marriage Given to Abraham 1. J.D. 4:224; February 8, 1857; Salt Lake Tabernacle; Pres. Heber C. Kimball. Do you suppose that Joseph and Hyrum and all those good men would associate with those ancient worthies, if they had not been engaged in the same practices? They had to do the works of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in order to be admitted where they are; they had to be polygamists in order to be received into their society. 2. J.D. 11:268-69; August 19, 1866; Salt Lake Bowery; Pres. Brigham Young. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. 3. J.D. 13:200; October 9, 1869; Salt Lake Tabernacle; George Q. Cannon. God revealed that strait and narrow way (D&C 132:22) to Abraham, and taught him how he could enter therein. He taught him the principle of plurality of wives; Abraham practiced it and bequeathed it to his children as a principle which they were to practice. 4. J.D. 21:10; December 7, 1879; 17th Ward Meetinghouse, Salt Lake City, at the Funeral of William Clayton; Joseph F. Smith. And as he [Wm Clayton] has here stated, as having come from the mouth of the Prophet, this doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods, neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase, or the blessings pronounced upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the faithful. 5. J.D. 23:132; May 14, 1882, Sunday; Salt Lake Tabernacle; Wilford Woodruff. We declare to all men that the God of heaven commanded Joseph Smith to introduce and practice the patriarchal order of marriage, including the plurality of wives. And why? Because it was the law given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for certain purposes. 6. Life of Wilford Woodruff, p. 542, by Matthias F. Cowley; October 13, 1882. Concerning the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, President Taylor said: 'If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.' In harmony with the remarks of President Taylor, Elder Woodruff observed: 'The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to resign.' 7. The Gospel Kingdom, p. 390; 4th ed.; Revelation given to President John Taylor, October 13, 1882. You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood. Necessary to Gain Exaltation & Fulness of Glory 1. J.D. 1:54; August 29, 1852; Salt Lake Tabernacle; Orson Pratt. In reply we will show you that it is incorporated as a part of our religion, and necessary for our exaltation of the fulness of the Lord's glory in the eternal world. Before we get through, we will endeavour to tell you why we consider it an essential doctrine to glory and exaltation, to our fulness of happiness in the world to come. 2. J.D. 11:269; August 19, 1866; Salt Lake Bowery; Pres. Brigham Young. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. 3. Historical Record, Vol. 6:226; February 16, 1874; William Clayton. From him [Joseph Smith] I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory. 4. J.D. 20:28; July 7, 1878, Sunday morning; Salt Lake Tab.; Joseph F. Smith. Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. . .The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part --- and is good as far as it goes --- But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. 5. Journal of Eliza M. Partridge (Smith) Lyman, pp. 92-94; 1879. It is now about thirty-six years since the Prophet Joseph Smith taught to me the principles of Celestial Marriage. I was then married by the order and have raised a family of both sons and daughters in what is called Polygamy, and I am not afraid to say that it is one of the most pure and holy principles that has ever been revealed to the LDS, and one that is necessary to our exaltation. * * * Then let us rejoice my Sisters, that we are numbered with the People of God, that we have embraced the Celestial Order of Marriage, and happy shall we be in a coming day if we have never spoken lightly of sacred things. 6. J.D. 24:146; May 6, 1883, Sunday morning; Quarterly Stake Conference held in Logan, Cache County, Utah; George Q. Cannon. And I obeyed the doctrine of patriarchal marriage, upon the same principle of salvation and of exaltation, and that if I would be exalted in the presence of God I must obey the law. 7. The Contributor, Vol. 13:196; February 1892; First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We, the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beg respectfully to represent to your Excellency the following facts: We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to men's highest exaltation in the life to come. . .up to a short time before September, 1890 [when the Manifesto was issued]. 8. Historical Record, Vol. 6:231; Bishop S. A. Woolley. . . .and that no man could or would receive a fulness of celestial glory and eternal life, except he obeyed that law, and had more than one living wife at the same time. Necessary For The Church To Advance Forward 1. J.D. 11:221; April 7, 1866; Salt Lake Tabernacle; John Taylor. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, 'that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed.' When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church, that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. 2. J.D. 21:10; December 7, 1879; Funeral of William Clayton, held at the 17th Ward Meetinghouse, Salt Lake City; Joseph F. Smith. And as he has here stated, as having come from the mouth of the Prophet, this doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop. 3. J.D. 24:229-230; June-July 1883; John Taylor's trip to Bear Lake. And I will tell you what Joseph Smith said upon the subject. He presented this principle to the Twelve, and called upon them to obey it, and said if they did not, the kingdom of God could not go one step further. 4. Life of Wilford Woodruff, p. 546; by Matthias Cowley; July 1883. The law of the Patriarchal Order of marriage belongs to this dispensation, and after it was revealed to the Prophet Joseph, he was commanded to receive it. If he and the people had rejected it, the Church and Kingdom of God would have advanced no further and God would have taken it from them and given it to another people. 5. Historical Record, Vol. 6:232, by Andrew Jensen; Comments of Sarah M. Kimball & John Taylor; No date. . . .God had revealed it again and instructed him [Joseph] to teach it with commandment, as the Church could travel (progress) no further without the introduction of this principle. (Sarah M. Kimball) President Taylor spoke briefly, stating that he was present at a meeting of the leading authorities of the Church in Nauvoo, at which the subject of the revelation on celestial marriage was laid before them and unanimously received as from God. Joseph declared that unless it was received the Church could progress no further. Soon after he met the Prophet Joseph, who addressing [me] said the time had come when he must embrace the doctrine of plural marriage. (John Taylor) Living Plural Marriage Does Not Bring Sorrow 1. J.D. 11:301; February 3, 1867; Salt Lake Tabernacle; Pres. Brigham Young. I do not wonder at this people having trouble; I do not wonder at some of our sisters having sorrow in what is termed plural marriage; for they do not live so as to have the Spirit and power of God upon them; if they did, they could see its beauty and excellence, and not a word would be said against it from this time henceforth and forever. But they see this with a selfish eye, and say, 'I want my glory and my comfort here.' 2. J.D. 12:312; November 29, 1868; Salt Lake Tabernacle; Pres. Brigham Young. Our sisters need not be worried about any doctrine. Brother Penrose said it would be better for them if they believed in the doctrine of polygamy. But they do believe it; they know it is true, and that is their torment. It perplexes and annoys many of them, because they are not sanctified by the spirit of it; if they were there would be no trouble. 3. Life of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 546-47; by Matthias F. Cowley; July, 1883. It has been said that the Patriarchal Order of Marriage has caused more sorrow to the daughters of Eve than any other principle ever revealed from Heaven to men, but this is not true. No divine principle brings trouble to those who faithfully obey it. If they who are in it have troubles it is not the fault of the principle but because of weakness and of the false traditions which surround them. The Lord never gave a law to the children of men which will give to them exaltation and glory except through the observance of that law. Opposition To Plural Marriage Brings Damnation 1. J.D. 3:266; July 14, 1855; Provo Bowery; Pres. Brigham Young. Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned. 2. J.D. 11:211; April 4, 1866; Salt Lake Tabernacle; Pres. Heber C. Kimball. 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, and they, and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end. 3. J.D. 11:221; April 7, 1866; Salt Lake Tabernacle; John Taylor. Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, 'that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed.' When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church, that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostasy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. 4. J.D. 13:42; October 8, 1869; Salt Lake Tabernacle; George A. Smith. Is not the man that denounces Celestial Marriage a liar? Does he not work abominations? 5. J.D. 17:159; August 9, 1874, Sunday afternoon; Lehi City Meetinghouse; Pres. Brigham Young. I want to say to my sisters that if you lift up your heels against this revelation, and say that you would obliterate it, and put it out of existence if you had the power to nullify and destroy it, I say that if you imbibe that spirit and feeling, you will go to hell, just as sure as you are living women. Emma took that revelation, supposing she had all there was. . .She went to the fireplace and put it in, and put the candle under it and burnt it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman. Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her. 6. J.D. 17:224-225; October 7, 1874, Wednesday; Salt Lake Tab.; Orson Pratt. 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; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. * * * Now I want to prophecy a little. It is not very often that I prophecy, though I was commanded to do so, when I was a boy. 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. 7. Historical Record, Vol. 6:227; January 10, 1885; Thomas Grover. Brother Hyrum was called upon to read the revelation. He did so, and after the reading said, 'Now, you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall be saved, and you that reject it shall be damned.' Parable of the Talents Refers to Plural Marriage 1. Historical Record, Vol. 6:221-222; March 4, 1870; Benjamin F. Johnson. He [Joseph] also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me which I would understand while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend his meaning. His subject was the ten talents, 'unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath not (or will not receive), shall be taken away that which he hath (or might have had)'. Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future to those who were heirs of salvation. 2. J.D. 16:166; August 31, 1873, Sunday; Bowery, Paris, Oneida County, Idaho; Pres. Brigham Young. 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 for ever and ever. But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. 3. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; October 14, 1882. At a meeting of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve and Stake Presidents, Erastus Snow said: E Snow said that Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus spoke of that the man who had one talent & hid it in the Earth was the man who had but one wife & would not take another would have taken from him & given to one who had more. 4. J.D. 24:75; April 6, 1883, General Conference; Salt Lake Tab; Erastus Snow. It is as Jesus said concerning the man who hid it in a napkin; he laid it carefully away, and by and by brought it out, saying, here it is as I received it, not having increased at all; in other words, we are just where we were when we started. Another one says I received two talents; and have increased to four, another says I received five talents, and now have ten; the master says to the one who hid his talent, who perhaps laid it carefully away and kept it nice, watching over it with the greatest care; of in other words, to him who did not multiply and increase, but on the contrary took pains to avoid doing so, 'Take from him that which he seems to have and give to him that has ten; for he that has and improves upon that which he receives, shall receive more abundantly.' The Law of Sarah 1. Doctrine & Covenants 132:61, 65; July 12, 1843. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood--if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. 2. The Seer, p. 41; March 1853; Elder Orson Pratt. When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, as revealed to the ancient patriarchs, and as manifested by new revelation, and she refuses to give her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then it becomes necessary for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent: if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable, and the husband is found in the fault or in transgression, then he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the Prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar unto Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob. 3. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; October 26, 1868; Remarks made at the funeral of Vilate Kimball by her husband, Heber C. Kimball. I have taken 40 wives and many without her knowledge but she afterwards gave them to me in the Temple. 4. J.D. 16:166-67; August 9, 1873, Sunday Afternoon; Lehi City Meeting House; Pres. Brigham Young. 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, if I ever do get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor that I wish to perform. 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. 5. J.D. 17:159; August 31, 1874, Sunday; Delivered in the Bowery, Oneida County, Idaho; Pres. Brigham Young. If it is the duty of a husband to take a wife, take her. But it is not the privilege of a woman to dictate the husband, and tell who or how many he shall take, or what he shall do with them when he gets them, but it is the duty of the woman to submit cheerfully. 6. Letter to Mrs. Malinda J. Merrill from Pres. John Taylor; January 19, 1883; Salt Lake City, Utah; Spec Coll/BYU/File #M/1267. Mrs. Malinda J. Merrill Salt Lake City, Utah Fremont, Piute Co., Utah January 19, 1883 Dear Sister: * * * You further inquire: "What is the difference in a man having dead wives sealed to him than living women, so that he has one living wife; will they gain as great an exaltation if they have dead women sealed to them as they would if they had living women sealed to them?" This law pertains more particularly to the living, and on this point I refer you to verse 52 wherein it is said: "And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God," and in the 64th verse: "And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her this law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law." "This is the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." You seem to be desirous of having dead women sealed to your husband instead of living ones, where as the law pertaining to these matters does not put things in that shape. We read that the Lord commanded, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and it is for wives as well as husbands to perform their part in relation to these matters as explicitly stated in verse 64. * * * Circumstances do not always place it in the power of man to enter into this covenant and these matters are left with the Lord to adjust, but no man or woman has authority to point out any other way than that which the Lord has appointed. 7. Letter from Pres. John Taylor to Bishop A. A. Kimball, November 19, 1886; First Presidency Letterbook Copybooks, 1877-- 1949/Vol. 14:18-19; CR/1/20/#12 Church Archives. Bishop A.A. Kimball Kanosh, Millard Co. Dear Brother. You submit a peculiar case to me in your letter of the 15th a woman who is the wife of one of our Elders, herself incapable of bearing children because of physical malformation, threatens her husband with the Pen[itentary] if he shall attempt to obey the law of God, and take to himself another wife and obtain for himself a posterity which otherwise he cannot have. If it were not for the law of man he could do this without her consent, after having given her the privilege of exercising the right of the law of Sarah. As we are now situated he cannot do this without endangering his liberty, through her taking advantage of the Edmunds law. But there is more than one law of the land and under another law he can obtain a separation from her, physical malformation being deemed by the law a sufficient cause for divorce. * * * If he is a worthy faithful Latter-day Saint and there be nothing against him more than this, he should not be denied the privilege of going to the Temple, or of taking a wife without condemnation. He ought, however, to treat his first wife with kindness and sustain her; but if she still persists in threatening him for obeying the law of God, she herself becomes a transgressor and has no right to fellowship in the Church. 8. St. George Temple Minute Book, pp. 102-103, 4 October 1888; K9361R; James G. Bleak; CR/100/14/#2/CHO; Research Files 1950- 1974. Church Archives Vault. Declarations of the First Presidency on Temple Work, Vol. 8:35. Our young people come here to be married to be husband and wife through all eternity taking upon them covenants to observe all the laws, rites and ceremonies pertaining to the Holy order of matrimony, this is the way God has established, and the ceremony that seals one wife to a man seals other wives. And when a man takes a wife they enter this sacred order and covenant to observe all the rites in this. The man covenants to take more wives, the woman covenants to do the part of Sarah and gives her consent for him to take more wives. Hoped the young people would understand these things. A covenant not kept is a covenant broken. When we enter that covenant we must continue in it. Still there is no one here who will say you shall take more wives, that is left entirely with yourselves. Must Be Practiced Under Priesthood Control 1. J.D. 13:201-02; October 9, 1869; Salt Lake Tabernacle; George Q. Cannon. It is necessary that this principle should be practiced under the auspices and control of the priesthood. God has placed that Priesthood in the Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this is a principle which, if not practiced in the greatest holiness and purity, might lead men into great sin, therefore the Priesthood is the more necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this principle. 2. Questions & Answers Concerning Celestial Marriage, pp. 1-12; June 25, 1882; A Revelation through President John Taylor; Church Historians Office. Question: Is the law of Celestial Marriage a law given to this nation or to the world? Answer: No, in no other sense than as the Gospel is given, and in accordance with the laws thereof. So far as it is made known unto them as the Gospel is made known unto them and is a part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant. [page 2] Have I not said through my servant, Joseph, that "all Kingdoms are governed by law," and if they receive not the law of My Gospel they cannot participate in the blessings of celestial marriage, which pertains to my elect. No person, or people, or nation can enter into the principle of celestial marriage unless they come in by me, saith the Lord, and obey the law of my Gospel through the medium of him who is appointed unto this power, as made known unto my people through my servant, Joseph, in a revelation on "The eternity of the marriage covenant, including plurality of wives." * * * You are not now sent to proclaim this principle to the United States, nor the world; nor to urge it upon them. It is not for them as a nation, or nations, only as many as accept the law of my Gospel and are governed thereby. Behold, if you were to preach this principle unto them and they said, "We accept it," Could you then administer it unto them? Verily, I say unto you, Nay. Have I not said, "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion. Cause For Withdrawal & Future Practice 1. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon; October 1, 1890, Wednesday; Salt Lake City, Utah; Meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve. John H. Smith: I cannot feel to say that the manifesto is quite right or wrong. lt may be that the people are unworthy of the principle and hence the Lord has withdrawn it. I cannot consent to cease living with my wives unless I am imprisoned. 2. William H. Smart Diary, 1901-1902 Book, p. 94; July 28, 1901. At Wasatch Stake MIA Conference, remarks of Sister and President Joseph F. Smith: "Sister Smith bore a very strong testimony to the divinity of the principle of plural marriage. Pres. Smith endorsed it. He said it was taken away from the people--like the law of consecration--because the saints rejected it, and neither would be restored until there is a people prepared to live them. Anyone should beware that casts slurs upon the birth of those born under this covenant. Also that men who will not appreciate their wives and children and provide for them will lose them." 3. Letter From Anthony W. Ivins to Mr. Thomas H. Jones, Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico; June 25, 1926; Film 272/Box 15/Letters #499-501/CHO. Pres. Joseph F. Smith is being quoted in the letter. Brother Ivins, plural marriage must be discontinued, in Mexico as well as in other parts of the Church. When you return to Mexico I want you to see that no more plural marriages are solemnized there. Tell the brethren there that they must cease their activities. There is no man who is authorized to perform a plural marriage, not even I can do it after the action taken by the conference, unless they shall vote again in favor of it. 4. Mormon Doctrine, p. 578; 1966, 2nd edition; Bruce R. McConkie. Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the second coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium (Isa. 7). Plural Marriage Ceremony 1. The Seer, Vol. 1, No 2, pp. 31-32; February, 1853. The wife stands on the left hand of her husband, while the bride stands on her left. The President, then, puts this question to the wife: "Are you willing to give this woman to your husband to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and for all eternity? If you are, you will manifest it by placing her right hand within the right hand of your husband." The right hands of the bridegroom and bride, being thus joined, the wife takes her husband by the left arm, as if in the attitude of walking: the President, then, proceeds to ask the following question of the man: "Do you brother, (calling him by name,) take sister, (calling the bride by her name,) by the right hand to receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise, on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?" The bridegroom answers, yes. The President, then, puts the question to the bride: "Do you, sister, (calling her by name,) take brother, (calling him by name,) by the right hand, and give yourself to him, to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and for all eternity with a covenant and promise, on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?" The bride answers, yes. The President then says, "ln the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and for all eternity; and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection, with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, clothed with glory, immortality, and eternal lives; and I seal upon you the blessings of thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, and exaltations, together with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and say unto you be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity in the day of the Lord Jesus. All these blessings, together with all other blessings pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, I seal upon your heads, through your faithfulness unto the end, by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen." 2. The L.D.S. Millennial Star, Vol. 15:214; 1853. Do you, brother (calling him by name), take sister (calling the bride by her name) by the right hand and receive her unto yourself, to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband, for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, Angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and choice? (The bridegroom answers: yes) Do you, sister (calling her by name), take brother (calling him by name) by the right hand, and give yourself to him, to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, Angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and choice? (The bride answers: yes) In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife, for time and for all eternity; and seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection, with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, clothed with glory, immortality and eternal life; and I seal upon you the blessings of thrones, and dominions and principalities, and powers and exaltations, together with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and say unto you, be faithful and multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity in the day of the Lord Jesus. All these blessings, together with the blessings pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, I seal upon your heads, through your faithfulness unto the end, by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. 3. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; September 17, 1854; Ms/f/115. President Young preached this afternoon & spoke upon the Law of Consecration & had an interesting conversation in our Prayer Circle. The subject of Elder Orson Pratt publishing the Seer and the doctrine it contained was brought up in conversation. President Young said he ought not to have published the marriage ceremony--lt was sacred and one of the last ceremonies attended to in the endowments and ought not to have been given to the world. Brother Pratt said that he thought it was no harm as the plurality of wives and its doctrine was to be published to the world. He said he should not have done it---if he had thought there had been the least harm in it. President Young said he was satisfied that he intended no wrong in it. 4. History of Utah, pp. 353-354, by Hubert H. Bancroft. n.d.; Typed w/o sic. This rendition closely follows the pattern given by Orson Pratt in The Seer. Ann Eliza Webb, who was twice married according to Mormon practice, once by Brigham, and afterward to him, thus describes the ceremonies: After registration, which includes names, age, place of birth, with county, state, or country, 'we went before Brigham Young, who was waiting for us,' and who asked, 'Do you, Brother James Dee, take Sister Ann Eliza Webb by the right hand, to receive her unto yourself, to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband, for time and eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part that you will fulfil all the laws, rights, and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and accord?' 'Yes'. 'Do you, Sister Ann Eliza Webb, take Brother James Dee by the right hand, and give yourself to him, to be his lawful and wedded wife, for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part that you will fulfil all the laws, rights, and ordinances pertaining to this holy matri- mony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this is the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and accord?' 'Yes'. 'In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the holy priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife, for time and for all eternity. And I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection, with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, clothed with glory, immortality, and everlasting lives; and I seal upon you the blessings of thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, and exaltations, together with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And I say unto you, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your prosperity in the day of the Lord Jesus. All these blessings, together with all other blessings pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, I seal upon your heads, through your faithfulness unto the end, by the authority of the holy priesthood, in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost. Amen' 'The scribe then entered the date of the marriage, together with the names of my mother and the one or two friends who accompanied us.' When the marriage is a polygamous one, the wife stands on the left of her husband, and the bride at her left hand. The president then puts this question to the wife: 'Are you willing to give this woman to your husband, to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and for all eternity? If you are, you will manifest it by placing her right hand within the right hand of your husband.' The right hands of the husband and bride being thus joined, the wife takes her husband by the left arm, as in walking, and the ceremony then proceeds as in the manner quoted above. Of course, as these ceremonies took place in the endowment house, the temple robes were worn. MARY WAS SEALED TO THE FATHER 1. Luke 1:26-35 26. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37. For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. 2. The Seer, p. 158; October, 1853; Elder Orson Pratt The fleshly body of Jesus required a mother as well as a father. Therefore, the father and mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of husband and wife; hence, the virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that he overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully. * * * He had a lawful right to overshadow the virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband and beget a son. * * * Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that he only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that he intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. 3. Box Elder News, Brigham City, Utah, January 28, 1915; Discourse of Pre sident Joseph F. Smith at the Box Elder Stake Conference, December 20, 1914, morning session of conference. Now, little boys and girls, when you are confronted by infidels in the world who know nothing of how Christ was begotten, you can say he was born just as the infidel was begotten and born, so was Christ begotten by His Father who is also our Father---the father of our spirits---and He was born of His mother, Mary. The difference between Jesus Christ and other men is this. Our fathers in the flesh are mortal men who are subject unto death, but the Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the God of Heaven. Therefore Jesus, as he declared, received the power of life from His Father and was never subject unto death but had life in Himself. * * * These are truths and I wish they could be instilled into the hearts of these little children so that they will not be tossed about by every wind of doctrine and be confused by the teachers of atheism. * * * Now my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you talk to your parents about it, that God the Eternal Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ. Mary was married to Joseph for time. No man could take her for eternity because she belonged to the Father of her divine Son. In the revelation that has come thru Joseph Smith we learn that it is the eternal purpose of God that man and woman should be joined together by the power of God here on earth for time and eternity. TOPICS FROM THE JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES ON PLURAL MARRIAGE 1. Anti-PM Laws Unconstitutional 1:54; 6:360; 14:267; 22:186 2. Benefits & Results of PM 3:265; 11:203; 13:203; 20:200; 26:43; 13:207-8; 14:58; 20:37; 22:280-1; 23:227 3. Women who Object to PM should Leave their Husbands 4:55-56 4. Reasons For PM 3:264-5; 4:56, 254-5, 259; 5:92; 9:36; 11:210; 22:189; 24:164; 25:227; 5:22; 23:225-8; 9:36; 11:203-4, 210-211; 11:111; 12:261; 13:197, 205-6; 5:291; 17:228; 20:27; 23:132; 24:40; 25:21 5. Curse of the Woman 4:57; 5:290; 16:167; 23:225-8; 13:207 6. Our Progeny Constitutes Our Kingdom 3:266; 11:262; 22:97 7. Plurality of Husbands Is Wrong 2:85; 13:41; 18:55 8. PM Only for Worthy Priesthood Holders 1:119; 3:265; 4:255; 9:269; 11:210; 9:269; 20:27-29; 23:64- 65 . 9. Eternal Nature of PM 1:65; 11:271; 11:210; 13:197; 13:205; 17:225; 23:65; 24:229 10. Must Not be Ruled by Passion 5:290; 9:36-8; 20:199 11. History of PM 9:322; 13:202; 12:262; 23:298; 24:164-5; 25:21; 13:193-4; 20:29; 16:167; 20:29; 21:9; 23:131; 26:115; 1:50 12. PM and Traditions 4:255; 6:350; 22:281; 23:66 13. Monogamy is not the Marriage System of Heaven 9:322 14. Must Live PM to get Fulness Blessings 13:199-200; 20:30 15. Those who Can't Accept PM Not Fit for Celestial Kingdom 11:269; 11:222; 11:205; 13:43; 15:28; 17:100; 22:96; 16:166 16. PM must be Lived in Purity 13:201-02; 20:27; 22:188; 23:230 17. Trials Are connected with PM 13:205; 16:122-23 18. Is PM Difficult For Women to Accept & Live? 11:268; 11:301; 12:312; 13:206; 11:54-55; 25:21; 17:159; 18:375; 16:123; 24:162 19. Glory Is Greater in PM than Monogamy 20:29-30 20. Duties of Fathers, Mothers, & Children in PM 4:255-56; 6:190; 9:37-9; 11:211; 5:291; 23:230; 24:231 --------------------------------------------------------------- Christ Was Married: 1:345-6; 2:80-2; 4:260 Talents: 2:86 Nec for Exal: 3:266; 13:207; 18:375; 26:181; 21:10 Results in Dam: 3:266; 11:212; 6:281; 13:194; 17:159; 17:224- 5; 20:31; 11:269 Works of Abraham: 4:259; 9:322; 11:269-71; 13:200 Hus/Wif must live their own callings: 4:258 Cause for Withdrawal: 11:224 Control by Prhd: 13:208-9; 17:228; 23:240-1, 280; 23:65; 24:46; 26:342; 13:201 Cel/Pat/PM: 23:132; 24:229; 26:341 Prostitutes will have flesh rot: 2:86-7 Bishops to have at least 1 wife: 2:88-90 Order of Heaven places man first, then the woman: 4:257-8 Must Live PM to be with Joseph: 4:224 All Gods are polygamists: 11:269 Millions of Women to be saved, fewer men: 13:207 Reproach in women is to be barren: 13:41; 15:28 More happiness in PM than out: 24:318, 163 Polygamy is not Bigamy: 26:341 A COMPILATION OF QUOTATIONS ON CELESTIAL OR PLURAL MARRIAGE 1. Revelation given to Joseph Smith Jr., July 17, 1831; reported by W. W. Phelps. Part and substance of a revelation by Joseph Smith Jr., given over the boundary, west of Jackson County, Missouri, on Sunday morning, July 17, 1831, when seven Elders: viz., Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe, Ziba Peterson and Joshua Lewis united their hearts in prayer, in a private place, to inquire of the Lord who should preach the first sermon to the remnant of the Lamanites and Nephites and the people of that section, that should assemble that day in the Indian country, to hear the Gospel and the revelations according to the Book of Mormon. Among the company, there being neither pen, ink nor paper, Joseph remarked that the Lord could preserve his words, as he had ever done, till the time appointed, and proceeded: 1 Verily, Verily, saith the Lord, your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ, the light and the life of the world, ye cannot discern with your natural eyes, the design and the purpose of your Lord and your God, in bringing you thus far into the wilderness, for a trial of your faith, and to be especial witnesses, to bear testimony of this land, upon which the zion of God shall be built up in the last days, when it is redeemed. 2 Verily, inasmuch as ye are united in calling upon my name to know my will concerning who shall preach to the inhabitants that shall assemble this day to learn what doctrine you have to teach them, you have done wisely, for so did the prophets anciently, even Enoch, and Abraham, and others; and therefore, it is my will that my servant Oliver Cowdery should open the meeting with prayer; that my servant W. W. Phelps should preach the dis- course; and that my servants Joseph Coe and Ziba Peterson should bear testimony as they shall be moved by the Holy Spirit. This will be pleasing in the sight of your Lord. 3 Verily, I say unto you, you are laying the foundation of a great work for the salvation of as many as will believe and repent, and obey the ordinances of the Gospel, and continue faithful to the end: For, as I live, saith the Lord, so shall they live. 4 Verily, I say upon you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles. 5. Gird up your loins and be prepared for the mighty work of the Lord to prepare the world for my second coming to meet the tribes of Israel, according to the predictions of all the holy prophets since the beginning; For the final desolation decreed upon Babylon: For, as the everlasting gospel is carried from this land, in love for peace, to gather mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, for Zion - even so shall rebellion follow after, speedily, with hatred for war until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all the kingdoms and nations, that strive to govern themselves by the laws and precepts, and force and powers of men under the curse of sin, in all the world. 6 Verily, I say unto you, that the day of vexation and vengeance is nigh at the doors of this nation, when wicked, ungodly and daring men will rise up in wrath and might, and go forth in anger, like as the dust is driven by a terrible wind; and they will be the means of the destruction of the government: and come the death and misery of men's souls, but the faithful among my people shall be preserved in holy places, during all these tribulations. 7. Be patient, therefore, possessing your souls in peace and love, and keep the faith that is now delivered upon you for the gathering of scattered Israel, and lo, I am with you, though you cannot see me, till I come: even so. Amen. About three years after this was given, I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives from the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied, instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation - the saints of the Lord are always direct- ed by revelation." 2. "Historical Record", Vol 6:219-220; by Andrew Jensen; Pres. Joseph F. Smith appearing in Deseret News, May 20, 1886; c. November 1831. The great and glorious principle of plural marriage was first revealed to Joseph Smith in 1831, but being forbidden to make it public, or to teach it as a doctrine of the Gospel, at that time, he confided the facts to only a very few of his intimate associates. Among them were Oliver Cowdery and Lyman E. Johnson, the latter confiding the fact to his traveling companion, Elder Orson Pratt, in the year 1832. And this great principle remained concealed in the bosom of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the few to whom he revealed it, until he was commanded, about 1842, to instruct the leading members of the Priesthood, and those who were most faithful and intelligent, and best prepared to receive it in relation thereto, at which time, and subsequently until his martyrdom, the subject, in connection with the great principles of baptism, redemption and sealings for the dead, became the great themes of his life, and, as the late Pres. Geo. A. Smith repeatedly said to me and others, .The Prophet seemed irresistibly moved by the power of God to establish that principle, not only in theory, in the hearts and minds of his brethren, but in practice also!. he himself having led the way. While this doctrine was thus being taught by the Prophet to those whom he could trust---those who had faith, righteousness and integrity, to believe and accept it, with all its consequences (which are no trifling things), it remained an .unwritten law' and commandment of the Almighty to the faithful only of His Saints, designed to be enlarged as intelligence and fidelity to the laws of God increased, until the 12th day of July, 1843, when a portion of the revelation was written in the manner, and (at that time) for the purpose set forth in the statement of Elder Clayton, now submitted to the world, and as indicated in the revelation itself, as follows: .And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you hereafter, therefore let this suffice for the present.' (Verse 66) Let all the Latter-day Saints know that Joseph Smith, the martyred Prophet, is responsible to God and the world for this doctrine, and let every soul know that he and his brother Hyrum did practice the doctrine in their lifetime, and until their death, notwithstanding their seeming denials as published in the Times and Seasons, and which are so fervently relied upon as evidence against the fact by a certain class of anti-polygamists. Those denials can be explained, and have been, and while they are true in the sense, and for the purpose for which they were designed, they are not denials of plural or celestial marriage as taught by Joseph and Hyrum Smith and practiced at the time by both of them, and many others in prominent standing in the Church. These seeming denials themselves are specific proofs of the existence of the true coin, the counterfeit of which they denounced. Let every Saint know by unimpeachable testimony, as well as by the spirit of inspiration, to which each Saint is entitled, that God Almighty revealed this doctrine to Joseph the martyr, and that under God he was and is the founder, by precept and example, of the same in the Church. Praying God to bless this testimony to the comforting of the Saints and the confusion of their enemies, I have the heartfelt pleasure to remain eternally yours for the truth, .if it wake the dead.' 3. "Historical Record", Vol 6:232-233; by Andrew Jensen; c. November 1831. Comments by Joseph B. Noble at quarterly Stake conference held at Centreville, Davis Co., Utah, June 11, 1883. Elder Joseph B. Noble next addressed the conference. He stated that the Prophet Joseph told him that the doctrine of celestial marriage was revealed to him while he was engaged on the work of translation of the Scriptures, but when the communication was first made the Lord stated that the time for the practice of that principle had not arrived. Subsequently, he stated, the angel of the Lord appeared to him and informed him that the time had fully come. Elder Noble sealed his wife's sister to Joseph, that being the first plural marriage consummated. The Prophet gave the form of the ceremony, Elder Noble repeating the words after him. Elder Noble bore testimony to the purity of character of his sister-in-law, who was a woman of irreproachable morality, who entered into the plural marriage relation on a deep-seated conviction that the doctrine was from God. 4. J.D. 13:193; Orson Pratt; c. November, 1831. I will tell you what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to this matter [concerning one wife and adultery] in 1831, also in 1832, the year in which the law commanding the members of this Church to cleave to one wife only was given. Joseph was then living in Portage county, in the town of Hiram, at the house of Father John Johnson. Joseph was very intimate with that family, and they were good people at that time, and enjoyed much of the Spirit of the Lord. In the fore part of the year 1832, Joseph told individuals, then in the Church, that he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for an answer that the principle of taking of more wives than one is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practiced. That was before the Church was two years old. 5. Charles L. Walker Journal, VIII:118; or large journal p. 444; BYU Special Collections. Comments by Brigham Young, July 26, 1872 in 14th Ward, SLC, referring to the Kirtland Period; c. summer 1833. They [Joseph & Oliver] had a revelation that the order of Patriarchal Marriage and the sealing was right. Oliver said unto Joseph, .Br. Joseph why don't we go into the Order of Polygamy, and practice it as the ancients did, we know it is true then why delay.' Joseph's reply was, I know that we know it is true and from God, but the time has not yet come.' This did not seem to suit Oliver who expressed a determination to go into the order of Plural Marriage anyhow, altho Joseph said, .Oliver if you go into this thing it is not with my faith or consent.' Disregarding the counsel of Joseph, Oliver Cowdery took to wife Annie Lyman cousin of Geo. A. Smith. From that time he went into darkness and lost the spirit. Annie Lyman is still alive, a witness to these things. 6. Juvenile Instructor, XVI, No. 18 (September 5, 1881), p. 206; "History of the Church", Geo. Q. Cannon, ed.; Kirtland, Ohio period; c. summer 1883. For instance, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph in an early day, some points connected with the doctrine of celestial marriage. He was told that it was to obey God's will that His ancient servants had taken more wives than one; and he probably learned, also, that His servants in these days would be commanded to carry out this principle. The Prophet Joseph, however, took no license from this. He was content to await the pleasure and command of the Lord, knowing that it was as sinful to enter upon the practice of a principle like this before being commanded to do so, as it would be to disobey it when required to carry it into effect. Not so with Oliver Cowdery. He was eager to have another wife. Contrary to the remonstrances of Joseph, and in utter disregard of his warning, he took a young woman and lived with her as a wife, in addition to his legal wife. Had Oliver Cowdery waited he could have taken this young woman, had her sealed to him as his wife, and lived with her without condemnation. But taking her as he did was a grievous sin, and was doubtless the cause of his losing the Spirit of the Lord, and of being cut off from the Church. 7. J.D., Vol. 20:29; Joseph F. Smith; c. Summer 1833. I have declared that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1842. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, instructed this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by .running before he was sent. and .taking liberties without license,' so to speak hence the publication by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. 8. Section CI, Article on Marriage, taken from the original Doctrine and Covenants of the Church, printed on or about August, 1835. This article was prepared by Oliver Cowdery. On August 17, 1835 it was presented to a general assembly at Kirtland, and unanimously accepted. It should be noted that the Prophet Joseph was not in attendance at this General Assembly, nor his second counselor: F. G. Williams. Joseph was visiting the saints in Michigan and returned to Kirtland August 23, 1835. (See H.C. 2:253) 1. 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 so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 2. 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 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 fulfill your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen." 3. The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch. 4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ 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 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 all persons who exercise control over their fellow beings, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin. 9. H.C. 2:243-44; General Assembly of the Priesthood & the Church; August 17, 1835. A general assembly of the Church of Latter-day Saints was held at Kirtland on the 17th of August, 1835, to take into consideration the labors of a committee appointed by a general assembly of the Church on the 24th of September, 1834, for the purpose of arranging the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the Church. The names of the committee were: Joseph Smith, Jr., Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams, who, having finished said book according to the instructions given them, deem it necessary to call a general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authorities of the Church: that it may, if approved, become a law and a rule of faith and practice to the Church. Wherefore, Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, members of the First Presidency, (Presidents Joseph Smith, Jun., and Frederick G. Williams being absent on a visit to the Saints in Michigan,) appointed Thomas Burdick, Warren Parrish, and Sylvester Smith clerks, and proceeded to organize the whole assembly.... * * * President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints," in behalf of the committee. He was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book. * * * Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and complied, and were profitable for doctrine. * * * The several authorities and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted the labors of the committee. (p. 246) President W. W. Phelps then read the following article on marriage, which was accepted and adopted and ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote. * * * President Oliver Cowdery then read the following article on "Governments and Laws in General," which was accepted and adopted and ordered to be printed in said book, by a unanimous vote. (p. 247) 10. The Rocky Mountain Saints; T.B.H. Stenhouse; p. 193; August 17, 1835. Brigham on that occasion (on the occasion he made this statement) made the damaging avowal that the Appendix (Article of Marriage) was written by Oliver Cowdery against Joseph's wishes, and was permitted to be published only after Cowdery's incessant teasing and Joseph's warning to him of the trouble which his course would create. . . . For he (Oliver) insisted, Brigham says, upon adding to his marital relations a young woman familiar with his family, and did hold the relation of husband to her. To silence the clamour and surmising that arose over this "second wife," he wrote that Appendix. . . . 11. Messenger and Advocate, I, No. 11 (August, 1835), p. 162. See also D&C, Kirtland: F. G. Williams & Co., 1835, p. 251; History of the Church, II, pp. 246-247. Presented to a general assembly of the Church in Kirtland, August 17, 1835, convened to gain the approval of the new D&C. Inasmuch as this church of Christ 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. 12. Deseret News Daily XVII, No. 77 (February 21, 1884), p. 4; "Letter to the Editor" from Mosiah Hancock. Kirtland, Ohio, c. 1835. Concerning the doctrine of celestial marriage the Prophet told my father (Levi) in the days of Kirtland, that it was the will of the Lord for His servants who were faithful to step forth in that order. But, said Brother Joseph, .Brother Levi, if I should make known to my brethren what God has made know to me they would seek my life.. My father made some things known to me concerning those days, and the part he took with the Prophet in trying to assist him to start the principle with a few chosen friends in those days. My father had required of me to bear testimony of these things at a proper time. 13. Letter of Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs (Church Historian); 1903; Kirtland, Ohio, c. 1835. In 1835, at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Limay R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, .That the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.. This, at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there lived then with his family (the Prophet's) a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one seemed partial, for the amiability of her character; and it was whispered even then that Joseph loved her. * * * Without doubt in my mind, Fanny Alger was, at Kirtland, the Prophet's first wife, in which, by right of his calling, he was justified of the Lord. (pp. 11, 14) * * * And there was some trouble with Oliver Cowdery, and whisper said it was relating to a girl then living in his (the Prophet's) family; and I was afterwards told by Warren Parish [sic], that he himself and Oliver Cowdery did know that Joseph had Fanny Alger as wife, for they were spied upon and found together. (p. 12) * * * On learning from the Prophet .the Lord had required him to take plural wives,' and that he had then thought to ask for some of my sisters (in Nauvoo), the past (Kirtland days) with its conditions and influences began more fully to unfold to my mind, the causes that must, at least in part, have led to the great apostasy and disruption in Kirtland.... Oliver Cowdery, J. Car- ter, W. Parrish, or others were not justified in their criticism upon the doings of the Prophet, or in their becoming a .law unto themselves,. thru which they lost the light of their calling and were left to darkness.(p. 14) 14. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol 6:230; See also Millennial Star, Vol 45:385, 443, 561; Kirtland, Ohio days; c. 1835. The doctrine of celestial marriage, I have the best of reasons for believing, was understood and believed by him (Joseph Smith, the Prophet) away back in the days when he lived in Kirtland, when he and the Saints, in their poverty, were toiling to erect that sacred edifice (the Kirtland Temple), wherein you (referring to Joseph Smith, the son of the Prophet) now falsify him, seeking, by your unsupported declarations, to nullify his most sacred doctrines. Even there, as I believe, he was instructed of the Lord respecting the sacred ordinance of plural marriage; but he was not required to reveal it to the Church until some time during the residence of the Saints at Nauvoo, where he received a revelation from the Lord setting forth in detail the results to be obtained by keeping inviolate all the laws connected with this sacred condition of things. And in consequence of the prejudices of the Saints and the tide of persecution which he well knew he would have to encounter from the outside world, wherein his life would be endangered, he delayed, as long as possible, to make this principle known, except to a few of the most faithful and humble of the Saints. /s/ Lyman O. Littlefield 15. Messenger and Advocate, III, No. 8 (May, 1837), p. 511; April 1837. The Presidents of Seventy in Kirtland spoke out against any member guilty of plural marriage, and if anyone was guilty he would lose his fellowship with the quorum. 16. Elder's Journal (Kirtland), I, No. 2 (November, 1837), p. 28; See also Elder's Journal (Far West), I, No. 3 (July, 1838) p. 43. Q: "Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?" A: "No, not at the same time." 17. "Far West Record" p. 117; (Contains the minutes of meetings in Kirtland and Far West, Missouri.); [See also Elder's Journal, I, No. 3 (July, 1838) p. 45]; Missouri, 1837. The charge of adulterous relations "with a certain girl" was brought against the Prophet by Oliver Cowdery this year. 18. "Letter to Warren Cowdery," from Oliver Cowdery; Far West, Missouri, January 21, 1838; Located in Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Microfilm copy at Brigham Young University Special Collections; Conversation between Joseph & Oliver during November, 1837. Oliver later wrote his brother about it. When he (Joseph) was here we had some conversation, in which in every instance, I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his (Joseph's) and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself. At any rate, just before leaving, he wanted to drop every past thing, in which had been a difficulty or difference---he called witnesses to the fact, gave me his hand in their presence. 19. Excommunication trial of Oliver Cowdery; Far West Record, p. 117. [See also Elder's Journal, I, No. 3, (July, 1838), p. 45.]; Far West; April 12, 1838. Oliver Cowdery was accused of adulterous relations. 20. History of the Church, Vol 3:17-18; April 12, 1838. Oliver Cowdery excommunicated from the Church. 21. Elder's Journal, I, No. 4 (August, 1838), p. 57, 59; Kirtland, Ohio, 1838. He (Warren Parrish) went into Kirtland, Ohio, some few years since to live, and hired his boarding in the house of one Zerah Cole; he had not however been there but a short time, until Mr. Cole began to make a grievous complaint, about his taking unlawful freedom with his (Cole's) wife. Parrish was, accordingly, brought to an account, before the authorities of the church, for his crime. The fact was established, that such unlawful conduct had actually taken place between them (Parrish and Cole's wife). 22. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:221; Fall, 1840. JOSEPH BATES NOBLE'S TESTIMONY. "Territory of Utah }ss. County of Salt Lake } Be it remembered that on this twenty-sixth day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, Joseph Bates Noble, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon his oath saith, that in the fall of 1840, Joseph Smith taught him the principle of celestial or plural marriage, or a plurality of wives; and that the said Joseph Smith declared that he had received a revelation from God on the subject, and that the angel of the Lord had commanded him (Joseph Smith) to move forward in the said order of marriage; and further, that the said Joseph Smith requested him (Joseph B. Noble) to step forward and assist him in carrying out the said principle, saying, 'In revealing this to you, I have placed my life in your hands, therefore do not in an evil hour betray me to my enemies.' Subscribed and sworn to by the said Joseph B. Noble, the day and year first above written. JOSEPH B. NOBLE [SEAL.] JAMES JACK, Notary Public. 23. J.D. 20:29; Elder Joseph F. Smith; July 7, 1878; c. 1840. . . .an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or we should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he move forward to reveal and establish that doctrine. 24. Charles L. Walker Journal, p. 39; June 17, 1883; c. 1840. June 17, 1883: Attended the quarterly conference, this p.m. Pres. E. Snow spoke of the Angel of the Lord meeting Joseph with a drawn sword and of his going to slay him for his being neglectful in the discharge of his duties and of Joseph having to plead on his knees before the Angel for his life. 25. Life of Heber C. Kimball, by Orson F. Whitney, p. 321; Edition 1881; c. 1840. An angel with a flaming sword descended from the courts of glory and confronting the Prophet, commanded him in the name of the Lord to establish the principle so long concealed from the knowledge of the Saints and of the world. That principle was the law of celestial or plural marriage. 26. Journal of Joseph L. Robinson, pp. 24-25; c. 1840. . . .but it came to pass the Lord instead of releasing him from that burden he sent an Holy Angel with a drawn sword unto him, saying unto him Joseph unless you go to and immediately teach that principle (namely Polygamy or plural marriage) and put the same in practice that he Joseph should be slain, for thus saith the Lord, the time has now come that I will raise up seed unto me as I spoke by my servant Jacob as is recorded in the Book of Mormon, therefore I command my people. 27. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:230; April 5, 1841. Orson Pratt's Testimony; comments by Joseph F. Smith. At a meeting held in Plano, Illinois, Sept. 12, 1878, Apostle Orson Pratt explained the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the revelation on plural marriage. He refuted the statement and belief of those present that Brigham Young was the author of that revelation; showed that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had not only commenced the practice of that principle himself, and further taught it to others, before President Young and the Twelve had returned from their missions in Europe, in 1841, but that Joseph actually received revelation upon that principle as early as 1831. He said, .Lyman Johnson, who was very familiar with Joseph at this early date, Joseph living at his father's house, and who was also very intimate with me, we having traveled on several missions together, told me himself that Joseph had made known to him as early as 1831, that plural marriage was a correct principle. Joseph declared to Lyman that God had revealed it to him, but that the time had not come to teach or practice it in the Church, but that the time would come.' To this statement Elder Pratt bore his testimony. He cited several instances of Joseph having had wives sealed to him, one at least as early as April 5, 1841, which was some time prior to the return of the Twelve from England. Referred to his own trial in regard to this matter in Nauvoo, and said it was because he got his information from a wicked source, from those disaffected, but as soon as he learned the truth he was satisfied. 28. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:221; Joseph F. Smith; April 5, 1841. . . . Elder Joseph B. Noble swears before a notary public, on June 6, 1869, that he did on April 5, 1841, seal to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, Miss Louisa Beaman, according to the revelation on plural marriage. 29. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:233-234. Women sealed to the Prophet during 1841. 1. Louisa Beman, April 5, 1841, Joseph B. Noble officiating. 2. Prescindia L. Huntington, Dec 11, 1841, Dimick B. Huntington officiating. 3. Zina D. Huntington, Dec 27, 1841, Dimick B. Huntington officiating. 30. Journal of Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner. An unnamed angel visited Joseph Smith three different times and commanded him to practice plural marriage. The last time the angel came, he came with a drawn sword ready to slay the Prophet if he refused to obey. Mary E. Lightner (who says she was the first plural wife of the Prophet) has given us the accounts of the angel's visits to Joseph and of the angel who visited her. Here is her story. "Every principle that has been given in the Church by the Prophet is true. I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expected to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the BOOK OF MORMON it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except when the Lord speaks. I am the first being that the revelation was given to him for one (sic) I was one thousand miles away in Missouri for we went up to Jackson County in 1841. . . . I asked him if Emma knew about me, and he said, "Emma thinks the world of you." I was not sealed to him until I had a witness. "I had been dreaming for a number of years I was his wife. I thought I was a great sinner. I prayed to God to take it from me for I felt it was a sin; but when Joseph sent for me he told me all of these things. "Well," said I, "don.t you think this was an angel of the Devil that told you these things?" Said he, "NO. It was an angel of God. God almighty showed me the difference between an angel of Light and Satan's angels. The angel came to me three times between the year of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me." "But," said he, "they called me a false and fallen prophet but I am more in favor with my God this day than I ever was in all my life before. I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie. All that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me." Well, I talked with him for a long time and finally I told him I would have a witness. Said I, "If God told you that why does he not tell me?" He asked me if I was going to be a traitor. "I have never told a mortal and shall never tell a mortal I had such talk from a married man," said I. "Well," said he, "pray earnestly for the angel said to me you should have a witness." Well Brigham Young was with me. He said if I had a witness he wanted to know it. "Why should I tell you?" said I. "Well," said he, "I want to know for myself." Said he, "do you know what Joseph said?" "Since we left the office the angel appeared to him and told him he was well pleased with him and that you should have a witness." I made it a subject of prayer and I worried about it because I did not dare to speak to a living being except Brigham Young. I went out and got between three haystacks where no one could see me. As I knelt down I thought why not pray as Moses did? He prayed with his hands raised. When his hands were raised Israel was victorious but when they were not raised the Philistines were victorious. I lifted my hands and I have heard Joseph say the angles covered their faces. I knelt down and if ever a poor mortal prayed I did. A few nights after that an angel of the Lord came to me and if ever a thrill went through a mortal it went through me. I gazed upon the clothes and figure but the eyes were like lightning. They pierced me from the crown of my head to the soles of me feel. 1 was frightened almost to death for a moment. I tried to waken my aunt but I could not. The angel leaned over me and the light was very great although it was night. When my aunt woke up she said she had seen a figure in white robes pass from our bed to my mother's bed and pass out of the window. Joseph came up the next Sabbath. He said, "have you had a witness yet?" "No." Said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have." Said I, "I have not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak." he studied awhile and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up and said, "How could you have been such a coward?" Said I, "I was weak." "Did you think to say, .Father help me.?" "NO." "Well if you had just said that your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I ever dared to reveal." I said, "If that was an angel of light why did he not speak to me?" "YOU COVERED YOUR FACE AND FOR THIS REASON THE ANGEL WAS INSULTED." Said I, "will it ever come again?" He looked around very sorely and then he thought a moment and the said, "No. Not the same one, but if you are faithful you shall see greater things than that." 31. Statement of Sister Maria Jane Woodward of Huntington, Emery County, Utah, Maiden Name, Maria J. Johnston. I was living at the Prophet Joseph's as hired girl 19 years of age to work for Emma Smith, The Prophet's wife, in the mansion at Nauvoo, Ill. While working in the evening, the rest of the girls having finished their work and gone to bed, I heard conversation between two personages but I did not know who they were at the time. They came into a little room back of the dining room where I was, and after listening a few moments I found that Emma Smith was one of them, but I did not know at the time that it was the Prophet that was with her. After listening I found out that she was crying and in trouble about something. He came to the door of the room where I was and then said to me: "It is you that is here is it Jane?" I told him it was and then he asked me if I would go down and tell Brother Hyrum Smith, his brother, to come to him and so I went. He told me that the guard at the gate would know me. I went out and the guard went with me down the street until I met the other guard. Then he came back to his place and the other guard went with me to Hyrum's door and I told Sister Thompson that Brother Joseph wanted Brother Hyrum. She went in and told him. He inquired who came for him (p. 2) and she told him. He said for me to wait and he would go with me. In going up Hyrum asked me where Brother Joseph was, and I told him he was in the little room back of the dining room in the mansion. Hyrum said no more to me until we got up to the mansion and he walked through the hall into this back room and I went to my work in the dining room. I heard him say to Emma when he went in: "Well Sister Emma, what is the matter?" Then I heard no more of their conversation that night, but the next morning I was up stairs making beds and Emma came to me and said, "lt was you that Joseph came to when he sent for Hyrum last night was it?" I said, "Yes Ma.am." Then she told me to sit down on the bed by her and we both sat down on the bed that I was making. She looked very sad and cast down, and there she said to me, "The principle of plural marriage is right, but I am like other women, I am naturally jealous hearted and can talk back to Joseph as long as any wife can talk back to her husband, but what I want to say to you is this. You heard me finding fault with the principle. I want to say that that principle is right, it is from our Father in Heaven", (sic) and then she again spoke of her jealousy. Then she continued, "What I said I have (p. 3) got to repent of. The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with Joseph of that principle. The principle is right and if I or you or anyone else finds fault with that principle we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it. I do not know why it is that Brother Hyrum holds such a controlling power over my spirit but when he comes to me and speaks to me I am melted to tears and I cannot talk back to him." After that I never heard her say anything about it and although I lived there quite a while after I did as I was told by her and said nothing about it. She was President of the Relief Society in Nauvoo at the time and she realized that it would not be well for them to know that she found fault with that principle. About two months ago I dreamed that the Prophet Joseph came to me and asked me to bear testimony of what I had heard her say about the principle of polygamy, that it was right, and he said something to this effect, "It will be hard enough for her anyway." (p. 4) Some people have denied that there was any such thing as endowments or endowment clothes before the time of Brigham Young, but I know there was. They were of the same pattern, had the same marks and were the same in every way as now. I was living with Father Smith, the Prophet's uncle and on one occasion the Prophet wrote a letter to his uncle to meet him the next morning in Nauvoo, (we were twenty-five miles from there). Mother Smith, George A. Smith's mother, was sick and as I was the hired girl I had to get these clothes and fix them in time for Father Smith to meet the Prophet Joseph in Nauvoo. Mother Smith told Father Smith to explain to me about this clothing, what they were for and what they did with them, the reason he had to have them and have them in good condition, before I got them out, and he did so. That was the first I knew about endowment clothes but they were the same as they are now. Sister Smith told me where they were and how to prepare them for him. They were in a chest locked up, inside of a little cotton bag made for the purpose and were all together. Then I got the clothes and pressed them out and put them in good condition and he went to meet the Prophet. These clothes were never put out publicly, in the washing or in any other way. When we washed them we hung them out between sheets because we were in the midst of the Gentiles. 32. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:232; Early 1842. Testimony of Sarah M. Kimball. Early in the year of 1842, Joseph Smith taught me the principle of marriage for eternity, and the doctrine of plural marriage. He said that in teaching this he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with blessings, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach it with commandment, as the Church could travel (progress) no further without the introduction of this principle. I asked him to teach it to some one else. He looked at me reprovingly, and said, .Will you tell me who to teach it to? God required me to teach it to you, and leave you with the responsibility of believing or disbelieving.' He said, .I will not cease to pray for you, and if you will seek unto God in prayer, you will not be led into temptation.' 33. Diary of Mrs. Mary N. Barzee Boyce, p. 40. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE RELIEF SOCIETY IN NAUVOO The Female Relief Society of Nauvoo was organized on March 17, 1842, Emma Smith President. Sidah Clements was a member of this society. She also worked for the Prophet's family. Emma became very much alarmed concerning the revelation on Celestial Marriage which Joseph had received and set her hand and mind to uproot it by counselling the Sisters that if they knew of any such work going on to burst doors open, etc. But Joseph Said to them if ever they knew of any of that to tell him and he would roll the ball. This talk was done in a female meeting and Sister Clements was present. And on another occasion she said he was going from home one day when she saw Emma go up to him and she was in a passion. She jerked him by the collar and talked to him about going after women. She says that one day while she was at her work that Emma went upstairs and pulled Eliza R. Snow downstairs by the hair of her head as she was staying there, although she had consented to give him one or more women in the beginning and it was rumored when I, M. A. Barzee Boyce, was in Nauvoo that she got in such a rage about it that she left home and went down to Quincy but came back again while I was there. Then she sought to stop the Relief Society but they tried to go on by meeting in private houses secretly. The prophet would sometimes meet and give them encouragement, but finally they ceased to meet for persecution raged and it went down with the troublesome times. It was re-organized in Salt Lake by Brigham Young between the years 67 and 70, with Eliza R. Snow Smith at the head as the Elect lady. The first chapter of the second epistle of John was read at the first organization of the Relief Society in Nauvoo and was printed at the head of the article on regulations of said Society. Again it was rumored that Law and Foster for an excuse said in consequence of such a revelation given to Joseph or that he had pretended this, was the reason why they helped to raise the mob to slay them in prison. My husband's sister and her husband, Thruman Gilbert, lived in a log house which had two rooms. She often talked to me about the prophet and of women coming here and holding council in that room. No I as the reason why there was so much talk. 34. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:223; Spring, 1842. [See also Emily Dow Partridge Smith Young Autobiography in the Women's Exponent, Vol 14:38.] The first intimation I had from Brother Joseph that there was a pure and holy order of plural marriage, was in the spring of 1842, but I was not married until 1843. I was married to him on the 11th of May, 1843, by Elder James Adams. Emma was present. She gave her free and full consent. She had always, up to this time, been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the Prophet Joseph with Emma's consent. Emma, about this time, gave her husband two other wives--Maria and Sarah Lawrence. 35. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, p. 177. [See also DHC 5:60-1.]; July 15, 1842. It was reported early in the morning that Elder Orson Pratt was missing. I caused the Temple hands and the principal men of the city to make search for him. After which, a meeting was called at the Grove, and I gave the public a general outline of John C. Bennett's conduct. Elder Pratt returned in the evening. 36. Alexander Neibaur Journal; July 15, 1842. Reported Orson Pratt, one of the 12 missing. All the citizens turned out in search of him. 37. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, p. 177, 561. [See also Brigham Young Papers; Ms f 219 #103.] Letter of Brigham Young to Parley P. Pratt in England concerning the difficulties that Orson Pratt was having. City of Nauvoo, July 17, 1842 Beloved Brother Pratt: I set down to write a few words to you. Many things happen in the last days, and especially in Nauvoo. As a general thing all goes first rate. The temple goes on finely and will be a splendid orifice when completed. The brethren are very spirited about it. Doct. John Cook Bennett is turned out of the Church, and report says gone to Mo. to raise a mob to come to drive us from our homes--I guess General Joab has got a hard stent on hand. Br. Orson Pratt is in trouble in consequence of his wife. His feelings are so wrought up that he does not know whether his wife is wrong, or whether Joseph's testimony and others are wrong, and do lie, and he deceived for 12 years or not; he is all but crazy about the matters. You may ask what the matter is concerning Sister P. It is enough, and Doct. J. C. Bennett could tell all about himself and his * * * enough of that. We will not let Br. Orson go away from us. He is too good a man to have a woman destroy him. 38. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, p. 178. [See also Times & Seasons 3:869.] July 22, 1842. Minutes of a public meeting held in Nauvoo: At a meeting of the citizens of the city of Nauvoo held in said city at the meeting ground, July 22nd, 1842. Orson Spencer Esq. was called to the chair, and Gustavus Hills was appointed clerk. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, who stated the object of the meeting to be to obtain an expression of the public mind in reference to the reports gone abroad, culminating the character of Pres. Joseph Smith. Gen Wilson Law then rose and presented the following resolution. RESOLVED--That, having heard that John C. Bennett was circulating many base falsehoods respecting a number of the citizens of Nauvoo, and especially against our worthy and respected Mayor, Joseph Smith, we do hereby manifest to the world that so far as we are acquainted with Joseph Smith we know him to be a good, moral, virtuous, peaceable and patriotic man, and a firm supporter of law, justice and equal rights; that he at all times upholds and keeps inviolate the constitution of this State and of the United States. A vote was then called and the resolution adopted by a large concourse of citizens, numbering somewhere about a thousand men. Two or three, voted in the negative. Elder Orson Pratt then rose and spoke at some length in explanation of his negative vote. Pres. Joseph Smith spoke in reply-- Question to Elder Pratt, "Have you personally a knowledge of any immoral act in me toward the female sex, or in any other way?" Answer, by Elder 0. Pratt, "Personally, toward the female sex, I have not." Elder 0. Pratt responded at some length. Elder B. Young then spoke in reply. . . 39. Weekly Missouri Republican, Wednesday, July 3, 1844. The clipping in the John Taylor scrapbook, University of Utah. Microfilm in CHO. 28 July 1842 AFFIDAVIT OF J. B. BACKENSTOS State of Illinois Hancock County ss. Personally appeared before me Ebenezer Robinson, an acting Justice of the Peace, in and for said County, J. B. Backenstos, who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that some time during last winter, he accused Doctor John C. Bennett, with having an illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt, and some others, when said Bennett replied that she made a first rate go, and from personal observations I should have taken said Doctor Bennett and Mrs. Pratt as man and wife, had I not known to the contrary, and further this deponent saith not. /s/ J. B. BACKENSTOS Sworn to, and subscribed, before me this 28th day of July, 1842. /s/ E. ROBINSON, J. P. 40. "The Return" Vol. 2, No. 11, Nov 1890; Ebenezer Robinson, editor; July, 1842. When Elder Pratt returned home from his mission, and learned of the secret teaching of the spiritual wife doctrine, and the true situation of things, it was too much for him, and his mind temporarily gave way, and he wandered away, no one knew where. I remember well the excitement which existed at the time, as a large number of the citizens turned out to go in search for him, fearing that he had committed suicide. He was found some 5 miles below Nauvoo, sitting on a rock, on the bank of the Mississippi river, without a hat. He recovered from his insanity, but at the next conference, when the vote was called to sustain Joseph Smith as President of the Church, he alone voted, No. He could not at that time conscientiously sustain him in that position. 41. Journal of Wilford Woodruff, August 1842. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, pp. 179-180. Wilford Woodruff speaking. August, 1842 * * * There was a council of the TWELVE held for four days, with Elder Orson Pratt to labor with him to get him to recall his saying against Joseph & the Twelve but he persisted in his wicked course & would not recall any of his sayings which were made in public against Joseph & others, sayings which were unjust & untrue. The Twelve then rejected him as a member of their quorum and he was cut off from the church. Dr. John Cook Bennett was the ruin of Orson Pratt. 42. Manuscript History of Brigham Young, pp. 120-121; August 8, 1842. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, pp. 180-181; August 8, 1842. August 8, 1842. Attended City Council. Assisted by Elders H. C. Kimball and Geo. A. Smith, I spent several days laboring with Elder Orson Pratt, whose mind became so darkened by the influence and statements of this wife, that he came out in rebellion against Joseph, refusing to believe his testimony or obey his counsel. He said he would believe his wife in preference to the prophet. Joseph told him if he did believe his wife and follow her suggestions he would go to hell. We reported to the Prophet that we had labored with brother Orson diligently in a spirit of meekness, forbearance and long- suffering. He requested us to ordain brother Amasa Lyman in brother Orson's stead. After receiving these instructions, we met brother Orson near my house, and continued to labor with him. He said to us, There is brother Amasa Lyman in your house, brother Young; he has been long in the ministry, go in and ordain him in my stead. 43. Church Manuscripts, Gerber, Vol. 11:18. Letter from Joseph Smith to his wife Sarah Ann Whitney, etc. [NOTE: Joseph Smith was married to Sarah Ann Whitney, July 27, 1842, by Newel K. Whitney. This letter was apparently addressed to Bro. & Sis Newell K. Whitney, and their daughter, Sarah.] Nauvoo, Ill, August 18, 1842. Nauvoo, August 18, 1842 Dear and beloved Brother and Sister Whitney and &. I take this opportunity to communicate some of my feelings, privately, at this time, which I wish you three eternally to keep in your own bosoms; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has passed lately between us, that the time of my absence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems as if I could not live long in this way; and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief of mind, if those with whom I am alied do love me, now is the time to afford me succor, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Granger's, just back of Brother Hyrum's farm, it is only one mile from town. The nights are very pleasant, indeed, all three of you can come and see me in the forepart of the night. Let Brother Whitney come a little ahead and knock at the south east corner of the house, at the window, it is next to the cornfield; I have a room intirely [sic] by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with the most perfect safety. I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction, or not at all, now is the time or never; but I have no need of saying any such thing to you, for I know the goodness of your heart and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you, the only thing to be careful of, is to find out when Emma comes, then you can not be safe, but when she is not here there is the most perfect safety, only be careful to escape observation as much as possible. I know it is an heroic undertaking; but so much the greater friendship and the more joy when I see you I will tell you all my plans; I can not write them on paper. Burn this letter as soon as you read it. Keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. One thing I want to see you for, is to get the fulness of my blessing sealed upon our heads. You will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject, when you consider how lonesome I must be. Your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me. I close my letter. I think Emma wont come tonight. If she don.t, don.t fail to come tonight. I subscribe myself your most obedient and affectionate companion and friend. Joseph Smith 44. The Orson Pratt Journals, p. 181; August 20, 1842. (Mss History of Brigham Young, pp. 120-121): August 20, 1842, Brother Orson Pratt was cut off from the Church, and according to the Prophet's direction, brothers H. C. Kimball, Geo. A. Smith and I ordained brother Amasa Lyman in his stead. (Documentary History of the Church): August 20, 1842.---the Twelve met in council, and ordained Amasa Lyman to be one of the Twelve Apostles. Amasa Lyman was born in Lyman, Grafton County, N. H., 30th March, 1813, where he received the gospel through the ministry of Elder Orson Pratt, 27th April, 1832; ordained an elder under my hands, 23rd August, 1832, in Hiram, Portage county, Ohio. He was one of my fellow- prisoners, bound with the same chain in Richmond jail, Missouri. John C. Bennett was declared unworthy to hold the office of chancellor of the University, and was discharged; and Orson Spencer was elected in his stead, and received the oath of office. Amasa Lyman was elected regent of the University, in place of Vinson Knight, deceased. 45. History of the Church, V, pp. 131-2; 26 August 1842. Friday, August 26.--At home all day. In the evening, in council with some of the Twelve and others. I gave some important instructions upon the situation of the Church, showing that it was necessary that the officers who could should go abroad through the states; and inasmuch as a great (p. 131) excitement had been raised, through the community at large, by the falsehoods put into circulation by John C. Bennett and others, it was wisdom in God that the Elders should go forth and deluge the state with a flood of truth, setting forth the mean, contemptible persecuting conduct of ex Governor Boggs of Missouri, and those connected with him in his mean and corrupt proceedings, in plain terms, so that the world might understand the abusive conduct of our enemies, and stamp it with indignation. I advised the Twelve to call a special conference on Monday next to give instructions to the Elders, and call upon them to go forth upon this important mission; meantime that all the affidavits concerning Bennett's conduct be taken and printed, so that each Elder could be properly furnished with correct and weighty testimony to lay before the public. 46. Manuscript History of Brigham Young, pp. 121, 122. --26--Met in the evening in Council with the Prophet Joseph and some of the Twelve. We received much good instruction and counsel from Joseph, relative to the situation of the Church, and the policy to be pursued in sending many Elders through the States to preach the G ospel and disabuse the public mind in relation to false statements of Dr. J. C. Bennett. The Prophet also directed us to call a Special conference on Monday next, and nominate the Elders to go on this important mission, and give them their instructions; and that we should also get the (p. 122) affidavits against Dr. Bennett published, so that the Elders might be authentic and strong testimony to lay before the public in relation to those matters. 47. Weekly Missouri Republican; Wednesday, July 3, 1844. The clipping is in the John Taylor Scrapbook, University of Utah; microfilm in CHO. 28 August 1842 TESTIMONY OF MRS. GODDARD Dr. Bennett came to my house one night about 12 o.clock, and sat on or beside the bed where Mrs. Pratt was and cursed and swore very profanely at her; she told me next day that the Dr. was quick tempered and was mad at her, but gave me no other reason. I concluded from the circumstances that she had promised to meet him somewhere and had disappointed him; on another night I remonstrated with the Dr. and asked him what Orson Pratt would think, if he should know that you were so fond of his wife, and holding her hand so much; the Dr. replied that he could pull the wool over Orson's eyes. Mrs. Pratt stated to me that Dr. Bennett told her, that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother, at any stage of pregnancy, and that he had frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose, etc. My husband and I were frequently at Mrs. Pratt's and stayed till after 10 o.clock in the night, and Dr. Bennett still remained there with her and her little child alone at that late hour. On one occasion I came suddenly into the room where Mrs. Pratt and the Dr. were, she was lying on the bed and the Dr. was taking his hands out of her bosom; he was in the habit of sitting on the bed where Mrs. Pratt was lying, and lying down over her. I would further state that from my own observation, I am satisfied that their conduct was anything but virtuous, and I know Mrs. Pratt is not a woman of truth, and I believe the statements which Dr. Bennett made concerning Joseph Smith are false, and fabricated for the purpose of covering his own iniquities, and enabling him to practice his base designs on the innocent. ZERUIAH N. GODDARD Subscribed before me, one of the Aldermen of the City of Nauvoo, and sworn to this 28th day of August 1842. GEO. W. HARRIS Alderman of the city of Nauvoo 48. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, 1975; pp. 533-34. [See also H.C. 5:137-139.] Joseph Smith speaking; Monday, August 29th 1842. When Hyrum was done speaking, I arose and congratulated the brethren and sisters on the victory I had once more gained over the Missourians.... * * * Orson Pratt has attempted to destroy himself, and caused almost all the city to go in search of him. Is it not enough to put down all the infernal influences of the devil, what we have felt and seen, handled and evidenced, of this work of God? But the devil had influence among the Jews, after all the great things they had witnessed, to cause the death of Jesus Christ, by hanging Him between heaven and earth. They would deliver me up, Judas like; but a small band of us shall overcome. 49. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, 1975; pp. 490-92. c. 1842, July and August. The Excommunication of Orson Pratt (secondary sources) Orson Pratt arrived in Nauvoo from his English Mission about the second week of July, 1841, but the first indication of disagreement between himself and the church authorities was on May 11, 1842 when his name was not on the list of those of the authorities who withdrew fellowship from John C. Bennett (page 176). One is inclined to believe that Orson Pratt's disappear- ance on July 15th 1842 was in connection with the John C. Bennett incident, but the problem peaked in Orson Pratt's July 22nd 1842 speech in the public meeting (see page 178) where, drawing from the account of Wilford Woodruff (page 180), he made several "sayings" in public, against Joseph Smith and others, which were both unjust and untrue. According to Brigham Young (page 180) it was because of his wife, Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt, that Orson refused to believe either Joseph Smith, or his associates in the council of the Twelve. Sarah Pratt has unknowingly left us an account which must be in most respects similar to the story she told her husband in 1842. Although inaccurate at its inception (as evidenced by the subsequent actions of both her and her husband) and beclouded by 42 intervening years, her account was given at a time (1884) when she was again bitter against the church, and again visualized Joseph Smith as a villain and John C. Bennett as the hero. Her account is given here in full: (contrast the affidavits on pages 560, 561) Workings of Mormonism related by Mrs. Orson Pratt Salt Lake City 1884 As the wife of Orson Pratt the Apostle, Mrs. Pratt was very familiar with the workings of Mormonism for many years. Mrs. Emma Smith and Mrs. Heber C. Kimball were among her most intimate friends; specially intimate as she was left without any relative but her infant son while her husband was off on his missions to England. While at Nauvoo, when about twenty-two years of age, she was thus left dependant for means of support as well as companionship. She would often take her child with her and spend a week or two at a time, in the family of Joseph Smith, earning by her needle provisions, or whatever was most convenient to pay. There was little money then in circulation and people were obliged to be content to earn what would merely keep soul and body together. In Joseph Smith she had implicit confidence. She accepted his inspired revelations; her husband had written many at his dictation. He appeared much interested in her affairs and brought Dr. John C. Bennett once or twice with him when he called. At first his calls were made upon her in her home where she was living with another family; then when she moved into a little house by herself his attentions became more frequent. He told her at one time that his wife Emma had become jealous of her; she at once called upon Emma and assured her of the folly of such an idea; she told her that she was thoroughly bound up in her husband, Mr. Pratt, and had no [3] thought for any one else. At one of his calls with Dr. Bennett, Joseph told Mrs. Pratt that there was something he wanted to say to her but dare not for fear she would lose respect for him. That seemed impossible to her, as she told him; he however postponed the announcement. He told her that perhaps she would like to undertake to make Dr. Bennett's shirts and clothing, as he could pay in money; that many had tried but without giving him satisfaction. While she had never done anything of the kind before, she did it now from necessity, and cheerfully; she even did his washing after awhile for money was a scarce article of payment. Sometime after this Joseph called again and said that now he should tell her what he meant to have told her before. He said that he knew she must be lonely now that her husband was away, and that it [4] was not at all necessary that it should be so. She needed the company of some man, and he would stay with her when she wished it; that there was no sin in it as long as she kept it to herself; that the sin was wholly in making it known herself to her husband or any one else. She replied to Joseph's proposal most indignantly; she told him she loved her husband most devotedly, and upbraided him sharply for what he had suggested. He replied that if she told of it he had it in his power to ruin her character. From that time she discontinued her habit of going to his house to sew, and asked Emma Smith to send the work to her instead. After he had left her Mrs. Pratt was in great distress of mind. Here she was along scarcely more than twenty years of age, with one who was almost [5] as a god to her counselling her in this way. Regardless of his threats if she told, she went immediately to her friend Mrs. Harris, in whose virtue and faithfulness as a wife, as her old and tried friend she had implicit confidence; to her she told the story of the insult Joseph offered her, expecting to receive her hearty sympathy. To her surprise Mrs. Harris replied "You must think nothing of that; why I myself have been his mistress for the past four years." She soon saw for herself, with her eyes now opened, that there were houses whose back doors he entered on the sly, guarded as he was by Bennett who would tell Mrs. Pratt to watch Smith's entrance and exit here and there; women, too, would admit to her their intercourse with him and offer her opportunities of convincing herself that what they said was true. There was nothing said then as to Celestial Marriage or revelation. One day Dr. Bennett, who knew of Smith's proposal to Mrs. Pratt and its rejection, and who in consequence confided to her some of Smith's iniquities, one day called upon her and told her that a revelation was to be made five days later, to Joseph Smith, authorizing polygamy; that Smith had been so general in his attentions to the women that he was obliged to shield himself by these means. Five days from that time, the revelation was made, in the presence of a few of his chosen councillors. Mrs. Pratt says to the best of her knowledge it was written by Smith and Bennett conjointly. It was first shown to Emma Smith who must be persuaded to accept and live up to, if possible. She did believe in her husband as a prophet, seer and revelator. But she knew him too well as a man, Mrs. Pratt said to believe in [7] this as a revelation. She indignantly threw the paper into the fire. The statement is differently made as regards the revelation finally made public. Some say that a single copy was preserved, others that it was written up from memory. (Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt 1817-1888; CHO, Ms d 4048) It appears that at least Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (see page 180) and Parley P. Pratt (see page 494) held Sarah Pratt at least partially responsible for Orson Pratt's rejection of the truth. 50. "Compiled Writings of David Moore", pp. 19-20; copied from personal papers in possession of the family; Brigham Young University Library, Provo, Utah, Summer 1962; Ms d 1892 fd 2 LDS Archives; Fall 1842. During this fall [of 1842] and the beginning of winter, the order of Celestial Marriage began to be talked of as existing in the Church. I must confess that my mind was somewhat troubled on the subject, until I had the following dream. I dreamed that my sister Hannah was dead in the spirit, took a chair and set down in front of my bed and said to me, "David, your mind is troubled in respect to the order of Marriage which you do not understand at the present, but where I am we understand all about it, its all right, and when the right time comes I want you to remember me." About this time a Widow Johnson was living with Chas A. Chase. She had come with the Vermont Camp. She was much troubled about the order of marriage which was now almost the general topic. I used to take pleasure in talking to her on the subject and see her rage and scold about the system. One time I was talking to her when I asked her if she wanted me to prophesy on her head. She said she did not care whether I did or not, I then told her that twelve months would not pass over her head before she would be sealed to some man that had another wife. She was angry with me for saying so, but before six months had passed away she was sealed to Reynolds Cahoon, but I had no opportunity of laughing at her for so doing for she seemed quite shy every time I met her after. During the winter private meetings where held all over the city in which much good instruction was given on the subject of the Plan of Redemption. Often the Sealing Covenant was touched upon but never plainly preached. With the approach of spring the spirit of persecution began to rage in the bosoms of Robert D. Foster, Higbus, and others. Foster got up a printing press and began to issue a paper against Joseph and the Authorities in general called the Nauvoo Expositor. They issued one number of this paper and had the type set for the second number when the City Martial with the police took the paper and burnt it out in front of the house, and threw the type into the street. This was by order of the City Council, they having declared it a libelous establishment and a nuisance. This caused persecution to rage with a greater determined spirit, amongst both gentiles and apostates and every plan of device was entered into on the part of our enemies to destroy Joseph Smith and others, but Joseph avoided being drawn into the power of the mob. 51. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:233-234. Women sealed to the Prophet during 1842. 1. Mary E. Lightner, 18 Feb 1842. 2. Eliza Roxey Snow, June 29, 1842, Brigham Young officiating. 3. Sarah Ann Whitney, July 27, 1842, Newel K. Whitney officiating. 4. Desdemona W. Fullmer, 1842. 52. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, 1975; p. 187; January 10, 1843. Springfield, Illinois, January 10, 1843 Mr. Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt: Dear Friends:--lt is a long time since I have written to you, and I should now much desire to see you, but I leave tonight for Missouri, to meet the messenger charged with the arrest of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wright and others, for murder, burglary, treason, etc., etc., who will be demanded in a few days, on new indictments, found by the grand jury of a called court on the original evidence, and in relation to which a nolle prosequi was entered by the district attorney. New proceedings have been gotten up on the old charges, and no habeas corpus can save them. We shall try Smith on the Boggs case, when we get him into Missouri. The war goes bravely on; and, although Smith thinks he is now safe, the enemy is near, even at the door. He has awakened the wrong passenger. The Governor will relinquish Joseph at once on the new requisition. There is but one opinion on the case, and that is, nothing can save Joseph on a new requisition and demand predicated on the old charges on the institution of new writs. He must go to Missouri; but he shall not be harmed, if he is not guilty; but he is a murderer, and must suffer the penalty of the law. Enough on this subject. I hope that both your kind and amiable families are well, and you will please to give them all my best respects. I hope to see you all soon. When the officer arrives, I shall be near at hand. I shall see you all again. Please to write me at Independence immediately. Yours respectfully, John C. Bennett 53. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, 1975; Pres. John Taylor speaking; pp. 492-93. See also Gospel Kingdom, pp. 193- 194; January 10, 1843. Orson Pratt also had some difficulties while we were in Nauvoo, arising out of the introduction of the celestial order of marriage. It seems, from remarks made in a conversation that I had with him afterwards, that he did not fully realize or comprehend the situation. But, at the time of the occurrence, when I saw that he was very severely tried, as I had always held pleasant relations with him, I took every pains that I possibly could to explain the situation of things, to remove his doubts, and to satisfy his feelings, but without avail. At one time I talked with him for nearly two hours, to prevent, if possible, his apostasy or departure from the church. But he was very sorely tried, and was very self-willed and stubborn in his feelings, and would not yield. His feelings were bitter towards the Prophet Joseph Smith and others, and the result was that he was dropped from his position in the quorum. But I am not aware of his ever having written or published anything against the church. On the contrary, when Dr. John C. Bennett, who had apostatized, sent a letter to Sidney Rigdon, wherein he denounced President Smith, and stated that he was a villain and a scoundrel, and that a requisition would be made for him by the State of Missouri, and requested him to show this letter to Orson Pratt; although Sidney Rigdon, who was the first counselor to Joseph, did not show this statement unfolding this conspiracy to him yet, as soon as Sidney Rigdon handed the letter to Orson Pratt, he immediately took it to the Prophet Joseph. And thus, while Sidney Rigdon withheld this information from one to whom he was in honor and duty bound, as his first counselor, to make it known, yet Orson Pratt, although at the time disfellowshipped, (?) (Ex.) immediately made Joseph acquainted with the conspiracy that was being plotted against him, and thus exhibited a manhood and integrity that were so woefully deficient in Sidney Rigdon. . . . * * * 54. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, 1975; p. 516; January 10, 1843. Note 70 page 187: (Jan 1843) In both DHC 5:251 and JH January 10, 1842 (note that Journal History has the letter entered in the wrong year) the following postscript is added: P.S. Will Mr. Rigdon please to hand this letter to Mr. Pratt, after reading? J.C.B In Journal History (again January 10th 1842) the following appears with respect to John C. Bennett's letter: Elder John Taylor, who was the editor of the "Times and Seasons" in 1842, (sic) prepared the following editorial for publication together with the letter, but by the advice of the Prophet Joseph it was not printed: "We had the following letter handed to us by General Joseph Smith. Mr. Rigdon received it from John C. Bennett and handed it to Mr. Orson Pratt and Mr. Pratt gave it to Joseph Smith, which Mr. Rigdon had delayed doing. We are very sorry that our old and long esteemed friend, Mr. Rigdon should be holding correspondence with such a notorious scounderal as John C. Bennett; and more especially that he, of all others, should not acquaint President Joseph Smith with a circumstance of this kind, which threatened (in his opinion) to destroy him and other innocent men. Are we indeed forced from evidence to believe that Mr. Rigdon who was charged with and imprisoned for the same crimes, that those gentlemen mentioned in the letter ostensibly were, can countenance, cloak over, and virtually leave his companions in tribulation, exposed to destruction, when he had it in his power to prevent it; and that he did believe that this was the case is evident from some remarks that he made to Mr. Smith that he would not take upon himself the responsibility of making it known,' fearful of the consequences of exposing villany and hiding himself under the iniquitous shade of their unhallowed protection. How is the gold become dim? and the fine gold, how is it changed! We are, however, happy to inform our readers that this letter is all vain glorying and empty boast; it is a tissue of falsehood intended to intimidate. Governor Ford informed Mr. Smith, when at Springfield that such a requisition had been made from Missouri; but that he knew that a nolle prosequi had been entered and refused to issue a writ. How long shall the feelings of innocent men be goaded with repeated attempts at cruelty and injustice? .When the wicked rule the people mourn.' We are pleased, however, that we now have a governor whose bosom burns with pure patriotic principles. "Who understands the people's rights, and will protect them too.." Elder John Taylor gives the following explanation for withholding the letter and comments from the public: "I was requested by Joseph Smith to prefer charges against Sidney Rigdon before a court composed of twenty-four High Priests and three Bishops. I asked who should give testimony in the case. Joseph Smith told me to collect what testimony I could for there was an abundance, and that I was to call upon him and Sister Emma who knew plenty to criminate him. He handed me the letter about the time and stated that Sidney Rigdon had kept it from him, and that Orson Pratt, as soon as he got it, handed it to him. Joseph Smith immediately went to Sidney and charged him with being leagued with the enemies to destroy him. Mr. Rigdon, or order to excuse himself, said, I know it was wrong; but I dared not take upon myself the responsibility of making it known.' This was the only excuse offered by him. I had the above letter, with the accompanying remarks set up in type in the printing office, ready for printing, preparatory to commencing the trial of Sidney Rigdon. I, however, went to Bro. Joseph and told him what I had done and that I was now ready to proceed with the trial. Said I, Bro. Joseph, what shall I do? Shall I proceed? He paused for a moment and then replied, I think you had better not, we will save him if we can.." John Taylor (original of file) (Journal History, January 10, 1842 [sic]) 55. BYU Collection, Ms/f/219/Reel 79; CHO, Ms/d/1234/Bx 47/fd 2; January 20, 1843. These minutes were formerly in a box entitled "High Council Meetings etc, Conference and Public Meetings", in a folder marked "Minutes of the Council of Twelve," in the Church Historian's Office. They were recataloged and placed in the Brigham Young Collection. "/" in this typescript means end of a line in the original minutes. Typed as in the original without use of [sic] except in one case. Compare with published version of these minutes in History of the Church, V, pp. 253-6; Millennial Star, XX, 27 (Saturday 3 July 1858), pp. 422-3; and Manuscript History of the Church, under date given. Nauvoo January 20th 1843 The Quorum of the Twelve assembled at the / home of Elder Brigham Young- present viz, B. Young / H. C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, W. Woodruff, John Taylor/ Geo. A. Smith, & W. Richards. also. President / Joseph Smith. & Hyrum Smith of the first presidency / also Orson Pratt--the meeting having been / called to investigate his case:-- President Joseph Smith remarked that as there / was not a quorum when Orson Pratt's case came / up before that he was still a member--he had not/ legally been cut off--/ O. Pratt remarked that he had rather die / than go to preach in any other standing than I had / before. Joseph-Let him have the same calling that Paul / had. let him have the keys to the Jews. first unto / the Gentiles then unto the Jews --/ Paul held the keys of transfer--that is when / the Gentiles have heard all they will--it shall be / given to the Jews.--/ Jos.--Orson by transgression laid himself liable to have / another ordained in his stead.--and brought Jacob and Esau / were brought for example-- (p. 2) Young. said there was but 3 prsnt. when Amasa / was ordained--/ Joseph said that was legal when no / more could be had. Young said all he had against Orson was when he / came home he loved his wife better than David./ Joseph--She lied about me--I never made the offer / which she said I did. --I will not advise you to break up your / family--unless it were asked of me. then I would / concil [sic] you to get a bill from your wife / & marry a virtuous woman--& raise a new family / but if you do not do it shell never throw it in / your teeth. Joseph Orson I prophesy in the name of the Lord / Jesus Christ that it will not be 6 months before / you learn things which will make you glad you / have not left us.--/ Prest. Joseph said to Orson Hyde--I can make / a swap with Amasa Lyman.--& let him have / the office we were going to give you.-- Orson, the latter part of your life shall be more / joyful than the former-- 3 o.clock adjourned to President Josephs. / 4 o.clock Orson Pratt, Sarah Marinda Pratt (p. 3) & Lydia Granger were baptized in the River / Per Prst--Joseph Smith--& confirmed in the / Court Room--Orson received the Priesthood & / the same power and authority as in former days. W. Richards [Willard Richards' hand] B. Young [Willard Richards. hand] 56. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, 1975; p. 187-188; January 20, 1843. Brigham Young: I attended Council with the Prophet and the Twelve at my house, in regard to Orson Pratt, who had confessed his sins and manifested deep repentance, which resulted in his baptism and re- ordination, by the Prophet, to his former standing in the Quorum of the Twelve. Brother Joseph Smith said that he would find another place for brother Amasa Lyman. (Mss History of BY, p. 126.) Wilford Woodruff: This was also an interesting day in consequence of the return of Orson Pratt to the quorum of the Twelve. He had returned and repented in dust & ashes as it were for opposing Joseph & the Twelve &c. We met at Brigham Young's, & the First Presidency & the Twelve conversed over the subject & Orson Pratt desired much to return to the quorum of the Twelve. We had an interesting time together. We then assembled at the river & Joseph the Seer went into the river from the ice & baptized Orson Pratt & his wife & widow Granger. Joseph confirmed them & ordained Orson Pratt to the Apostleship & his former standing which caused joy to our hearts. Elder Amasa Lyman who had been appointed in his stead as a member of the quorum of the Twelve was taken into the First Presidency which left the place again vacant for Orson Pratt. Joseph Smith: In the afternoon I attended a council of the Twelve, at President Young's. . . . * * * The council was called to consider the case of Orson Pratt who had previously been cut off from the Church for disobedience, and Amasa Lyman had been ordained an Apostle in his place. I told the quorum: you may receive Orson back into the quorum of the Twelve and I can take Amasa into the First Presidency. President Young said there were but three present when Amasa was ordained, the rest of the Twelve being either on a mission or sick. I told them that was legal when no more could be had. I told the council that from the sixth day of April next, I go in for preparing with all present for a mission through the United States, . . . * * * At three o..clock, council adjourned to my house; and at four I baptized Orson Pratt and his wife, Sarah Marinda, and Lydia Granger in the Mississippi river, and confirmed them in the Church, ordaining Orson Pratt to his former office in the quorum of the Twelve. (HC 5:254-56) 57. Millennial Star, XX, 27 (Saturday 3 July 1858), "History of Joseph Smith"; pp. 422-3. This Council was called to reconsider the case of Orson Pratt, who had previously been cut off from the quorum of the Twelve for neglect of duty; and Amasa Lyman had been ordained an Apostle in his place. I told the council that as there was not a quorum present when Orson Pratt's case came up before them, that he was still a member--that he had not been cut off legally, and I would find some other place for Amasa Lyman, to which the Council agreed. President Young said there were but three present when Amasa was ordained. I told them that was legal when no more could be had. * * * At three o.clock, Council adjourned to my house; and at four I baptized Orson Pratt and his wife, Sarah Marinda, and Lydia Granger in the Mississippi river, and confirmed them in the Church, ordaining Orson Pratt to his former office and standing in the quorum of the Twelve. 58. History of the Church, V, p. 264. Elder Parley P. Pratt arrived home from England this evening. 59. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:224-226; February, 1843. William Clayton Testimony, February 16, 1874. WILLIAM CLAYTON'S TESTIMONY The following statement was sworn to before John T. Caine, a notary public, in Salt Lake City, Feb. 16, 1874: "Inasmuch as it may be interesting to future generations of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to learn something of the first teachings of the principle of plural marriage by President Joseph Smith, the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator of said Church, I will give a short relation of facts which occurred within my personal knowledge, and also matters related to me by President Joseph Smith. "I was employed as a clerk in President Joseph Smith's office, under Elder Willard Richards, and commenced to labor in the office on the 10th day of February, 1842. I continued to labor with Elder Richards until he went east to fetch his wife to Nauvoo. "After Elder Richards started east I was necessarily thrown constantly into the company of President Smith, having to attend to his public and private business, receiving and recording tithings and donations, attending to land and other matters of business. During this period I necessarily became well acquainted with Emma Smith, the wife of the Prophet Joseph, and also with the children--Julia M. (an adopted daughter), Joseph, Frederick and Alexander, very much of the business being transacted at the residence of the Prophet. "On the 7th of October, 1842, in the presence of Bishop Newel K. Whitney and his wife Elizabeth Ann, President Joseph Smith appointed me Temple Recorder, and also his private clerk, placing all records, books, papers, etc., in my care, and requiring me to take charge of and preserve them, his closing words being, .When I have any revelations to write, you are the one to write them.. "During this period the Prophet Joseph frequently visited my house in my company, and became well acquainted with my wife Ruth, to whom I had been married five years. One day in the month of February, 1843, date not remembered, the Prophet invited me to walk with him. During our walk, he said he had learned that there was a sister back in England, to whom I was very much attached. I replied there was, but nothing further than an attachment such as a brother and sister in the Church might rightfully entertain for each other. He then said, .Why don.t you send for her?. I replied, In the first place, I have no authority to send for her, and if I had, I have not the means to pay expenses.' To this he answered, I give you authority to send for her, and I will furnish you with means,' which he did. This was the first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me on the subject of plural marriage. He informed me that the doctrine and principle was right in the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that it was a doctrine which pertained to celestial order and glory. After giving me lengthy instructions and informations concerning the doctrine of celestial or plural marriage, he concluded his remarks with the words, It is your privilege to have all the wives you want.' After this introduction, our conversations on the subject of plural marriage were very frequent, and he appeared to take particular pains to inform and instruct me in respect to the principle. He also informed me that he had others wives living besides his first wife Emma, and in particular gave me to understand that Eliza R. Snow, Louisa Beman, Desdemona W. Fullmer and others were his lawful wives in the sight of Heaven. 60. "Nightfall At Nauvoo", by Samuel W. Taylor; p. 180; about Spring, 1843. Eliza got out of bed, feeling queasy. It was early, the house quiet. Perhaps she'd be sick this morning again. Better got out back to the privy, in case. She stepped from her room just as Joseph's door opened. He paused a moment looking at her with affection--big, handsome, vital, her husband for time and eternity!--then they came together. She whispered, had he decided what to do? He nodded. They could meet at Sarah Cleveland's this afternoon to talk it over. Two-thirty. . . "Bitch!" A wild cry, then Emma was upon them with a broom-stick. Joseph staggered back. Emma flailed at Eliza with the heavy stick, calling her names, screaming. Eliza, trying to shield her head with her arms, dashed for the stairs, stumbled, fell headlong, and went head over heels down the steep steps as everything went black. She awakened in bed. Emma was there, and Joseph, together with Dr. Bernhisel. "Eliza," Emma said, "I'm sorry. . ." "I understand," Eliza said. Her voice came as a weak whisper. Dr. Bernhisel nodded to Joseph and Emma, saying quietly that the patient needed rest. Joseph put an arm around Emma's shoulders and went out with her. Then the doctor turned to Eliza. He took her wrist to feel her pulse. "lt is best that you should know immediately, Sister Eliza," he said quietly. "You have lost your baby." He paused, then added, "And I am afraid that you never again will become a mother." 61. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:221-222; April 1, 1843. BENJAMIN F. JOHNSON'S TESTIMONY The following affidavit was sworn to before James Jack, a notary public, in Salt Lake City, March 4, 1870: "On the first day of April, A. D. 1843, President Joseph Smith, Orson Hyde and William Clayton, and others, came from Nauvoo to my residence in Macedonia or Ramus, in Hancock County, Ill., and were joyfully welcomed by myself and family as our guests. "On the following morning, Pres. Smith took me by the arm for a walk, leading the way to a secluded spot within an adjacent grove, where, to my great surprise, he commenced to open up to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage; but I was more astonished by his asking me for my sister Almera to be his wife. I sincerely believed him to be a Prophet of God, and I loved him as such and also for the many evidences of his kindness to me, yet such was the force of my education, and the scorn that I felt towards anything unvirtuous, that under the first impulse of my feelings, I looked him calmly, but firmly in the face and told him that I had always believed him to be a good man and wished to believe it still and would try to; and that I would take for him a message to my sister, and if the doctrine was true, all would be well, but if I should afterwards learn that it was offered to insult or prostitute my sister, I would take his life.' With a smile he replied, 'Benjamin, you will never see that day, but you shall live to know that it is true and rejoice in it.' "He wished me to see my sister and talk to her. I told him I did not know what I could say to convince her. He replied, 'When you open your mouth you shall be able to comprehend, and you shall not want for evidence nor words.' He also told me that he would preach a sermon that day for me which I would understand, while the rest of the congregation would not comprehend his meaning. His subject was the ten talents, 'unto him that hath shall be given and he shall have abundantly, but from him that hath not (and will not receive), shall be taken away that which he hath (or might have had).' Plainly giving me to understand that the talents represented wives and children, as the principle of enlargement throughout the great future to those who were heirs of salvation. "I called my sister to private audience, and with fear and trembling and feelings I cannot express, commenced to open the subject to her, when, just as he had promised, the light of the Lord shone upon my understanding and my tongue was loosed, and I, at least, was convinced of the truth of what I was attempting to teach. "My sister received my testimony, and in a short time afterwards consented to become the wife of President Smith. "Subsequent to this I took her to the city of Nauvoo, where she was married, or sealed for time and eternity, to President Joseph Smith, by his brother Hyrum Smith, in the presence of myself and Louisa Beaman, who told me she had also been sealed or married to the Prophet Joseph. This was at the residence of my sister, the widow of Lyman R. Sherman, who also was a witness. 62. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:225; April 27, 1843. William Clayton Testimony, February 16, 1874. "On the 27th of April, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith married to me Margaret Moon, for time and eternity, at the residence of Elder Heber C. Kimball; and on the 22nd of July, 1843, he married to me, according to the order of the Church, my first wife Ruth. 63. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:232; April 1843. APOSTLE ERASTUS SNOW'S TESTIMONY: The prophet Joseph Smith first taught me the doctrine of celestial marriage, including a plurality of wives in Nauvoo, Ill., in April, 1843. He also told me of those women he had taken to wives. My wife's sister, Louisa Beman, was his first plural wife, she being sealed to him by my brother-in-law, Joseph B. Noble, April 5, 1841. She was the daughter of Alva and Sarah Burtt Beman. The Prophet Joseph also gave me the privilege of taking another wife, which I did in March, 1844, the Patriarch Hyrum Smith officiating under the Prophet's direction. 64. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:222; April 1843. APOSTLE LORENZO SNOW'S TESTIMONY, The following affidavit was made before J. C. Wright, clerk of Box Elder County, Utah, Aug. 28, 1869: "ln the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith's house, he said he wished to have some private talk with me, and requested me to walk out with him. It was toward evening, we walked a little distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the river; he there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives. "He said that the Lord had revealed it unto him and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives, that he foresaw the trouble that would follow and sought to turn away from the commandment, that an angel from heaven appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment. "He further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. "He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think, one hour or more, in which he told me many important things. "I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true. (Signed) LORENZO SNOW. 65. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:222; Spring, 1843. JOHN BENBOW'S AFFIDAVIT. "Territory of Utah, }ss. County of Salt Lake. "Be it remembered that on this twenty-eighth day of August, A. D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, John Benbow, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon his oath said that in the spring or forepart of the summer of 1843, at his house, four miles from Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, President Joseph Smith taught him and his wife, Jane Benbow, the doctrine of celestial marriage, or plurality of wives, Hyrum Smith being present. And further, that Hannah Ells Smith, a wife of the Prophet, boarded at his house two months during the summer of the same year; and the said Hannah E. Smith also lived at his house several months in 1844, after the prophet's death. And further, that President Smith frequently visited his wife Hannah at his (J. B's.) house. (Signed) JOHN BENBOW. "Subscribed and sworn to by the said John Benbow, the day and year first written. [Seal.] JAMES JACK, Notary Public. 66. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:225; May 1, 1843. William Clayton Testimony, February 16, 1874. "On the 1st day of May, 1843, I officiated in the office of an Elder by marrying Lucy Walker to the Prophet Joseph Smith, at his own residence. "During this period the Prophet Joseph took several other wives. Amongst the number I well remember Eliza Partridge, Emily Partridge, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Kimball and Flora Woodworth. These all, he acknowledged to me, were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order. His wife Emma was cognizant of the fact of some, if not all, of these being his wives, and she generally treated them very kindly. 67. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:229-230; May 1, 1843. LUCY W. KIMBALL'S TESTIMONY. "When the Prophet Joseph Smith first mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me I became very indignant, and told him emphatically that I did not wish him ever to mention it to me again, as my feelings and education revolted against anything of such a nature. He counseled me, however, to pray to the Lord for light and understanding in relation thereto, and promised me if I would do so sincerely, I should receive a testimony of the correctness of the principle. At length I concluded to follow this advice, and the consequence was that the Prophet's promise unto me was fulfilled to the very letter. Before praying I felt gloomy and downcast; in fact I was so entirely given up to dispair that I felt tired of life; but after I had poured out my heart's contents before God, I at once became calm and composed; a feeling of happiness took possession of me, and at the same time I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which testimony has abided with me ever since. Shortly afterwards I consented to become the Prophet's wife, and was married to him May 1, 1843, Elder William Clayton officiating. I am also able to testify that Emma Smith, the Prophet's first wife, gave her consent to the marriage of at least four other girls to her husband, and that she was well aware that he associated with them as wives within the meaning of all that word implies. This is proven by the fact that she herself, on several occasions, kept guard at the door to prevent disinterested persons from intruding, when these ladies were in the house. LUCY W. KIMBALL. 68. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:223; May 11, 1843. ELIZA M. PARTRIDGE'S AFFIDAVIT. "Territory of Utah, }ss. County of Millard. "Be it remembered that on the first day of July, A. D. 1869, personally appeared before me, Edward Partridge, probate judge in and for said county, Eliza M. (Partridge) Lyman, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath saith, that on the 11th day of May, 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, * * * in the presence of Emma (Hale) Smith and Emily D. Partridge. (Signed) ELIZA M. (P.) LYMAN. "Subscribed and sworn to by the said Eliza Maria Lyman, the day and year first above written. [SEAL. EDWARD PARTRIDGE, Probate Judge. 69. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:223; May 11, 1843. EMILY DOW PARTRIDGE'S TESTIMONY. "Territory of Utah, }ss. County of Salt Lake.} "Be it remembered that on the first day of May, A. D. 1869, personally appeared before me, Elias Smith, probate judge for said county, Emily Dow (P.) Young, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon her oath said, that on the 11th day of May, 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, she was married or sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by James Adams, a High Priest in said Church, * * * in the presence of Emma (Hale) Smith, (now Emma Bidamon) and Eliza M. Partridge Smith, (now Eliza M. Lyman.) (Signed) EMILY D. P. YOUNG. "Subscribed and sworn to by the said Emily D. P. Young, the day and year first above written. [SEAL.] ELIAS SMITH, Probate Judge. 70. Woman's Exponent by Emily Dow Partridge; Vol. 14:38; May 11, 1843. The first intimation I had from Brother Joseph that there was a pure and holy order of plural marriage, was in the spring of 1842, but I was not married until 1843. I was married to him on the 11th of May, 1843, by Elder James Adams. Emma was present. She gave her free and full consent. She had always, up to this time, been very kind to me and my sister Eliza, who was also married to the prophet Joseph with Emma's consent. Emma, about this time, gave her husband two other wives--Maria and Sarah Lawrence. 71. Levi Richards Diaries; Church Archives, Ms/f/438/Reel #1; May 14, 1843 May 14 1843 Attended meeting at / the Temple A.M. Hyrum Smith / addressed the people -- subjects / from the Book of Mormon / 2d Chap Jacob - remember / that - the Book of Mormon / was a mirror, & [sic] key / to the Bible spoke of / persecution as being one / of the means of salvation / when persecution ceased / oft to forget the first commandment--said there / were many that had a great / deal to say about the ancient order of things as / Solomon & David having many wifes & concubines / -- but its an abomination in the sight of God-- If an angel from heaven / should come & preach such / doctrine would be sure (next page) to see his cloven foot & / cloud of blackness over his / head, --though his garments might shine as white as / snow-- a man might have one / wife--concubines he should / have none-- observed that / the idea was that this was / given to Jacob for a / perpetual principle-- said, -- "I would say that / in consequence of the prosperity of some they look / down with contempt on / their neighbors -- partiality to same class making / their dress to correspond / &c, ought to be looked upon indignantly by all / the noble minded in the / Church of God-- 72. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:222; May 16-17, 1843. Benjamin F. Johnson Testimony. "After a short period, President Smith and company, viz., George Miller, Wm. Clayton, J. M. Smith, and Eliza and Emily Partridge (who were the wives of the Prophet) came again to Macedonia (Ramus), where he remained two days, lodging at my house with my sister as man and wife (and to my certain knowledge he occupied the same bed with her). This visit was on the 16th and 17th of May, 1843, returning to Nauvoo on the 18th. 73. History of the Church, Vol. 5:393-394; Joseph Smith, Jr.; Thursday, May 18, 1843. Thursday, 18.---We left Macedonia about half past eight a.m., and arrived at Carthage at ten. We then rode home, where we arrived about half-past five p.m., and found my family all well. 74. Journal of Joseph Smith; 28 May 1843. The above date is when Joseph and Emma were married for time and all eternity. It was written in the margin in code which was recently deciphered. 75. History of the Church, Vol 5:500-507; Wednesday, July 12, 1843. Wednesday, 12.---I received the following revelation in the presence of my brother Hyrum and Elder William Clayton:--- Quotes D&C 132 Hyrum took the revelation and read it to Emma. 76. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:225-226; Wednesday, July 12, 1843. William Clayton's Testimony. "On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the office in the upper story of the .brick store,' on the bank of the Mississippi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, 'If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.' Joseph smiled and remarked, .You do not know Emma as well as I do.' Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, 'The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,' or words to their effect. Joseph then said, 'Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.' He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim, but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for he knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end. "Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present. "Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, that Emma was very bitter and full of resentment and anger. "Joseph quietly remarked, 'I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.' Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office. "The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that he had not, and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary. "The copy made by Joseph C. Kingsbury is a true and correct copy of the original in every respect. The copy was carefully preserved by Bishop Whitney, and but few knew of its existence until the temporary location of the Camps of Israel at Winter Quarters, on the Missouri River, in 1846. "After the revelation on celestial marriage was written Joseph continued his instructions, privately, on the doctrine, to myself and others, and during the last year of his life we were scarcely ever together, alone, but he was talking on the subject, and explaining that doctrine and principles connected with it. He appeared to enjoy great liberty and freedom in his teachings, and also to find great relief in having a few to whom he could unbosom his feelings on that great and glorious subject. "From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory. (Signed) William Clayton. "Salt Lake City, February 16th, 1874." 77. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:226; July 13, 1843. JOSEPH C. KINGSBURY'S TESTIMONY The following statement was given under oath before Charles W. Stayner, a notary public, in Salt Lake City, May 22, 1886: "ln reference to the affidavit of Elder William Clayton, on the subject of the celestial order of patriarchal marriage, published in the Deseret Evening News of May 20th, 1886, and particularly to the statement made therein concerning myself, as having copied the original revelation written by Brother Clayton at the dictation of the Prophet Joseph, I will say that Bishop Newel K. Whitney handed me the revelation above refered to on either the day it was written or the day following, and stating that it was asked me to take a copy of it. I did so, and then read my copy of it to Bishop Whitney, who compared it with the original which he held in his hand while I read to him. When I had finished reading, Bishop Whitney pronounced the copy correct, and Hyrum Smith coming into the room at the time to fetch the original, Bishop Whitney handed it to him. I will also state that this copy, as also the original, are identically the same as that published in the present edition of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. "I will add that I also knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had married other women besides his first wife--Emma; I was well aware of the fact of his having married Sarah Ann Whitney, the eldest daughter of Bishop Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Ann Whitney, his wife. And the Prophet Joseph told me personally that he had married other women, in accordance with the revealed will of God, and spoke concerning the principle as being a command of God for holy purposes. (Signed) JOSEPH C. KINGSBURY." 78. J.D. 17: 159; Discourse by President Brigham Young; Delivered in the Meeting House, at Lehi City; Reported by David W. Evans; Sunday Afternoon, August 9, 1874; Emma took that revelation [D&C 132], supposing she had all there was; but Joseph had wisdom enough to take care of it, and he had handed the revelation to Bishop Whitney, and he wrote it all off. After Joseph had been to Bishop Whitney's he went home, and Emma began teasing for the revelation. Said she--"Joseph, you promised me that revelation, and if you are a man of your word you will give it to me." Joseph took it from his pocket and said--"Take it." She went to the fire-place and put it in, and put the candle under it and burnt it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman. Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her. 79. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:226; Comments by William Clayton. . . . Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it [the revelation, D&C 132], that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he had consented to her wish in the matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary. 80. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:230-231; c. July 13, 1843, (Nauvoo Mansion days). ALLEN J. STOUT'S TESTIMONY "At a meeting held at Rockville, Washington Co., Utah, Dec. 23, 1885, in commemoration of the Prophet Joseph Smith's birthday, Allen J. Stout, sen., testified, that while acting as one of the Prophet's body guard in the Nauvoo Mansion, only a single door separating him from the family, he listened to a conversation which took place between Joseph and Emma Smith, on the much vaunted subject of plural marriage. This impulsive woman from moments of passionate denunciation would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning .Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.." (From a letter published in the Deseret Evening News of Jan. 20, 1885.) 81. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:228-229; July 22, 1843. HOWARD CORAY'S TESTIMONY. "Territory of Utah, } County of Salt Lake. }ss. "As many false statements have been made in relation to the authorship of the revelation on celestial marriage, I deem it but justice to all lovers of truth for me to express what I know concerning this very important matter. "On the 22nd day of July, A. D. 1843, Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, came in a carriage to my house in Nauvoo; he invited me and my wife to take a ride with him; accordingly, as soon as we could make ourselves ready, we got into the carriage and he set off in the direction of Carthage. Having gone a short distance, he observed to us that his brother, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had received a revelation on marriage, that was not for the public yet, which he would rehearse to us, as he had taken pains to commit it to memory. He then commenced rehearsing the revelation on celestial marriage, not stopping till he had gone quite through with the matter. After which he reviewed that part pertaining to plurality of wives, dwelling at some length upon the same in order that we might clearly understand the principle. And on the same day (July 22nd, 1843) he sealed my wife, formerly Martha Jane Knowlton, to me; and when I heard the revelation on celestial marriage read on the stand in Salt Lake City in 1852, I recognized it, as the same as that repeated to me by Brother Hyrum Smith. Not long after this I was present when Brother David Fullmer and wife were sealed by Brother Hyrum Smith, the martyred Patriarch, according to the law of celestial marriage. And, besides the foregoing, there was quite enough came within the compass of my observation to have fully satisfied my mind that plural marriage was practiced in the city of Nauvoo. (Signed) HOWARD CORAY. "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of June, A. D. 1882. [SEAL.] JAMES JACK, "Notary Public for Salt Lake County, Utah." 82. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:229; August 1, 1843. MERCY R. THOMPSON'S TESTIMONY "SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 31, 1886. "A. Musser: "DEAR BROTHER--Having noticed in the Deseret News an enquiry for testimony concerning the revelation on plural marriage, and having read the testimony of Brother Grover, it came to my mind that perhaps it would be right for me to add my testimony to his on the subject of Brother Hyrum reading it to the High Council. I well remember the circumstance. I remember he told me he had read it to the brethren in his office. He put it into my hands and left it with me for several days. I had been sealed to him by Brother Joseph a few weeks previously, and was well acquainted with almost every member of the High Council, and know Brother Grover's testimony to be correct. Now if this testimony would be of any use to such as are weak in the faith or tempted to doubt, I should be very thankful. Please make use of this in any way you think best, as well as the copy of the letter addressed to Joseph Smith, at Lamoni. Your Sister in the Gospel. MERCY R. THOMPSON." "SALT LAKE CITY, Sept. 5, 1883. "Mr. Joseph Smith Lamoni, Ill.: "DEAR SIR--After having asked my Father in heaven to aid me, I sit down to write a few lines as dictated by the Holy Spirit. "After reading the correspondence between you and L. O. Littlefield I concluded it was the duty of some one to bear a testimony which could not be disputed. Finding from your letters to Littlefield that no one of your father's friends had performed this duty while you were here, now I will begin at once and tell you [my] experience. "My beloved husband, R. B. Thompson, your father's private secretary to the end of his mortal life, died August 27th, 1841, (I presume you will remember him.) Nearly two years after his death your father told me that my husband had appeared to him several times, telling him that he did not wish me to live such a lonely life, and wished him to request your uncle Hyrum to have me sealed to him for time. Hyrum communicated this to his wife (my sister) who, by request, opened the subject to me, when everything within me rose in opposition to such a step, but when your father called and explained the subject to me, I dared not refuse to obey the counsel, lest peradventure I should be found fighting against God; and especially when he told me the last time my husband appeared to him he came with such power that it made him tremble. He then enquired of the Lord what he should do; the answer was, .Go and do as my servant hath required.' He then took an opportunity of communicating this to your uncle Hyrum who told me that the Holy Spirit rested upon him from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. The time was appointed, with the consent of all parties, and your father sealed me to your uncle Hyrum for time, in my sister's room, with a covenant to deliver me up in the morning of the resurrection to Robert Blaskel Thompson, with whatever offspring should be the result of that union, at the same time counseling your uncle to build a room for me and move me over as soon as convenient, which he did, and I remained there as a wife the same as my sister to the day of his death. All this I am ready to testify to in the presence of God, angels and men. * * * MERCY R. THOMPSON." 83. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:233; c. August 12, 1843; no date given. Comments by President Taylor at quarterly Stake conference in Centreville, Davis Co., Utah; June 11, 1883. "President Taylor spoke briefly, stating that he was present at a meeting of the leading authorities of the Church in Nauvoo, at which the subject of the revelation on celestial marriage was laid before them and unanimously received as from God. Joseph declared that unless it was received the Church could progress no further. Soon after he met the Prophet Joseph, who, addressing the speaker, said the time had come when he must embrace the doctrine of plural marriage." 84. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:227; August 12, 1843. DAVID FULLMER'S TESTIMONY. "Territory of Utah, } ss County of Salt Lake. } "Be it remembered that on this fifteenth day of June, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, James Jack, a notary public in and for said county, David Fullmer, who was by me sworn in due form of law, and upon his oath saith, that on or about the twelfth day of Aug., A.D. 1843, while in meeting with t he High Council (he being a member thereof), in Hyrum Smith's brick office, in the city of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, Dunbar Wilson made enquiry in relation to the subject of a plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those remarks, and he wanted to know what it was, upon which Hyrum Smith stepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial marriage, given to Joseph Smith, July 12th, A.D. 1843, and read the same to the High Council, and bore testimony to its truth. The said David Fullmer further saith that, to the best of his memory and belief, the following named persons were present: Wm. Marks, Austin A. Cowles, Samuel Bent, Geo. W. Harris, Dunbar Wilson, Wm. Huntington. Levi Jackman, Aaron Johnson, Thos. Grover, David Fullmer, Phinehas Richards, James Allred and Leonard Soby. And the said David Fullmer further saith that Wm. Marks, Austin A. Cowles and Leonard Soby were the only persons present who did not receive the testimony of Hyrum Smith, and that all the others did receive it from the teaching and testimony of the said Hyrum Smith. And further, that the copy of said revelation on celestial marriage, published in the Deseret News extra of September 14th, A.D. 1852, is a true copy of the same. (Signed) DAVID FULLMER. "Subscribed and sworn to by the said David Fullmer the day and year first above written. [SEAL] JAMES JACK, Notary Public." 85. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:227; c. August 12, 1843. THOMAS GROVER'S TESTIMONY. "FARMINGTON, Davis Co., Utah, Jan. 10, 1885. "A. M. Musser: "Your note is before me, and I answer with pleasure. "Now concerning the matter about which you ask information. I don't know of any member of that High Council living except myself. Leonard Soby may still be living. He apostatized on the strength of that revelation. "The High Council of Nauvoo was called together by the Prophet Joseph Smith, to know whether they would accept the revelation on celestial marriage or not. "The Presidency of the Stake, Wm. Marks, Father Cowles and the late Apostle Charles C. Rich were there present. The following are the names of the High Council that were present, in their order, viz: Samuel Bent, William Huntington, Alpheus Cutler, Thos. Grover, Lewis D. Wilson, David Fullmer, Aaron Johnson, Newel Knight, Leonard Soby, James Allred, Henry G. Sherwood and I think, Samuel H. Smith. "Brother Hyrum was called upon to read the revelation. He did so, and after the reading said, .Now, you that believe this revelation and go forth and obey the same shall be saved, and you that reject it shall be damned.' "We saw this prediction verified in less than one week. Of the Presidency of the Stake, Wm. Marks and Father Cowles rejected the revelation; of the Council that were present Leonard Soby rejected it. From that time forward there was a very strong division in the High Council. These three men greatly diminished in spirit day after day, so that there was a great difference in the line of their conduct, which was perceivable to every member that kept the faith. "From that time forward we often received instructions from the Prophet as to what was the will of the Lord and how to proceed. "After this the Prophet's life was constantly in danger. Being one of his life guard, I watched his interests and safety up to the time of his death. "Wm. Marks died in Illinois, C. C. Rich died in Paris, Bear Lake County, Idaho, in full faith. Samuel Bent died in Garden Grove, Iowa, in full faith. Wm. Huntington died in Pisgah, Iowa, in full faith. Alpheus Cutler apostatized, and died in Iowa. Lewis D. Wilson died at Ogden, in full faith. David Fullmer died in Salt Lake City, in full faith. Aaron Johnson died at Springville, in full faith. Newel Knight died at Ponea, Nebraska. Leonard Soby went with Sidney Rigdon from Nauvoo. James Allred died in Sanpete, in full faith. Henry G. Sherwood came here with the pioneers and died in San Bernardino, Cal., out of the Church, I understand. Samuel H. Smith died at Nauvoo, in full faith. THOMAS GROVER." 86. Folder belonging to Matilda Lyman Carter (daughter of Amasa Lyman); MS, d 684; Special Collections, BYU; Nauvoo, Ill.; Sept 23, 1843. Spelling as in the original without use of [sic]. At a meeting of the High Council in Nauvoo Sept 23 1843, Br Hirum Smith read the revelation relating to the plurality of wives; he said he did not believe it at first, it was so contrary to his feelings, but he said he knew Joseph was a profit of God, so he made a covenant that he would not eat, drink, or sleep until he knew for himself, that he had got a testimony that it was true, that he had even herd the voice of God concerning it. This is what James Allred related on the night of the 15th of October, 1854. [On the bottom of the sheet, in faint pencil, are the words:] Enquire of John S. Fullmer, C. C. Rich, H Grover Hosea Stout David Fullmer. 87. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:222; October 20, 1843. "Again, on the 19th of October, the same year, President Smith made us another visit at Macedonia and remained till the 21st. He was accompanied by Wm. Clayton. At this time (Oct. 20th, 1843), he sealed my first wife to me for time and all eternity. * * * "He also visited my mother at her residence in Macedonia and taught her in my hearing the doctrine of celestial marriage, declaring that an angel appeared unto him with a drawn sword, threatening to slay him if he did not proceed to fulfill the law that had been given to him. And counseled my mother to be sealed to his uncle, Father John Smith (father of Geo. A. Smith), to which she consented, and to my certain knowledge was subsequently sealed to him by the Prophet. * * * "After the death of the Prophet, I told President Brigham Young what he (Joseph Smith) had said to me relative to my taking Mary Ann Hale to wife. Pres. Young said it was right and authorized Father John Smith to seal her to me, which he did on the 14th of November, 1844. (Signed) B. F. Johnson 88. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:231; October, 1843. BISHOP S. A. WOOLLEY'S TESTIMONY. "In September, 1843, at Nauvoo, Ill., I was taken very sick, so much so that most of my folks thought I could not recover. During the time of my illness the Prophet Joseph and Patriarch Hyrum Smith came and administered to me frequently. Father Joseph Smith, in a blessing previously given me, had made me a certain promise in regard to living, in which I had the most implicit confidence; and when I heard friends say (although so far gone that I did not recognize any one) that I would never get well, I would whisper .Yes, I will, Father Smith promised that I should live to see the coming of the Son of Man.' Brother Hyrum said, because of my faith in that blessing, I would not die at that time. The house, in which we lived, was a two-story one, and on the east side was built a store, from which a door opened into the sitting room. During my sickness I occupied one of the up-stairs rooms. One afternoon in the month of October, A.D. 1843, I think on a Tuesday, about 2 o.clock (I cannot explain just how I knew it was 2 o.clock, but I knew it), I found myself in the sitting room down stairs, and walking to the door leading into the store, I saw my brother Edwin D. putting up the shutters of the store as though it was night. I turned around, saw Mary, his wife, putting down the blinds of the windows in the sitting room. I stood and looked and wondered what was to be done. I saw two or three other persons there; and presently some others, including Patriarch Hyrum Smith, came in. The fireplace was in the north end of the room, and Hyrum sat down at the east end of the grate with his face turned to the northwest. Presently I saw him take a paper out of his coat pocket, and I walked up to his left hand side, looked over his shoulder, and, as he opened the paper, I read .A Revelation on Eternal Marriage and Plurality of Wives,' etc. He then commenced to read what is now known as the revelation on plural marriage. I also read it myself as fast as he did. He stopped and explained as he went along. There was a sister present by the name of German, who, when he had read to a certain point, went to the southwest window, raised the curtain, looked out, then turned around and said, .Brother Hyrum, don.t read any more, I am full up to here,' drawing her hand across her throat. It was there told me by the same power that informed me it was 2 o'clock, that that revelation was of God, and that no man could or would receive a fulness of celestial glory and eternal life, except he obeyed that law, and had more than one living wife at the same time. From this time I commenced to get well, and did so very speedily. In the course of a few days I was down in the sitting room, and one day, as we sat by the fire, my sister-in-law (Mary) and Sister German, who boarded there, were talking about that principle allegorically. I remarked, .Mary, thee need not be afraid to talk right out about that principle, for I know more about it than thee does.' .What principle?. said she. .Why, that principle about a man having more wives than one,' I replied. She looked with amazement and said, .What does thee mean?. (We were raised Quakers.) .I mean,' said I, .that I stood right there (pointing to the place) when Brother Hyrum read that revelation the other day.' .What revelation?. said she (seeming very incredulous). 'Why, the one on plural marriage,' I answered. My brother Edwin D. testified in a public meeting in Manti, Sanpete Co., a number of years ago, that the revelation was read by Bro. Hyrum just as I said, but he (Edwin D.) did not see me there, and he could not relate it as accurately as I have done. Were I to go back on every other principle of what the world call 'Mormonism,' I would have to acknowledge that the principle of plural marriage is of God. I, like Paul of old, whether in the body or out, saw and heard things which were unlawful to utter at that time, for I understood that I was not to tell anyone, or to talk to anyone about it, except those who already knew about it. 89. History of the Church; VI, p. 65; Sunday, 5 November 1843. Sunday, 5.--Rode out with mother and others for her health. At dinner I was taken suddenly sick; 1 went to the door and vomited all my dinner, dislocated my jaw, and raised fresh blood, and had many symptoms of being poisoned. In the evening a prayer-meeting in the hall over the store. Mr. Cole having kept a school in the hall for some time, the noise proved a nuisance for the clerks in the history office, and I gave Dr. W. Richards orders to tell Mr. Cole he must find some other room in which to teach school, as the room is needed for councils. 90. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Mf/f/115; November 11, 1843. During the evening I walked over to Br Taylors & spent some time in conversing about the principle of the celestial world, or some of them. Br Hiram Smith was in with us & presented some ideas of much interest to me concerning baptism for the dead, the resurrection, redemption and exaltation in the new and everlasting covenant that reacheth into the eternal world. He sealed the marriage covenant between me and my wife Phebe W Carter for time and eternity and gave us the principle of it which was interesting to us. After spending the evening pleasantly we returned home and spent the night. 91. "Hawk Eye" [Newspaper]; New Series, No. 28; Burlington, Iowa; December 7, 1843. Letter from Gen. Bennett. The following was received several weeks since, during our absence. We now lay it before our readers, as we believe many of them are interested in every thing pertaining to the Mormons. Gen. B. it will be recollected, once belonged to that sect, and published a book in exposition of their doctrines and practices. We of course assume none of the responsibility of the statements contained in this letter; but give it as we received it. Moscow, Iowa, Oct., 28th A.D. 1843. MR. JAMES G. EDWARDS, Sir:--According to promise, I now address you a few lines in relation to the new doctrine of "MARRYING FOR ETERNITY," lately gotten up by the Holy Joe, the Rough He Goat of Mormonism, for the benefit of his flock. Joe says that as they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in Heaven," in eternity, it has been revealed to him that there will be no harmony in heaven unless the Saints select their companions and marry IN TIME, FOR ETERNITY!!! They must marry in time so as to begin to form that sincere attachment and unsophisticated affection which it is so necessary to consummate in eternity in order to the peace of Heaven.[sic] So Joe Smith has lately been married to his present wife Emma, for eternity as well as for time. The doctrine is that a man may select as many wives for eternity as his devotion to the interests of the Mormon Church will entitle him--and this is to be determined by revelation through His Holiness, the Prophet! * * * JOHN C. BENNETT. 92. "Historical Record" by Andrew Jensen; Vol. 6:233-234. Women sealed to the Prophet during 1843. 1. Helen Mar Kimball, May, 1843. 2. Eliza M. Partridge, May 11, 1843, James Adams officiating. 3. Emily D. Partridge, May 11, 1843, James Adams officiating. 4. Lucy Walker, May 1, 1843, William Clayton officiating. 5. Almera W. Johnson, August, 1843. 6. Malissa Lott, Sept 20, 1843. 7. Fanny Young, November 2, 1843, Brigham Young officiating. 8. W. Lawrence, 1843. 9. Sarah Lawrence, 1843. 10. Rhoda Richards, June, 1843. 11. Ruth V. Sayers, Feb. 1843. 12. Marinda Nancy Johnson, May 1843. 93. Times & Seasons, Vol. 5:423; February 1, 1844. [See March 15, 1844; May 20, 1886] As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges. Joseph Smith Hyrum Smith Presidents of said Church 94. John E. Bennion to "Dear Bro Samuel"; Nauvoo, Illinois; Huntington Library (xerox of original); 19 February 1844. Typed as in original without the use of [sic]. . . . I am anxious for you and all the rest of our family to be here You know according to Scripture all things have got to be restored if so the old man or patriarch is not to be Separated from his posterity until death nor the children from the father But like good old Jacob who stood at the head of his family till a good old age and then called his sons together and blessed them this doctrine along with many other glorious truths have got to be restored in there place This patriarchal order is already entered into by many families in this city This forenoon we have been hearing Joseph Smith preach in the open air to a congregation of several thousand I rejoice in the truths which I hear from time to time All the tribulation and disappointment through which the Saints have to pass is forgotten when the glory and greatness of the Eternal worlds are placed before our mind It is then of the greatest importance that we keep the commandments of god given to his Saints that we may escape the judgments which await the inhabitants of the earth My desire is that you and I with our Familys and conections may Stand on Mount Zion where there Shall be peace and Safty. . . . 95. Times & Seasons, Vol 5:474; Nauvoo, Ill.; March 15, 1844. To the brethren of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, living on China Creek, in Hancock County, Greeting: Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me today, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine; for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about. And again I say unto you, an elder has no business to undertake to preach mysteries in any part of the world, for God has commanded us all to preach nothing but the first principles unto the world. * * * Therefore beware what you teach! for the mysteries of God are not given to all men; and unto those to whom they are given they are placed under restrictions to impart only such as God will command them; and the residue is to be kept in a faithful breast, otherwise he will be brought under condemnation. Your obedient servant, Hyrum Smith Nauvoo, March 15, 1844 96. Discourse of Hyrum Smith; General conference of the Church. Extract of his 1 1/2 hour address given between 3:35 p.m. and 5:05 p.m.; "Manuscript History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--Book El," pp. 1986-1988; Church Archives, 8 April 1844. [Comments by Researcher: This is typed as in the original "Manuscript History"--including the retaining of spelling, punctuation, etc. without drawing attention to these peculiarities by use of sic. Paragraphing is mine, except for the first and last paragraph. The original manuscript of this talk may be found in the Miscellaneous Minutes Collection, Church Archives, and by my comparison, the above fleshed-out version is absolutely faithful to the original. For some reason--probably because it contained rhetorical "denials" of plural marriage-- this discourse has never been published in Joseph Smith's History of the Church, though a brief summary of the discourse is found in H.C., VI, pp. 320-321.] . . . All the mysteries are to be taught in Nauvoo, where they can be taught so as to be understood. no spiritual wife doctrine ever originated with me. God Almighty has given to us by revelation a plan of salvation, redemption, and deliverance, and the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood. Under (p. 1987) the constitution of the Almighty God, everything rightfully and lawfully belongs to man if he fulfills the stipulated condi- tions; and if a thing belongs to me legally it cannot belong to any one else. I married me a wife and I am the only man who has any right to her. We had five children; the covenant was made for our lives. She fell into the grave before God showed us this order. God has shown me that the covenant is dead; and had no more force, neither could I have her in the resurrection, but we should be as the Angels: it troubled me. Brother Joseph said--You can have her sealed to you upon the same principle as you can be baptized for the dead. I enquired, What can I do for my second wife? He replied, you can also make a covenant with her for eternity and have her sealed to you by the authority of the Priesthood. I named the subject to my present wife, and she said "I will act as proxy for your wife that is dead and I will be sealed to you for eternity myself for I never had any other husband. I love you and I do not want to be separated from you nor be for ever alone in the world to come." If there is any man that has no more sense, and will make a base story of such a fact, his name shall be published. What honest man or woman can find fault with such a doctrine as this? None. It is a doctrine not to be preached to the world; but to the Saints who have obeyed the gospel and gathered to Zion. It is glad tidings of great joy. The Lord has given to Joseph the power to seal on earth and in (p. 1988) heaven those who are found worthy; having the spirit of Elijah and Elias he has power to Seal with a Seal that shall never be broken, and it shall be in force in the morn of the resurrection. Talk about Spiritual wives! One that is dead and gone is Spiritual. We will come up in the morn of the resurrection; and every soul that is saved will receive an eternal increase of glory. Will you believe this? (Loud shouts of aye.) Every great and good principle should be taught to the Saints, but some must not be taught to the world; until they are prepared to receive them; it would be like casting pearls before swine. No man must attempt to preach them. 97. Statement by Lucy Messerve Smith (wife of Geo. A. Smith, Apostle); Geo. A. Smith papers; Special Collections; University of Utah; Salt Lake City; May 18th, 1892; c. Aug. to Sept. 1845. I worked for the prophet Joseph Smith's wife Emma Hale Smith Aug. to Sept. 1845. She bore testimony to me that Mormonism was true as it came forth from the servant of the Lord Joseph Smith, but said she, the Twelve have made Bogus of it. As a matter of course I told George A. what sister Emma had said. He related to me the circumstance of his calling on Joseph late one evening and he was just taking a wash and Joseph told him that one of his wives had just been confined, and Emma was the midwife and he had been assisting her. He told me this to prove to me that the women were married for time, as Emma had told me that Joseph never taught any such thing, they were only sealed for eternity they were not to live with them and have children, and now see said she (making reference to her pregnancy). I told her I did not know (anything about it). You do know said she, it's sticking out too plain. I said no more to her but went and told brother George A. Smith how she talked to me. ANOTHER STATEMENT BY LUCY M. SMITH I worked for the prophet Joseph's wife Emma Hale Smith in Aug. and Sept. 1845. Then David was one year old. I spun eight ten-knotted skeins forty threads to a knot two yards long, fine Marino wool warp yarn for Sister Emma, for which she paid me extra wages giving me credit of being an extra nice spinner. Sister Emma bore testimony to me that Mormonism was true as it came forth from the servant of the Lord Joseph Smith, but said she, the Twelve have made bogus of it. She said they were living with their wives and raising children and Joseph never taught any such doctrine, they were only sealed to them for eternity. Said I, Sister Emma, I know nothing about it. Said she, you do know, it is sticking out too plain. I thought she was not much of a lady to dispute my word so I said no more, but informed Apostle George A. Smith what she said to me. Said he, Emma knows better. He then related to me the circumstance of calling on the Prophet one evening about 11 o.clock, and he was out on the porch with a basin of water washing his hands; I said to him what is up, said Joseph, "One of my wives has just been confined and Emma was midwife and I have been assisting her." He said she had granted a number of women for him. This is word for word as I had it from brother G. A. Smith. 98. The Orson Pratt Journals, by E. J. Watson, 1975; p. 495-497; January 11, 1846. Feelings which began during this period of time continued over approximately three years when they came to a head on January 11th, 1846. Parley P. Pratt had been having difficulties with his own family (one wife left him shortly thereafter) and he apparently accused Sarah Pratt of "influencing his wife against him, and of ruining and breaking up his family," as well as "being an apostate, and of speaking against the heads of the Church and against him," and other accusations "of that agitated nature that I do not feel disposed to name them in this communication." Note here that harsh accusations and "mean" language were very common in frontier times so that the tone of the entire letter appears much harsher to us than it actually was. Finally, at a meeting in the temple, on the evening of January 11th, 1846, P. P. Pratt publicly accused Sarah Pratt of "whispering against him all over the temple." Orson Pratt blew up. He defended his wife with such ardor that both he and his wife were thrown out of the temple (by vote, not by force) and he was disfellowshipped until he make "satisfaction." Orson Pratt wrote a letter to Brigham Young which is now found among the papers in the Brigham Young collection. This letter explains Orson Pratt's side of the situation and makes several accusations against Parley P. Pratt. Since many of the accusations against Parley were unjust, written in the heat of anger, it is thought best not to reproduce the entire communication here, but just those parts which shed light on the circumstances, and to give in my own words the general content of the letter: It begins as follows: "City of Joseph, Ill., Jan. 12th 1846. To Prest. B. Young and Counsel: Dear Brethren, circumstances seem to urge upon me, the necessity of making some explanations in relation to the affair of last evening, and stating to you some of the true causes which led me to make the remarks which I did to P. P. Pratt." Orson Pratt then claims that during the past three years Parley had circulated falsehoods about Orson's family, accused Sarah of being an apostate, of speaking evil against the church, against Parley directly, and of influencing Parley's wife against him, all of which Orson declares is false. In the face of these accusations Orson and his wife had held their peace: "And yet with all these provocations where is there a person that ever heard either of us say the least disrespectful word concerning him or his family? That person cannot be found. His own conduct or that of his wife towards one another is nothing that concerns me or my wife. And consequently we have not meddled with it in any way, shape or manner. As an individual I care nothing about their conduct if he will let me and my family alone." Orson then continues by making an accusation of adultery against Parley. Apparently these feelings had been festering in Orson's mind since he took over the presidency of the Eastern Saints from Parley in the fall of 1845: "With all the light and knowledge that he has received concerning the law of the priesthood and with all the counsels that he has received from our quorum, if he feels at liberty to go into the city of New York or elsewhere and seduce girls or females and sleep and have connexion with them contrary to the law of God, and the sacred counsels of his brethren, it is something that does not concern me as an individual. And if my quorum and the church can fellowship him, I shall find no fault with him, but leave it between him, the church, and God." What Orson did not know was that Parley had taken a plural wife with him to New York. The following is a brief excerpt from the autobiographical sketch of Belinda Marden Pratt: I was sealed to Parley P. Pratt on or about the 20th of Nov. 1844 in one of the chambers of the house of Erastus Snow. I was sealed to this, one of the first twelve apostles of this dispensation by Pres. Brigham Young for time and all eternity. There was but one witness, Brother Erastus Snow. On or about the first of December Mr. Pratt was appointed and set apart for a mission to the Eastern States to take charge of the churches in the Atlantic States. As I was without home or relatives in this part of the country he wished me to follow him. I will not attempt to tell the joy that filled my heart. I had never expected to have so great a privilege. He gave me means to go and accordingly I started a day or two after he did. After arriving at St. Louis, went on the same boat with him to Pittsburg and Wheeling, Virginia. From there we crossed the Allegheny Mountains by stage to Wilmington; from there by rail to Philadelphia. Here we were obliged to wait a few days for money, then we went in to the city of New York by rail and arrived Christmas Eve--he to visit some of the saints and I to find a boarding place among strangers, for it was not known that the sealing power was practiced except by a few of the saints. I found a boarding place and paid my expenses sewing. After a short time I rented a house and Mr. Pratt boarded with me. I commenced dress-making and knitting baby socks which I sold by the dozen, earning from fifty cents to a dollar a day nearly all the time I was there besides my house work and washing. Mr. Pratt was called home to Nauvoo August 18th, 1845 and I started with him. We came home by the Erie Canal and lakes journeying from Chicago to Nauvoo by land. I went to Mr. Beach's tavern to board while Mr. Pratt went to his home. After a while it was arranged for his wife Mary and I to commence housekeeping in rooms upstairs in Mr. Pratt's house. (WDPP 74-75) Orson's letter continues: "All these things, however despicable, we could have borne without uttering one syllable to any person living. But when it comes to that, that my wife cannot come into this holy & consecrated temple to enjoy the meetings and society of the saints, without being attacked by his false accusations and hellish lies, and that too, in the presence of a large assembly, I feel as though it was too much to be borne. Where is there a person, that was present last evening, that heard my wife say the least thing against him or his family; I am bold to say that you may question every one then present in the temple and you cannot find one that will say that she uttered the most distant hint or insinuation against him. And yet she was accused by him, before that respectable company, in the most impudent and malicious manner of whispering against him all over the temple. Under these circumstances, brethren, I verily supposed that I had a perfect right to say a few words in defense of my much injured family. I therefore accused him of false accusations and lying. It was my belief at that time, that there was no place nor circumstances, in heaven, on earth, or in hell, too sacred to defend the cause of my innocent family when they were publicly attacked in so unjust and insulting manner. Which of you, brethren, would have suffered any man to attack, abuse, and insult your wife in so shameful a manner & not opened his mouth? Would any of you have borne it with the same patience and with as few words as I did? If I had, especially without the least cause, insulted any of your families in so disgraceful a manner I should have been very thankful if I escaped without getting my head broke. And I never would have voted to turn one of you out of meeting... under the same circumstances. Now with regard to confession; After I learned that it was my duty to stand and hear my family abused in the highest degree without the least provocation, and yet not open my mouth in her defense, I immediately confessed my fault to the counsel, but my confession was rejected. Now brethren, I stand ready and willing to make any further confessions to the council, necessary to my restoration from banishment to the enjoyment of your meetings, which you in your wisdom may dictate. By the decision of last evening I cannot consider myself entitled to take any part in any meetings of that sacred nature until such times as you shall dictate. And as I frankly & freely confessed the thing pointed out by the Prest. as being wrong, namely "The opening of my mouth." And as I know of nothing else which the counsel require me to confess, I can but remain in my banishment until the council shall reveal their will concerning me which I pledge myself to abide let it be what it will. Brethren I have freely poured out my complaints before you, and boldly say that you are the only persons to whom I have stated my grievances, and to you I look for counsel and again pledge myself to abide the same. . . whatever else you shall require I will do it if possible. With feelings of the most profound respect and unlimited confidence I subscribe myself your much injured though patient brother, Orson Pratt." (CHO Brigham Young papers, MS/d/1234/Box 43/Fd 23) 99. Susa Amelia Young Gates Paper; Church Archives; Ms/d/393/Box 4/Folder 7; Vol 14 - p. 16; Tuesday 9 February 1847. Tuesday 9 [February 1847] "the bishops conrialties [sic] come at the Council House under the direction of Bp. Whitney head Bp. of the Church, day & evening passed off finally, spent in praying singing & dancing the same evening H.C. Kimball called his wives together to bless the babes, 7, 4 born at Nauvoo just before leaving 1 at Richmonts Point 2 at Winters Quarters (page 2) The names of those mothers were Sarah Peck, Clarisa Cutler, Emily Cutler, Sarah Ann Whitney Lucy Walker, the two later wives of Jos Smith, whom father had taken for time only the eldest one being my mother still Jos Smith at Lamoni Iowa declares that was neither taught nor practiced by his father that it was foreign to the gospel. His father died in the service when there are a dozen or more of his wives still living in Utah, besides scores of (unreadable word) women who can testify that this principle was taught & practiced by him, & that he commanded others to enter into it. None so blind as those who will not see 100. Journal of Wilford Woodruff, February 16, 1847. Speech given by Brigham Young on the problems the saints had in trying to understand the vision & context of plural marriage. 101. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Heber C. Kimball speaking; December 21, 1847. Milo Andrews [Andrus] and an unauthorized plural wife were excommunicated from the Church and 'It was moved and carried that they both be left in the hands of the Presidents of the Seventies. . .' 102. Manuscript History of Brigham Young; Church Archives; 16 February 1849. On the 16th I met with the Twelve and others at the house of G.B. Wallace. The High Council was organized as follow: --Isaac Morley (President), Eleazer Miller, Tutus Billings, Levi Jackman, Shadrach Roundy, John Vance, Ira Elkridge, Henry G. Sherwood, Phinehas Richards, Edwin D. Woolley, William W. Major, and Elisha H. Groves. John Nebeker was appointed President of the Elders. quorum. I instructed bishop Newel K. Whitney to organize the lesser priesthood. I advised the best high priests, the most substantial men, be set apart to act as teachers under their bishops or presidents, so that the bishops might have their wards perfectly visited and like little children, and that the high priests might take young men with them, that they might also have experience in teaching. The bishops counsellors also might act as teachers in their wards. In relation to the duties of the president of the stake I remarked: --"He should take charge of all the affairs of the stake, spiritual and temporal, under the direction of the First Presidency. It is his privilege to call on the Presidency, the Twelve, the High Priests, the different quorums, or any man in the stake, to assist him, whether in making a suitable place to meet in, or in spiritual matters, and he should see that the bishops and teachers do their duty. He should be present when the lesser priesthood are organized and called together, and give directions in temporal matters, and lay before them the necessities of the place: to build up a city to the name of the Lord. He should see that there are no iklers and no waste, and he should be always on hand. He should be the first man to walk on the stand at meetings. It is his right to call on me and whom he pleases to preach, and I submit to the powers that be; and if I choose to preside, I.11 tell him. It is his duty to see that the congregation is in order, and that every man is in his place in spiritual things and in temporal things, to see that every man pays his tithing and his taxes, and if any will not pay, bring up such a man to account. The Twelve are not the ruling authorities here, they are as subject to the authorities, to the President of the Stake and the High Council, and ought to observe every law and ordinance as much, as any other members of the Church, the same as if they had no office. If the First Presidency are absent, and the Presidency of this stake, or the High Council, are in transgression, then, if the Twelve; or any one of them, be there, it is his right and duty to step in and say "I am the man to lead you," and if the High Council think they are as big as he, let him call the people together, and he can wield the power and the sword of the Spirit as he pleases if he is magnifying his office. If the people are given up to wickedness, and will not hearken to him, he can bid them good bye, and leave them in the hands of the devil and God. The High priests are a local quorum, to fill up the travelling quorum, when needed." Brother Lorenzo Snow made some remarks on the character of Jesus Christ, and asked for light. I replied --"While on a mission to England, the following came forcibly to my mind --.As God was, so are we now; as he is, so we shall be.. Our Father was once born of parents, having a father and a mother the same as we have. He is the very eternal Father, because of the creation of God. He is the Savior of the world, the root of spirit and the offering of flesh, the only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now, and Jesus was the only one. Moses was as God to the children of Israel, so was Joseph to us, and no man could love God without loving Joseph. In him centred [sic] the revelations of God. The spirit went right to him and told him. The spiritual wife doctrine came upon me while abroad, in such a manner that I never forget. Particular things belong to one blood, but, after all, we are of one blood and one flesh, all the nations of the earth. Joseph said to me-"I command you to go and get another wife." I felt as if the grave was better for me than anything, but I was filled with the Holy Ghost, so that my wife and brother Kimball's wife would upbraid me for lightness in those days. I could jump up and hollow. My blood was as clear as West India rum and my flesh was clear. I said to Joseph, "Suppose I should apostatize, after taking another wife, would not my family be worse off?" Joseph answered--"There are certain bounds set to men, and if a man is faithful and pure to these bounds, God will take him out of the world; if he sees him falter, he will take him to himself. You are past these bounds, Brigham, and you have this consolation." But I never had any fears of not being saved. Then I said to Joseph, I was ready to go ahead. He passed certain bounds before certain revelations were given." 103. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Brigham Young speaking; February 4, 1851. If I had power I would take all good virtuous females from all wicked corrupt adulterous husbands and give them to holy men of God that they may raise up seed unto the Lord. I have more wives than one. I have many and I am not ashamed to have it known. 104. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:50; Discourse by Brigham Young; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; April 9, 1852. Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. 105. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:53-66; Discourse by Orson Pratt; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; August 29, 1852. * * * (p. 54) It is well known, however, to the congregation before me, that the Latter-day Saints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives, as a part of their religious faith. It is not, as many have supposed, a doctrine embraced by them to gratify the carnal lusts and feelings of man; that is not the object of the doctrine. * * * . . . we will show you that it is incorporated as a part of our religion, and necessary for our exaltation to the fulness of the Lord's glory in the eternal world. . . . we consider it an essential doctrine to glory and exaltation, to our fulness of happiness in the world to come. * * * (P. 58) The Lord ordained marriage between male and female as a law through which spirits should come here and take tabernacles, and enter into the second state of existence. The Lord Himself solemnized the first marriage pertaining to this globe. . . . The first marriage that we have any account of, was between two immortal beings--old father Adam and old mother Eve; they were immortal beings. . . . This marriage was celebrated between two immortal beings. For how long? Until death? No. That was entirely out of the question; there could have been no such thing in the ceremony. . . . the ordinance of union was eternal; the sealing of the great Jehovah upon Adam and Eve was eternal in its nature, and was never instituted for the purpose of being overthrown and brought to an end. It is known that the "Mormons" are a peculiar people about marriage; we believe in marrying, not only for time, but for all eternity. * * * (p. 59) What is the object of this union. . . ? It is clearly expressed; for, says the Lord unto the male and female, I command you to multiply and replenish the earth. And, inasmuch as we have proved that the marriage ordinance was eternal in its nature, previous to the fall, if we are restored back to what was lost by the fall, we are restored for the purpose of carrying out the commandment given before the fall, namely, to multiply and replenish the earth. Does it say, continue to multiply for a few years, and then the marriage contract must cease, and there shall be no further opportunity of carrying out this command, but it shall have an end? No, there is nothing specified of this kind; but the fall has brought in disunion through death; it is not a part of the original plan; consequently, when male and female are restored from the fall, by virtue of the everlasting and eternal covenant of marriage, they will continue to increase and multiply to all ages of eternity, to raise up beings after their own order, and in their own likeness and image, germs of intelligence, that are destined, in their times and seasons, to become not only sons of God, but Gods themselves. * * * Let us say a few words, before we leave this part of the subject, on the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, (p. 60) and Jacob. The promises were, Lift up your eyes, and behold the stars; so thy seed shall be, as numberless and the stars. What else did He promise: Go to the sea-shore, and look at the ocean of sand, and behold the smallness of the particles thereof, and then realize that your seed shall be as numberless as the sands. * * * How did Abraham manage to get a foundation laid for this mighty kingdom? Was he to accomplish it all through one wife? No. Sarah gave a certain woman to him whose name was Hagar, and by her a seed was to be raised up unto him. Is this all? No. We read of his wife Keturah, and also of a plurality of wives and concubines, which he had, from whom he raised up many sons. Here then, was a foundation laid for the fulfilment of the great and grand promise concerning the multiplicity of his seed. It would have been rather a slow process, if Abraham had been confined to one wife, like some of those narrow, contracted nations of modern Christianity. I think there is only about one-fifth of the population of the globe, that believe in the one-wife system; the other four- fifths believe in the doctrine of a plurality of wives. They have had it handed down from time immemorial, and are not half so narrow and contracted in their minds as some (p. 61) of the nations of Europe and America, who have done away with the promises, and deprived themselves of the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The nations do not know anything about the blessings of Abraham; and even those who have only one wife, cannot get rid of their covetousness, and get their little hearts large enough to share their property with a numerous family; they are so penurious, and so narrow and contracted in their feelings, that they take every possible care not to have their families large; they do not know what is in the future, nor what blessings they are depriving themselves of, because of the traditions of their fathers; they do not know that a man's posterity, in the eternal worlds, are to constitute his glory, his kingdom, and dominion. * * * Again, let us look at Sarah's peculiar position in regard to Abraham. She understood the whole matter; she knew that, unless seed was raised up to Abraham, he would come short of his glory; and she understood the promise of the Lord, and longed for Abraham to have seed. And when she saw that she was old, and fearing that she should not have the privilege of raising up seed, she gave to Abraham, Hagar. Would Gentile Christendom do such thing now-a-days? 0 no; they would consider it enough to send a man to an endless hell of fire and brimstone. Why? Because tradition has instilled this in their minds as a dreadful, awful thing. It matters not to them how corrupt they are in female prostitution, if they are lawfully married to only one wife; but it would be considered an awful thing by them to raise up a posterity from more than one wife; this would be wrong indeed; but to go into a brothel, and there debauch themselves in the lowest haunts of degradation all the days of their lives, they consider only a trifling thing; nay, they can even license such institutions in Christian nations, and it all passes off very well. * * * (p. 62) It [whoredoms, adultery, fornication] is to be prevented in the way the Lord devised in ancient times; that is, by giving to His faithful servants a plurality of wives, by which a numerous and faithful posterity can be raised up, and taught in the principles of righteousness and truth... But again, there is another reason why this plurality should exist among the Latter-day Saints. I have already given you one reason, and that is, that you might inherit the blessings and promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and receive a continuation of your posterity, that they may become as numerous as the sand upon the sea-shore. There is another reason, and a good one, too. * * * . . . the righteous are gathering out, and are still being gathered from among the nations, and being planted by themselves, one thing is certain--that people are better calculated to bring up children in the right way, than any other under the whole heavens. * * * I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others, that were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth (p. 63) upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God. * * * Then is it not reasonable, and consistent that the Lord should say unto His faithful and chosen servants, that had proved themselves before Him all the day long; that had been ready and willing to do whatsoever His will required them to perform--take unto yourselves more wives, like unto the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of old. . . ? Suppose the Lord should answer this question, would He not say, I have here in reserve, noble spirits, that have been waiting for thousands of years, to come forth in the fulness of times, and which I designed should come forth through these my faithful and chosen servants, for I know they will do my will, and they will teach their children after them to do it. Would not this be the substance of the language, if the Lord should give us an answer upon this subject? But then another question will arise: how are these things to be conducted? Are they to be left at random? Is every servant of God at liberty to run here and there, seeking out the daughters of men as wives unto themselves without any restriction, law, or condition? No. We find these things were restricted in ancient times. * * * So in these days; let me announce to this congregation, that there is but one man in all the world, at the same (p. 64) time, who can hold the keys of this matter; but one man has power to turn the key to inquire of the Lord, and to say whether I, or these my brethren, or any of the rest of this congregation, or the Saints upon the face of the whole earth, may have this blessing of Abraham conferred upon them; he holds the keys of these matters now. . . . But, says one, how have you obtained this information? By new revelation. When was it given, and to whom? It was given to our Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Joseph Smith, on the 12th day of July, 1843; only about eleven months before he was martyred for the testimony of Jesus. He held the keys of these matters; . . . and they belong to that man who stands at the head to preside over all the affairs of the Church and kingdom of God in the last days. They are the sealing keys of power, or in other words, of Elijah, having been committed and restored to the earth by Elijah, the Prophet.... 106. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6; President Brigham Young; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; August 29, 1852. You heard brother Pratt state, this morning, that a revelation would be read this afternoon, which was given previous to Joseph's death. It contains a doctrine a small portion of the world is opposed to; but I can deliver a prophecy upon it. Though that doctrine has not been practised by the Elders, this people have believed in it for years. The original copy of this revelation was burnt up. William Clayton was the man who wrote it from the mouth of the Prophet. In the meantime, it was in Bishop Whitney's possession. He wished the privilege to copy it, which brother Joseph granted. Sister Emma burnt the original. The reason I mention this is because that the people who did know of the revelation suppose it is not now in existence. The revelation will be read to you. The principle spoken upon by brother Pratt, this morning, we believe in. And I tell you--for I know it-it will sail over and ride triumphantly above all the prejudice and priestcraft of the day: it will be fostered and believed in by the more intelligent portion of the world as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people. Your hearts need not beat; you need not think that a mob is coming here to tread upon the sacred liberty which the Constitution of our country guarantees unto us, for it will not be. The world have known, long ago, even in brother Joseph's days, that he had more wives than one. One of the Senators in Congress knew it very well. Did he oppose it? No: but he has been our friend all the day long, especially upon that subject. He said pointedly to his friends, "If the United States do not adopt that very method--let them continue as they now are- -pursue the precise course they are now pursuing, and it will come to this--that their generations will not live until they are 30 years old. They are going to destruction; disease is spreading so fast among the inhabitants of the United States, that they are born rotten with it, and in a few years they are gone." Said he, "Joseph has introduced the best plan for restoring and establishing strength and long life among men, of any man on the earth; and the Mormons are a very good and virtuous people." Many others are of the same mind: they are not ignorant of what we are doing in our social capacity. They have cried out, "Proclaim it." But it would not do, a few years ago: everything must come in its time, as there is a time to all things. I am now ready to proclaim it. 107. The Seer, Prospectus; Orson Pratt; January, 1853. The views of the Saints in regard to the ancient Patriarchal Order of Matrimony or Plurality of Wives as developed in a revelation given through Joseph the Seer, will be fully published. 108. The Seer, Vol. 1, No 2, pp. 31-32; February, 1853. The wife stands on the left hand of her husband, while the bride stands on her left. The President, then, puts this question to the wife: "Are you willing to give this woman to your husband to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and for all eternity? If you are, you will manifest it by placing her right hand within the right hand of your husband." The right hands of the bridegroom and bride, being thus joined, the wife takes her husband by the left arm, as if in the attitude of walking: the President, then, proceeds to ask the following question of the man: "Do you brother, (calling him by name,) take sister, (calling the bride by her name,) by the right hand to receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise, on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?" The bridegroom answers, yes. The President, then, puts the question to the bride: "Do you, sister, (calling her by name,) take brother, (calling him by name,) by the right hand, and give yourself to him, to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and for all eternity with a covenant and promise, on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?" The bride answers, yes. The President then says, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and for all eternity; and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection, with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, clothed with glory, immortality, and eternal lives; and I seal upon you the blessings of thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, and exaltations, together with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and say unto you be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity in the day of the Lord Jesus. All these blessings, together with all other blessings pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, I seal upon your heads, through your faithfulness unto the end, by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen." 109. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:119-120; Brigham Young; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; February 27, 1853. The Elders of Israel frequently call upon me--"Brother Brigham, a word in private, if you please." Bless me, this is no secret to me, I know what you want, it is to get a wife! "Yes, brother Brigham, if you are willing." I tell you here, now, in the presence of the Almighty God, it is not the privilege of any Elder to have even ONE wife, before he has honored his Priesthood, before he has magnified his calling. If you obtain one, it is by mere permission, to see what you will do, how you will act, whether you will conduct yourself in righteousness in that holy estate. TAKE CARE! Elders of Israel, be cautious! or you will lose your wives and your children. If you abuse your wives, turn them out of doors, and treat them in a harsh and cruel manner, you will be left wifeless and childless; you will have no increase in eternity. You will have bartered this blessing, this privilege, away; you will have sold your birthright, as Esau did his blessing, and it can never come to you again, never, NO NEVER! Look to it, ye Elders! you will awake from your dream, alas! but too soon, and then you will realize the truth of the remarks I am making to-day. Whose privilege is it to have women sealed to him? It is his who has stood the test, whose integrity is unswerving, who loves righteousness because it is right, and the truth because there is no error therein, and virtue because it is a principle that dwells in the bosom of Him who sits enthroned in the highest heavens; for it is a principle which existed with God in all eternities, and is a co-operator, a co- worker betwixt man and his Maker, to exalt man, and bring him into His presence, and make him like unto Himself! It is such a man's privilege to have wives and children, and neighbors, and friends, who wish to be sealed to him. Who else? No one. I tell you nobody else. DO YOU HEAR IT? Many applications will unquestionably be made to me for wives, and, perhaps, by men too who will steal, or trespass upon me, their neighbors, kill their stock, do wickedly in various ways. Nothing would damn such men sooner than to give them this privilege. I answer the brethren, they have to go upon their own responsibility. I tell you the truth. If you are a first-rate good man, and honor your Priesthood, it is your privilege. The man who has proved himself before God, has been faithful, has gone through and performed everything the Lord has laid upon him to do, for the purpose of building up and sustaining His kingdom, has proved himself before men, angels, and his Father in heaven, he is the only character that will increase, and obtain a celestial glory. 110. The Seer, p. 41; Elder Orson Pratt; March 1853. When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, as revealed to the ancient patriarchs, and as manifested by new revelation, and she refuses to give her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then it becomes necessary for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent: if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable, and the husband is found in the fault or in transgression, then he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the Prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar unto Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob. 111. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:345-346; Jedediah M. Grant; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; August 7, 1853. * * * Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, "Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth." Again, he says, "Having many things to write unto you (or communicate), I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." Again--"The children of thy elect sister greet thee." This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:--. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives. The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons." 112. The L.D.S. Millennial Star, Vol 15:214; 1853. Do you, brother (calling him by name), take sister (calling the bride by her name) by the right hand and receive her unto yourself, to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband, for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, Angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and choice? (The bridegroom answers: yes) Do you, sister (calling her by name), take brother (calling him by name) by the right hand, and give yourself to him, to be his lawful an d wedded wife for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part, that you will fulfill all the laws, rites, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, Angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and choice? (The bride answers: yes) In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife, for time and for all eternity; and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection, with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, clothed with glory, immortality and eternal life; and I seal upon you the blessings of thrones, and dominions and principalities, and powers and exaltations, together with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and say unto you, be faithful and multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity in the day of the Lord Jesus. All these blessings, together with the blessings pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, I seal upon your heads, through your faithfulness unto the end, by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. 113. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Ms/f/115; September 17, 1854. President Young preached this afternoon & spoke upon the Law of Consecration & had an interesting conversation in our Prayer Circle. The subject of Elder Orson Pratt publishing the Seer and the doctrine it contained was brought up in conversation. President Young said he ought not to have published the marriage ceremony--lt was sacred and one of the last ceremonies attended to in the endowments and ought not to have been given to the world. Brother Pratt said that he thought it was no harm as the plurality of wives and its doctrine was to be published to the world. He said he should not have done it--if he had thought there had been the least harm in it. President Young said he was satisfied that he intended no wrong in it. 114. History of Utah, pp. 353-354, by Hubert H. Bancroft. n.d.; Typed w/o [sic]. This rendition closely follows the pattern given by Orson Pratt in The Seer. Ann Eliza Webb, who was twice married according to Mormon practice, once by Brigham, and afterward to him, thus describes the ceremonies: After registration, which includes names, age, place of birth, with county, state, or country, .we went before Brigham Young, who was waiting for us,' and who asked, .Do you, Brother James Dee, take Sister Ann Eliza Webb by the right hand, to receive her unto yourself, to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to be her lawful and wedded husband, for time and eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part that you will fulfill all the laws, rights, and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and accord?. .Yes.. .Do you, Sister Ann Eliza Webb, take Brother James Dee by the right hand, and give yourself to him, to be his lawful and wedded wife, for time and for all eternity, with a covenant and promise on your part that you will fulfill all the laws, rights, and ordinances, pertaining to this holy matrimony, in the new and everlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses, of your own free will and accord?. .Yes.. .In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the authority of the holy priesthood, I pronounce you legally and lawfully husband and wife, for time and for all eternity. And I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection, with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection, clothed with glory, immortality, and everlasting lives; and I seal upon you the blessings of thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers, and exaltations, together with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And I say unto you, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth, that you may have joy and rejoicing in your posterity in the day of the Lord Jesus. All these blessings, together with all other blessings pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, I seal upon your heads, through your faithfulness unto the end, by the authority of the holy priesthood, in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost. Amen. 'The scribe then entered the date of the marriage, together with the names of my mother and the one or two friends who accompanied us.' When the marriage is a polygamous one, the wife stands on the left of her husband, and the bride at her left hand. The president then puts this question to the wife: 'Are you willing to give this woman to your husband, to be his lawful and wedded wife for time and for all eternity? If you are, you will manifest it by placing her right hand within the right hand of your husband.' The right hands of the husband and bride being thus joined, the wife takes her husband by the left arm, as in walking, and the ceremony then proceeds as in the manner quoted above. Of course, as these ceremonies took place in the endowment house, the temple robes were worn. 115. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2:80-86; Orson Hyde; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854. . . . "Then you really mean to hold to the doctrine that the Savior of the world was married; do you mean to be understood so? And if so, do you mean to be understood that he had more than one wife?" * * * Now suppose I should set out myself, and travel through the cities of the nation as a celebrated reformer, preaching revelations and sentiments as lofty as the skies, and rolling out ideas strange and new, to which the multitude were entirely unaccustomed; and wherever I went, suppose I had with me three or four women--one combing my head, another washing my feet, and another shedding tears upon them, and wiping them with the hair of her head. Suppose I should lean upon them, and they upon me, would it not appear monstrous in the eyes of the world? * * * How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous. In England we frequently hear the wife say, "Where is my master?" She does not mean a tyrant, but as Sarah called her husband Lord, she designates hers by the word master. When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, "And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord," or husband, "and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master." Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife. Where will you find a family so nearly allied by the ties of common religion? "Well," you say, "that appears rather plausible, but I want a little more evidence, I want you to find where it says the Savior was actually married." * * * We will turn over to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Yes, and somebody else too. You will find it in the 2nd chapter of John's Gospel; remember it and read it when you go home. "And the third day [JST of the week] there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. [JST "Woman, what wilt thou have me to do for thee? that will I do; for mine hour is not yet come"] His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him"--that is, the ruler of the feast saith unto the bridegroom, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. * * * . . . I shall say here, that before the Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from the earth; but who shall declare his generation? They had no father to hold them in honorable remembrance; they passed into the shades of obscurity, never to be exposed to mortal eye as the seed of the blessed one. For no doubt had they been exposed to the eye of the world, those infants might have shared the same fate as the children in Jerusalem in the days of Herod, when all the children were ordered to be slain under such an age, with the hopes of slaying the infant Savior. They might have suffered by the hand of the assassin, as the sons of many kings have done who were heirs apparent to the thrones of their fathers. * * * Says one, "Why is it that men in your society may have more than one wife? What is the policy of it?" The men of God who hold the Priesthood of heaven, and imbibe the light of the Holy Ghost, have the privilege and right. Now let me illustrate one thing, and let me bring it home to you. There may be some under the sound of my voice that the case will fit. Some man will perhaps marry a wife of his youth. She dies--he loved her as he loves himself, and her memory ever lingers about his heart. He marries another, and she dies, and he loved her equally as well. He marries a third, and so on, and he loved them all. By and bye he dies, and he dies with devoted affection and love to them all. Now in the resurrection, which of these wives will he claim? There is no difference in his love to any of them, and they have all perhaps borne children to him. He loves the children of one mother as well as the children of another. What say you? Which shall he have in the resurrection? Why, let him have the whole of them. To whom are they nearer allied? * * * . . . The revelation of the Almighty from God to a man who holds the Priesthood, and is enlightened by the Holy Ghost, whom God designs to make a ruler and a governor in his eternal kingdom is, that he may have many wives, that when he goes yonder to another sphere he may still continue to perpetuate his species, and of the increase of his kingdom and government there shall be no end, says Daniel. How does the kingdom of God increase, but by the increase of its subjects? Everything increases, everything multiplies. * * * These men of God who are married here by the authority of heaven are sealed on earth and in heaven. The good old book says, that which is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven; and whosesoever sins ye remit on earth shall be remitted in heaven, and whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. That Priesthood that has not this power is no better than a rope of sand. The true Priesthood alone possesses it. The Priesthood that has not this power is a mock Priesthood, and not the Priesthood of the Almighty. * * * When the servants of God and their wives go to heaven there is an eternal union, and they will multiply and replenish the world to which they are going. 116. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2:88-90; Brigham Young; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; October 6, 1854. In Paul's first epistle to Timothy, third chapter, he writes as follows--[Quotes 1 Timothy 3: 1-12] Instead of my believing for a moment that Paul wished to signify to Timothy that he must select a man to fill the office of a Bishop that would have but one wife, I believe directly the reverse; but his advice to Timothy amounts simply to this--lt would not be wise for you to ordain a man to the office of a Bishop unless he has a wife; you must not ordain a single or unmarried man to that calling. * * * Paul, knowing by observation and his own experience the temptations that were continually thrown before the Elders, gave instructions paramount to this--Before you ordain a person to be a Bishop, to take the charge of a Branch in any one district or place, see that he has a wife to begin with; he did not say, "but one wife;" it does not read so; but he must have one to begin with, in order that he may not be continually drawn into temptation while he is in the line of his duty, visiting the houses of widows and orphans, the poor, the afflicted, and the sick in his ward. He is to converse with families, sometimes upon family matters, and care for them, but if he has no wife, he is not so capable of taking care of a family as he otherwise would be, and perhaps he is not capable of taking care of himself. Now select a young man who has preserved himself in purity and holiness, one who has carried himself circumspectly before the people, and before God; it would not do to ordain him to the office of a Bishop, for he may be drawn into temptation, and he lacks experience in family matters; but take a man who has one wife at least, a man of experience, like thousands of our Elders, men of strength of mind, who have determination in them to preserve themselves pure under all circumstances, at all times, and in all places in their words. Now, Timothy, select such a man to be a Bishop. * * * . . . But the whole subject of the marriage relation is not in my reach, nor in any other man's reach on this earth. It is without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to reach. We can tell some things with regard to it; it lays the foundation for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact, it is the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy Gospel of salvation--of the Gospel of the Son of God; it is from eternity to eternity. 117. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2:216; President George A. Smith; March 18, 1855. Now if the Lord had considered it wisdom, on the day of the Kirtland endowment and great solemn assembly, to come forward and reveal to the children of men the facts that are laid down plainly in the Bible, and had told them that without the law of sealing, no man could be exalted to a throne in the celestial kingdom, that is, without he had a woman by his side; and that no woman could be exalted in the celestial world, without she was exalted with a man at her head. . . had he revealed this simple sentiment, up would have jumped some man, saying, "What, got to have a woman sealed to me in order to be saved, in order to be exalted to thrones, dominions, and eternal increase?" "Yes." "I do not believe a word of it, I cannot stand that, for I never intended to get married, I do not believe in any of this nonsense." At the same time, perhaps somebody else might have had faith to receive it. Again up jumps somebody else, "Brother Joseph, I have had two wives in my lifetime, cannot I have them both in eternity?" "No." If he had said yes, perhaps we should all have apostatized at once. 118. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3:264-266; President Brigham Young; the Bowery, Provo; July 14, 1855. I have a few words to say concerning one item of doctrine, that I seldom think of mentioning before a public congregation; I refer to the doctrine pertaining to raising up a royal priesthood to the name of Israel's God, for which purpose the revelation was given to Joseph, concerning the right of faithful Elders, in taking to themselves more than one wife. * * * . . . God never introduced the Patriarchal order of marriage with a view to please man in his carnal desires, nor to punish females for anything which they had done; but He introduced it for the express purpose of raising up to His name a royal Priesthood, a peculiar people. * * * . . . but, by the introduction of this law, I can be the instrument in preparing tabernacles for those spirits which have to come in this dispensation. Under this law, I and my brethren are preparing tabernacles for those spirits which have been preserved to enter into bodies of honor, and be taught the pure principles of life and salvation, and those tabernacles will grow up and become mighty in the kingdom of our God. . . . Spirits must be born, even if they have to come to brothels for their fleshly coverings, and many of them will take the lowest and meanest spirit house that there is in the world, rather than do without, and will say, "Let me have a tabernacle, that I may have a chance to be perfected." The Lord has instituted this plan for a holy purpose and not with a design to afflict or distress the people; hence, an important and imperative duty is placed upon all holy men and women, and the reward will follow, for it is said, that the children will add to our honor and glory. * * * This law was never given of the Lord for any but his faithful children; it is not for the ungodly at all; no man has a right to a wife, or wives, unless he honors his Priesthood and magnifies his calling before God. * * * This revelation, which God gave to Joseph, was for the express purpose of providing a channel for the organization of tabernacles, for those spirits to occupy who have been reserved to come forth in the kingdom of God, and that they might not be obliged to take tabernacles out of the kingdom of God. * * * Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God. *** Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned. 119. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Wilford Woodruff; April 15, 1856. While reading the revelation upon the patriarchal marriage. . . President Brigham Young remarked that the Lord will not require it of this people until they become sanctified and are led by the spirit of God so as not to shed innocent blood. 120. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4:55-57; Brigham Young; the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City; September 21, 1856. Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, "My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;" "No, not a happy day for a year," says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men, together with their own folly. I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, Now go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. "What, first wife too?" Yes, I will liberate you all. * * * Let Every man thus treat his wives, keeping raiment enough to clothe his body; and say to your wives, "Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without any murmuring and whining. You must fulfil the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting. . . . If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children. Do you understand this? I have told you many times that there are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty?--to prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can; hence if my women leave, I will go and search up others who will abide the celestial law, and let all I now have go where they please; though I will send the Gospel to them. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth. * * * . . .And those that enter into it and are faithful, I will promise them that they shall be queens in heaven, and rulers to all eternity. * * * . . .Many and many an Elder knows no better than to go home and abuse as good a woman as dwells upon this earth, because of what I have said this afternoon. Are you, who act in that way, fit to have a family? No, you are not, and never will be, until you get good common sense. 121. Diary of George H. Harris; Mor/M270.1/H241d, Vol. 1, p. 153; Feb 2, 1857. Typed as in the original without the use of [sic]. Ann Eliza's Blessing by Pat John Young: . . . In as much as U wil consent to abide a "Celestial Law" then shall [thou be] [b]lessed with celestial blesings. 122. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4:224; Heber C. Kimball; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; February 8, 1857. . . .Those are the men we are going to meet with; also with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, three of the old polygamists. Do you suppose that Joseph and Hyrum and all those good men would associate with those ancient worthies, if they had not been engaged in the same practices? They had to do the works of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in order to be admitted where they are;--they had to be polygamists in order to be received into their society. God knows that I am not ashamed of those good men now, and how much more I shall prize my associate polygamists, when I am further advanced in knowledge, I do not know. I am talking in earnest, and from the experience I have had. I know the character of the human family and the course that many men and women are taking; they are making a desolation and taking a course to bring destruction upon their root; they are following a course that would ultimately depopulate the earth. All will come to that, if they do not take a course of continual increase for ever and for ever. 123. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4;254-256; President Daniel H. Wells; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; March 1, 1857. The principles of plurality have been established, in order to raise up a righteous seed unto God. The way has been pointed out, and it is a blessing that has been restored to this generation. It is a turning back to the holy principles of ancient days, even to that purity that was known in primitive ages. In this way only may we rise from corruption, through the Holy Priesthood of our God. . . . It is a principle that is calculated to produce health, strength, and happiness here, as well as salvation hereafter. * * * . . . I wish to have my sisters feel that this order is the order of God, and that in it they will find happiness and exaltation; in it they will find every principle that is calculated to lead them to glory and favour with God, and exaltation into His presence; and by it they are redeeming themselves and their posterity from the corruptions of man, that have been in existence for many generations before us, and from which they have been brought out by the sound and proclamation of the Gospel. * * * . . . A man may have, perhaps, three or four wives, . . . and find fault, and be very exacting in requiring of them the most perfect obedience to every whim and notion. By taking such a course he is liable to lose the Holy Ghost, and if he does, he will lose his women. It is upon the principle that you are a man of God--that you have the Holy Ghost and desire to raise up a holy seed to the name of the Most High--that your wives have been sealed to you; they would not upon any other principle have come to you. Now if your wives discover that you lack in any virtues pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and if you take a course that is not calculated to exalt them, do you not see that you lose their confidence? You will lose them also. . . . This is a word for you, my brethren, who are now starting out on this principle. It is a good, virtuous, and holy principle, and not to be trifled with. . . . I say to the sisters, seek to have confidence in your husbands, and believe that they are capable of leading you; and when you seek instruction, believe them capable of giving it to you; and be faithful, humble, and obedient to them. Their feelings should not be concentrated in you, but your feelings should be in them, and their's should be in those who lead them in the Priesthood. Their feelings are concentrated in the Lord their God and what is ahead, and there is where they should be. 124. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4:258-260; Orson Hyde; Great Salt Lake City. The order of heaven places man in the front rank; hence he is first to be addressed. Woman follows under the protection of his counsels, and the superior strength of his arm. Her desire should be unto her husband, and he should rule over her. I will here venture the assertion, that no man can be exalted to a celestial glory in the kingdom of God whose wife rules over him; and as the man is not without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord, it follows as a matter of course, that the woman who rules over her husband, thereby deprives herself of a celestial glory. * * * It is true that the people of Utah believe in and practise polygamy. Not because our natural desires lead us into that condition and state of life, but because our God hath commanded it, and wishing to comply with that as well as with all others of His commands, we are as we are. We also wish to be counted Abraham's children, to whom the promises were made, and also with whom the covenants were established; and being told that if we are the children of Abraham, we will do the works of Abraham, we are not a little anxious to do as he did. Among other things that he did, he took more than one wife. In this he was not alone, for this example was copied by most of the ancient worthies and others who succeeded him under the same everlasting covenant. Even the wisest and best men--men after God's own heart, entered the most deeply into this practice. Nor was this practice limited to the days of the Old Testament. It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it. I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but on a rail. What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), "He shall see his seed, prolong his days, &c." Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. This he witnessed by submitting to baptism under the hands of John. "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," said he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honour his Father's law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Saviour with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty. * * * If God be not our Father, grandfather, or great grandfather, or some kind of a father in reality, in deed and in truth, why are we taught to say, "Our Father who art in heaven?" How much soever of holy horror this doctrine may excite in persons not impregnated with the blood of Christ, and whose minds are consequently dark and benighted, it may excite still more when they are told that if none of the natural blood of Christ flows in their veins, they are not the chosen or elect of God. Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ, but remember that in the last days, secret and hidden things must come to light, and that your life also (which is the blood) is hid with Christ in God. Abraham was chosen of God for the purpose of raising up a chosen seed, and a peculiar people unto His name. Jesus Christ was sent into the world for a similar purpose, but upon a more extended scale. Christ was the seed of Abraham, so reckoned. To these, great promises were made; one of which was, that in Abraham and in his seed, which was Christ, all the families of the earth should be blessed. When? When the ungodly or those not of their seed should be cut off from the earth, and no family remaining on earth except their own seed. Then in Abraham and in Christ, all the families and kindreds of the earth will be blessed--Satan bound, and the millennium fully come. Then the meek will inherit the earth, and God's elect reign undisturbed, at least, for one thousand years. Is there no way provided for those to come into this covenant relation who may not possess, in their veins, any of the blood of Abraham or of Christ? Yes! By doing the works of Abraham and of Christ . . . . 125. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5:22; Heber C. Kimball; the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, April 6, 1857. I would not be afraid to promise a man who is sixty years of age, if he will take the counsel of brother Brigham and his brethren, that he will renew his age. I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honours His work and word. Some of you may not believe this; but I not only believe it--I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business; for it is as much as we can do now to keep up under the burdens we have to carry; and I do not know what we should do if we had only one wife apiece. 126. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; June 2, 1857. He (B. Young) also said that there was no law in heaven or on earth that would compel a woman to stay with a man either in time or eternity. 127. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5:89-92; Heber C. Kimball; the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City; July 26, 1857. The world say that we have things in common stock. There is no such thing. We throw our interest together, but my wives are wives that are given to me by the Almighty God through the proper source; and it is so with every other man. There is no man in this Valley that is a Saint that meddles with my wives, nor I with his. Those things are not carried on here. * * * Plurality of wives! I have a good many wives. How much would you give to know how many? If I were to tell you, you would not believe it. I suppose many of you have not believed a word we have said today. We do not care whether you do or not. I am speaking to the unbelievers, and not to the Saints. If I spoke lies, you would believe quicker. Suffice it to say I have a good many wives and lots of young mustards that are growing, and they are a kind of fruitful seed. You know my comparison was, when Dr. Bernhisel was at Washington, we did not know what the Dr. would think when we let the old cat out of the bag. I told him that the old cat would have kittens, and the kittens would have cats. It is so with "Mormonism;" it will flourish and increase, and it will multiply in young "Mormons." "To be plain about it, Mr. Kimball, what did you get these wives for?" The Lord told me to get them. "What for?" To raise up young "Mormons,"--not to have women to commit whoredoms with, to gratify the lusts of the flesh, but to raise up children. * * * . . . I am doing the works of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and if I live and be a good man, and my wives are as good as they should be, I will raise up men yet, that will come through my loins, that will be as great men as ever came to this earth; and so will you. I will tell you that some of the most noble spirits are waiting with the Father to this day to come forth through the right channel and the right kind of men and women. That is what has to be yet; for there are thousands and millions of spirits waiting to obtain bodies upon this earth. 128. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Brigham Young speaking; August 26, 1857. He (B.Y.) remarked that the revelation upon a plurality of wives was given to Joseph in 1831. He revealed it to Oliver Cowdery alone upon the solemn pledge that he would not reveal it or act upon it, but he did act upon it in a secret manner & that was the cause of his overthrow. 129. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5:290-291; Erastus Snow; the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City; Sunday morning, October 4, 1857. The female portion of this community . . . are the best set of women that exist upon the earth; and that all the world will bear witness to, when they talk about plurality. Men of some discretion in the Gentile world ask questions about the operations of the plurality of wives among us. "How many wives live in each house? How do they got along in their associations? Are they all the time quarrelling and fighting?" A man said to me once, "My wife would not stand it five minutes, if I should bring a woman into my house to have a share of my company and my affections: I should have a hell upon earth, and no house that I could build would be big enough to hold my wife. It is marvelous to me how you can live, and how it is you are not killed." They cannot understand it, because they are governed by their passions, and not by principles; and it is the hardest thing in the world for them to be convinced that this people are governed by principle. This is the doctrine we have been preaching abroad, and it is the very thing the Gentiles will not receive; . . . . Existence among this people is of itself one of the greatest privileges. The world of mankind may soon know that God is with us, and that he is at the helm, that he is the founder of this work, and that the women as well as the men are the best upon the earth, and that we are determined to live and be governed by principle and not passion. Have we all learned to be altogether thus governed? No, we have not. But we are learning it: the men and women of Israel are learning it.... But many of us are learning to be governed by principle, not passion, and learning that we must become one,-- that there is somebody else that has feelings besides them,--that there is somebody else worthy of respect and love besides them,-- that there are some good qualifications in some other being,--and some other woman's children have some claims as well as mine; they are learning to let principle rule them. Well, go on: let the good work continue. This is my prayer all the time. Are all the families of Israel and every woman striving herself to play well her part and reverence her husband as her lord; for he is her lord. * * * Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!--my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. 130. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6:190-191; Pres. Heber C. Kimball; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; Sunday afternoon, December 27, 1857. . . . When I get a new wife, I always dedicate her to God, and this is the way I have done for years. I also make a practice of dedicating my children to the Lord, that they may grow up in his wisdom and increase in his power. * * * I am preaching these things to my brethren and sisters, that they may know, if they have not dedicated and consecrated their children to the Lord, that it has to be done. But you may inquire, "How shall we do it?" You will have to do it as brother Brigham and others have done when in Nauvoo. We had to take our children and wash and anoint them, and place the birthright and father's blessing upon them in the house of God, and then have them sealed to us; and you will have to do just so. If you do not take the right course to raise up a holy seed unto the Lord, but jangle and contend one with another, your children will not have so good a chance to get the blessings of celestial glory; but, in proportion as you bring yourselves into subjection, your children will receive the blessings of heaven. 131. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; November 18, 1858. Brother Nathan E. Tinney was asked by President Young about John D. Lee marrying a squaw. He told the story. President Young said I think there has been more fuss made about it than was necessary. President Young said we have sent Elders for several years to go among the Indians, marry their squaws & identify themselves with the Indians, (to) go and live with them, but up to this day I could not get an Elder to do it. I have said if any man could get appointed to take my place I would show them how it was done. He said when an Elder goes among the Lamanites & finds a good spirited young squaw let him take her & make a wife of her & if any of the Brethren in the South want to take a squaw to wife, let him go to Amasa (Lyman) while he is in the South & let him seal them the same as anybody. 132. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6:350-362; Orson Pratt; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; July 24, 1859. Our traditions inform us that if a man has two wives, it is a great sin and transgression against the laws of heaven and the laws of man. * * * We were taught strictly, by our parents, by works on theology, by our neighbors, by our ministers from the pulpit, by the press, and by the laws of Christendom, that plurality of wives is a great crime. * * * If asked why polygamy is considered a crime, our only answer is, Because false tradition says so--popular opinion says it is a crime. * * * Let us, therefore, carefully investigate the important question--Is polygamy a crime? * * * We may give a general answer, without investigating this subject, and say to the world, We have no information of that kind on record, except what we find in the Book of Mormon. There it was [p. 351] positively forbidden to be practised by the ancient Nephites. The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows-- "Except I the Lord command my people." * * * We can draw the conclusion from this, that there are some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to do them. * * * The substance of the idea in that book [the Book of Mormon] is that-When I the Lord shall command you to raise up seed unto myself, then it shall be right; but otherwise thou shalt hearken unto these things--namely, the law against polygamy. But when we go to the [p. 352] Jewish record, we find nothing that forbids the children of Israel from taking as many wives as they thought proper. God gave laws regulating the descent of property in polygamic families. [Quotes Deuteronomy 21:15] In this law the Lord does not disapprobate the principle. Here would have been a grand occasion for him to do it, if it had been contrary to his will. * * * Does not this clearly prove that the Lord did not condemn polygamy, but that he considered it legal? * * * [p. 353] . . . Leah said--"God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband." (See Genesis XXX. 18.) Who ever heard of the Lord's hearing one's prayer, because a person was doing an evil? If polygamy were a crime, God would have condemned her, because she gave up her handmaiden to her husband. We cannot suppose that an woman not acquainted with the law and commandment of the Most High, and believing it to be sinful for her husband to have two wives, would express herself in such a manner--The Lord heard my prayer and gave me the fifth son, because I gave my handmaid to my husband to wife. This shows to us that Jacob's wife, Leah, [p. 354] did really consider it something pleasing in the sight of God. It was something that God and all his angels that appeared to Jacob approbated, and, instead of cursing him, blessed him more and more. By these four wives the whole twelve sons of Jacob were born, and they became the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. * * * I suppose the people of this day would call the most of these sons of Jacob bastards; but they are to be honoured of God, not for a few years, but an honour that is to exist for ever and ever. . . . * * * . . . Now, among the things written in that book of the law, we find these words--"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her. And it shall be that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel." (See Deuteronomy XXV. 5, 6.) Must his brother do this, if he has a family of his own? Yes. It does not matter [p. 355] whether he has a family or not, that command is given to him: it is the law of God, and the reason is given in order that the name of the dead might not perish and be cut off from Israel. * * * Now, suppose that there were seven brothers, as there often were families of that size in Israel; suppose they married them wives, and six of them should die without leaving male issue to bear up their name, but the seventh brother was still living; do you not see that this law and commandment would be binding on that seventh, still living, to take the six widows? This he would be compelled to do; and yet this generation say polygamy is a crime, while here is the sanction of Divine authority. *** [p. 357] . . . There is such a principle as marriage for eternity, which may imply one wife or many. The marriage covenant is indissoluble; it is everlasting; it is not limited to time; but it is a covenant to exist while eternity exists: it pertains to immortality as well as mortality. I will prove this. The first example we have on record of a marriage was that of our first parents, Adam and Eve. Were they married as people marry now-a-days? Were they married as the world of Christendom marry at the present day? No: they married as immortal beings. They knew nothing about death; they never had seen any such thing as death. * * * [p. 358] These were the personages first married. Question - - Were they married for a certain period of time, as persons are married by the world of Christendom at this day? * * * . . . When Eve was presented to Adam as an helpmeet to him -- as a wife, it was not intended that that relation should cease after a few score of years, or when death should come; but it was as everlasting as Adam and Eve themselves. When they went down to their graves, they could go down with a sure and certain knowledge that they still were husband and wife, and that this sacred relationship would continue after the resurrection. * * * . . . The same God that originated marriage for all eternity, in relation to the first pair, has again spoken from the heavens and told us something about this sacred ceremony. He has informed us that if we are married and expect to have claim on our wives, and wives on their husbands, in the eternal worlds, that this ordinance of marriage must be, not till death, but for ever and ever, reaching forward through all our future state of existence. Having established this principle of marriage for eternity, let us examine the results flowing from it. Let me suppose that here is my neighbor; he has a wife, and she is married to him for all eternity. By-and-by, he dies and leaves his widow. I am a young unmarried man, and pay my attentions to her; and she, being still young, accepts my attentions and wishes to be married to me; yet she has been married to a man for all eternity. Can she be married to me for all eternity? No. I accept of her as a wife for time only, yielding her up with all her posterity in the morning of the first resurrection to her legal and lawful husband. But now what shall become of me? I have got to give up this wife to her legal and lawful husband in the morning of the first resurrection; and I must not, according to the laws of Christendom, marry another so long as she lives; and she might live as long as I. Am I to be deprived of a wife for eternity, because I married this widow for time? or would plurality come in and supply me also with a wife? This is one of the results necessarily arising, when marriage for eternity is admitted. There is just as much reason for it as for any other principle God has ever revealed to the human family. Again, for instance, here . . . is a woman that [p. 359] has not had a privilege of being married. . . . * * * I ask, Would it be right, with a view that marriage is to exist, not only in time, but in eternity, that this woman, who is a good, moral, virtuous woman, should remain without a husband through all eternity, because she did not have an opportunity of being married? If marriage be of any benefit in the eternal world, would it not be far more consistent with the law of God that she should have the privilege, by her own free, voluntary consent, to marry a good man, though he might have a family, and claim him for her husband, not only through time, but eternity? Jesus informs us that in the resurrection mankind are neither married nor given in marriage: all these things have to be attended to here. In the resurrection, a man is not to be baptized. Here is the place to attend to these things. * * * Just so, in the resurrection there will be no such thing as attending to the ceremony of marriage, so far as we are informed. But Jesus further says, concerning those persons who have not attended to those matters here, that in the resurrection they are as the angels of God: and some of the angels are a little lower than men. In what respect? They have not the power to increase their kingdom by the multiplication of their species, and this because they have not lawful and legal wives. They are probably among that class who have put off marriage for eternity, and die without attending to it; and after the resurrection, they find themselves wifeless, without any family or kingdoms of their own offspring. In this single and undesirable condition they are to remain, because they cannot hunt up a wife after the resurrection. Such, instead of receiving crowns, will merely become ministers or messengers for the crown, being sent forth by those who have attained to a higher glory, who have the power of receiving kingdoms, and increasing the same, through their own offspring that are begotten after the resurrection by the wives given to them while here in this world. These angels have forfeited this privilege; consequently, they are lower than the man who keeps a celestial law; and if these angels lived on the earth, they would be called old bachelors. * * * [p.360] . . . they [holy men that understood the law of God, and practised it] are crowned kings and princes over their own descendants, which will become as numerous as the sands on the sea shore, while the angels have neither wives, sons, nor daughters to be crowned over? Shall a young, moral, virtuous woman, because she does not find a young man that is suitable to her nature, or worthy of her,--shall she be deprived of this exaltation in the eternal world, because of the Gentile laws of modern Christendom? No. The Latter-day Saints believe otherwise. We believe that woman is just as good as man, if she does as well. If a good man is entitled to a kingdom of glory-- to a reward and crown, and has the privilege of swaying a sceptre in the eternal world, a good woman is entitled to the same, and should be placed by his side, and have the privilege of enjoying all the glory, honour, and blessings that are bestowed upon her lord and husband. If she cannot get any lord or husband through whom she can trust herself for exaltation to that glory, who can blame her for going into a family where she thinks she will be secure? These are some of the reasons in favour of polygamy. * * * [p. 362] Thirteen years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the same Prophet that translated the Book of Mormon received a revelation upon marriage, which commanded certain individuals in this Church to take unto themselves a plurality of wives for time and all eternity, declaring that it is a righteous principle, and was practised by inspired men in times of old. In obedience to this commandment, many have gone forth and taken upon themselves a plurality of wives; . . . and the Constitution of America gives people a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. But our opponents say no person has a right to commit crime under that saying. I admit it. But prove that polygamy is a crime. * * * If you search the great commentaries on law, they will inform you that all criminal law is founded on Divine revelation. When Divine revelation points out a crime, they generally adopt it as such, and attach penalties. The Bible is the foundation of most of the criminal laws of Christendom. Point out in the Bible where polygamy is a crime, and then you may say we have no right to embrace it as a part of our religious creed, and pretend it as a part of our constitutional rights. * * * Congress have no more constitutional right to pass a law against polygamy than they have to pass a law against monogamy, or against a man living in celibacy. 133. Millennial Star, Vol. 22:498-499; 1860. We do not find polygamy the peculiar feature of one age only; it was practised for two thousand five hundred years before the Law of Moses was given. Abraham practised it by Divine approval, under the Patriarchal, which was a Gospel dispensation, four hundred years before the giving of the law. The law of Moses was given to the children of Israel because they rejected the Gospel; but it did not do away with the practice of polygamy. * * * Thus was polygamy practised both under the Gospel and under the law. * * * Polygamy was established in the earliest ages of the world's history, running down through and embracing a period in which it was practised for four thousand years, and throughout the whole time, it was been sustained by the most unprecedented sanction of the Almighty himself. Who are the twelve tribes of Israel but the offspring of a renowned and worthy polygamist and Prophet by his four wives? * * * To this polygamic family pertain the law, the adoption, and the giving of the covenants. He has chosen from them his Prophets, and to them has he committed his sacred oracles. Such is the distinguished remembrance with which their names are held by the Almighty, that he has said, by the mouth of his servant John, that they should be inscribed upon the twelve gates of the heavenly Jerusalem, there to be perpetuated in eternal remembrance by the sanctified hosts of that celestial city. * * * The polygamy of the "Mormons" is a renewal of the ancient patriarchal order. . . . 134. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9:36-40; President Brigham Young; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; April 7, 1861. . . . I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives. When they begin to talk about it, they exhibit, almost without an exception, passion instead of principle. * * * It is for my sisters to be mothers of holy men and holy women--to receive and conceive in the name and by the power of the Holy Ghost--to bring forth their fruits to the praise and honour of the God of heaven. * * * If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. * * * The word and will of the Lord is what I want--the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. 1 would rather take my valise in my hand to-day, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children. I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth. * * * . . . It is for you to bear fruit and bring forth, to the praise of God, the spirits that are born in yonder heavens and are to take tabernacles on the earth. You have the privilege of forming tabernacles for those spirits, instead of their being brought into this wicked world, that God may have a royal Priesthood, a royal people, on the earth. That is what plurality of wives is for, and not to gratify lustful desires. Sisters, do you wish to make yourselves happy? Then what is your duty? It is for you to bear children, in the name of the Lord, that are full of faith and the power of God,--to receive, conceive, bear, and bring forth in the name of Israel's God, that you may have the honour of being the mothers of great and good men--of kings, princes, and potentates that shall yet live on the earth and govern and control the nations. * * * The world cries out against this obnoxious doctrine, that I should have more wives than one. And what would they do? Destroy the virtue of every woman in this community if they had the power. What do they care about virtue? With comparatively few exceptions, no more than do the devils in hell. * * * Elders of Israel, have you entered into the doctrine that has been revealed, through passion? If you have, you will find that that course will take that which you seem to have, and the Lord will say--"Let this man, that man, or the other man go, for he has acted on passion, and not on principle. Take that which he seems to have, and give it to him that has been faithful with the five, the two, the three, or the one talent." That is the way it will be, by-and-by. 135. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9:269; President Brigham Young; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; April 6, 1862. . . . Many would make of the greatest blessings a curse to them, as they do now the plurality of wives--the abuse of that principle will send thousands to hell. There are many great and glorious privileges for the people, which they are not prepared to receive. 136. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9: President Brigham Young; the Bowery, Salt Lake City; July 6, 1862. When Jesus came to preach the will of his Father, he came to his own, but they would not receive him. He said to them, "I speak that which I have seen with my Father; and ye do that which ye have seen with your Father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, if ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham." The Jews wanted to make laws to guide God and his children. They believed many of the doctrines that Abraham believed and taught. They practised polygamy, as did Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, David, ad the Prophets down to the days of the Apostles. Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbors, depended upon introducing females into their body politic, so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers. The Congress of the United States have lately passed a law to punish polygamy in the Territories of the United States and in other places over which they have exclusive jurisdiction. In doing this, they have undertaken to dictate the Almighty in his revelations to his people, and those who handle edged tools, unless they are skillful, are apt to cut their fingers; and those who hand out insult to the Great I Am, in the end, are apt to get more than they have spoken for. Why do we believe in and practise polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. "And is that religion popular in heaven?" It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and, unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise. 137. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:54; John Taylor; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; January 18, 1865. . . . Our marriage system is different from that of others-- of that which is called the religious world at the present time-- the Christian world, if you please; and this marriage system of ours, at the first sight appears to them as it did to us at first sight, the most revolting, perhaps, of anything that could be conceived of. Whatever others may have thought about it, I know what was thought about it by those who first embarked in it. If they could have plowed around the log, according to a facetious remark of President Lincoln, or burned it, or done anything else, they would have done it, rather than have entered into it; but they could not, and they had to take it up as the word of the Lord. It was not a matter of their own choice; it was the will and the commandment of the Almighty, for the guidance of his people. 138. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:111; President Brigham Young; on his visit to Utah, Juab, and Sanpete Counties; June and July 1865. We are now located in the midst of these mountains, and are here because we were obliged to go somewhere. We were under the necessity of leaving our homes, and had to go somewhere. Before we left Nauvoo, three Members of Congress told us that if we would leave the United States, we should never be troubled by them again. We did leave the United States, and now Congressmen say, if you will renounce polygamy you shall be admitted unto the Union as an independent State and live with us. We shall live any way, and increase, and spread, and prosper, and we shall know the most and be the best-looking people there is on the earth. As for polygamy, or any other doctrine the Lord has revealed, it is not for me to change, alter, or renounce it; my business is to obey when the Lord commands, and this is the duty of all mankind. 139. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:210-213; President Heber C. Kimball; Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; April 4, 1866. . . . The Lord designs that we shall be separate and distinct from every other people, and wishes to make us His peculiar people, and to raise up for himself a pure seed who will keep His law and walk in His statutes. For this purpose did He give the revelation on plurality of wives, as sacred a revelation as was ever given to any people, and fraught with greater blessings to us than we can possibly conceive of, if we do not abuse our privileges and commit sin. This doctrine is a holy and pure principle, in which the power of God for the regeneration of mankind is made manifest; but while it offers immense blessings, and is a source of immense power to God's people, it will bring sure and certain damnation to those who seek through its means to defile themselves with the daughters of Eve. All those who take wives from any other motive than to subserve the great purpose which God had in view in commanding his servants to take unto themselves many wives, will not be able to retain them. Wives are sealed to men by an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken, if the parties live faithfully before God, and perform with a single eye to his glory the duties of that sacred contract. * * * 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, and they, and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end. 140. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:200-208; Amasa M. Lyman; the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; April 5, 1866. (p. 200). . . It is simply plural marriage that they complain of. They corrupt themselves elsewhere all over the world; but out in Utah men actually presume to marry women honestly;. . . . How shall we determine anything about the value of plural marriage, so that we may know whether it is worth anything or not? I do not know any way better than by determining first whether single marriage is of value or not--whether it extends any advantages or not to those who are parties to this relationship. * * * (p. 202) Does marriage possess any value, then? Would it not be a very good thing if the blessings arising from it, which you enjoy, could be extended to all? Why is it not so? Because monogamic Christianity says it shall not be extended to all. * * * If all men and all women in a community were honorably married, you can readily understand one (p. 203) thing, that there would be no prostitution of women in that community, there would be an end of the corruption of man in that community, there would be no illegitimacy there. You can see, then, that it is only a question of advantages resulting from a pure marriage to all the inhabitants of any community, who can be blessed by such an institution of marriage; only introduce this, and the cause of all this sin and moral and physical degeneracy would have an end. * * * (P. 204) . . . hence I say that plural marriage is the great necessity of the age, because it is a means that God has introduced to check the physical corruption and decline of our race; to stop further contributions to the already fearful aggregate of corruption that has been developed as the result of sin in man and woman. * * * (p. 205) That is what polygamy is worth. It is simply an extension of pure marriage to all the social elements in the community, man and woman, that is all.*** Are you going to say something in support of plural marriage? No. I do not wish anybody to tell that I have said a word by way of supporting and sustaining plural marriage. Are you ashamed of it? No. Do you love it? Yes, I love it because it is true, and stands alone, without my aid. "What are you talking about it for, then?" That you may understand the truth and know its value, and secure to yourselves the blessings that only can accrue from the knowledge of the truth. That doctrine is safe and can take care of itself; and if you make an application of the truth to yourselves, it will take care of you; it will secure you from corruption, wretchedness, and death, and give you life and immortality; while others will still sink under the accumulating weight of corruption, until they go down to hell. * * * (P. 206) The great Buchanan war brought the flower of the army of the United States out here; the bran and shorts were left behind. They came to correct the poor misguided Mormons. For making prostitutes of the women? No. There are plenty of them at home; but the Mormons make wives of them, and this awakened all their sense of horror. It is this that excites our friends in the east--because we think more and better of women than they do. * * * Our business here in the mountains is to develop a community in which man and woman shall find, through the extension of honorable, pure, just, and virtuous marriage, the legitimate position that Heaven ordained them to occupy as wives and mothers, husbands and fathers, and a response to every requirement or nature, without stepping aside from the path of virtue and honor. * * * (p. 207) . . . when he [the Lord] talked to the people of Nephi: He told them they should have but one wife, and concubines they should have none. Why would He not allow them to have concubines? I suppose it was because He delighted in the chastity of women. This was simply avowing His feeling with regard to that matter. Concubinage was displeasing in His sight. He left them at liberty to have a wife, but concubines they should have none; informing them that when He wanted His people to raise up seed unto Him, and if it was necessary they should have many wives He would command them. That is simply what He has done. He has commanded us. * * * The Saints are gathered together from all the world, that the provisions of a virtuous marriage may be extended to all the social element in the commun- ity, and that by this there should cease to be developed in that community the curse of woman's prostitution or man's corruption, and where mothers in Zion can make it their business to teach their children the way in which they should go; to implant in early childhood principles of truth; to lead them to God; * * * (p. 208) . . . Our business here is to save men and women by teaching them to live lives of purity. Theses are self-evident truths. When we count up the men and women that are in the world, we shall find a broad margin more of women than men; and there is a numerical difference in the sexes, as they are developed in our community and every other community. Women must be saved, if the task should devolve on a man to marry two or three of them, and treat them as honorable wives, bless them, and bless their children, provide for them, and teach them principles of purity. 141. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:221-224; John Taylor; the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; April 7, 1866. (p. 221) Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church, that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do today; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. *** Where is there in the world a people that make any pretensions to have any claim upon their wives in eternity? *** Marriage is solemnized until death do them part, and when death comes to either party, then there is an end to the whole matter, and what comes after death is in the dark to them. It was so with us up to the time of the giving of that revelation; we had no claim upon one wife in eternity. * * * It was necessary that one grand truth should be unlocked, which is, that man and woman are destined to live together and have a claim upon each other in eternity. * * * (p. 222) Then, what did this principle open up to our view? That our wives, who have been associated with us in time--who had borne with us the heat and burden of the day, who had shared in our afflictions, trials, troubles, and difficulties, that they could reign with us in the eternal kingdoms of God, and that they should be sealed to us not only for time, but for all eternity. * * * Hence it is emphatically a religious subject so deep, sacred, and profound, so extensive and far-reaching, that it is one of the greatest principles that was ever revealed to man. * * * The Lord says that his servants may take to themselves more wives than one. Who gives to them one wife? The Lord. And has he not a right to give to them another, and another, and another? I think he has that right. Who has a right to dispute it, and prohibit a union of that kind, if God shall ordain it? Has not God as much right to-day to give to me, or you, or any other person two, three, four, five, ten, or twenty wives, as he had anciently to give them to Abraham, Isaac, David, Solomon, etc? * * * (p. 223) After having, with uplifted hands to heaven, sworn that they [the Congress] will "make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to thus sacrilegiously stand between a whole community and their God, and deliberately debar them, so far as they have the power, from observing his law, do they realize what they are doing? * * * We do not expect that Congress is acquainted with our religious faith; but, as members of the body politic, we do claim the guarantees of the Constitution and immunity from persecution on merely religious grounds. What are we to think of a United States judge who would marry a man to another man's wife. He certainly ought to know better. We are told that she was a second wife, and, therefore, not acknowledged. Indeed, this is singular logic. If she was not a wife, then polygamy is no crime in the eyes of the law; for Congress have passed no law against whoredom. A man may have as many mistresses as he please, without transgressing any law of Congress. The act in relation to polygamy contemplates punishing a man for having more wives, not mistresses. If she was simply his mistress, then the law is of no effect; and the very fact of Congress passing such a law is the strongest possible proof, in law, of the existence of a marriage covenant, (P. 224) which, until that law was passed, was by them considered valid. If, then, she was not his wife, no person could be punished under that law for polygamy. If she was his wife, then the judge transgressed the law which he professionally came to maintain. 142. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:261-262; President Brigham Young; the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City; August 12, 1866. Now, they suppose that they have got us safely on polygamy. What about that? I would say to Congress that if they will pass a law, making it death for any man to hold illicit intercourse with any woman but his lawful wife, we would meet them half way on that ground. It is not uncommon for men who have not been lawfully married to any woman, but who pass as old bachelors, to have children by several women. * * * Men may do as they please with women, have numerous children by them, and take as many liberties with them as if they were their wives, and yet not call them wives, and modern society smiles upon them. But whenever a man applies the sacred name of wife to the mother of his children, if he happen to have more than one, then the world professes to be wonderfully shocked at the idea. What inconsistency! Such men will go to hell for ruining innocent women and increasing illegitimate children in the land. The community or nation that indulge in such practices will be damned. * * * The doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed to this people from heaven, and if heaven had revealed that we should have no wife at all, it would have been as faithfully observed (p. 262) as the present law, even if it should result in the depopulation of the world, . . . But the Lord did not get his kingdom in that way. The kingdoms he possesses and rules over are his own progeny. Every man who is faithful and gets a salvation and glory, and becomes a king of kings and Lord of Lords, or a father of fathers, it will be by the increase of his own progeny. Our Father and God rules over his own children. Wherever there is a God in all the eternities possessing a kingdom and glory and power it is by means of his own progeny. 143. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:268-271; President Brigham Young; the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City; August 19, 1866. Every virtuous woman desires a husband to whom she can look for guidance and protection through this world. God has placed this desire in woman's nature. It should be respected by the stronger sex. Any man who takes advantage of this, and humbles a daughter of Eve to rob her of her virtue, and cast her off dishonored and defiled, is her destroyer, and is responsible to God for the deed. If the refined Christian society of the nineteenth century will tolerate such a crime, God will not; * * * It is this very class of men, though not all of them, who have set up such a howl against the doctrine of polygamy, which is so much despised and which was believed in and practiced by the ancients. . . . This matter was a little changed in the case of the Savior of the world, the Son of the living God. The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. * * * That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father. * * * If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church. I did not ask Him for the revelation upon this subject. When that revelation was first read to me by Joseph Smith, I plainly saw the great trials and the abuse of it that would be made by many of the Elders, and the trouble and the persecution that it would bring upon this whole people. But the Lord revealed it, and it was my business to accept it. * * * It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the (p. 269) blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. * * * The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. * * * I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart, and I know it is from God--l know that he revealed it from heaven; I know that it is true, and understand the bearings of it and why it is. (p. 270) * * * You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. * * * If a woman wants to live with me as a wife, all right; but the law says you must not marry her, and own her as your wife openly. As the law stands, she can come home to me, not as my wife, you know; she can sweep my house, make my bed, help me to make the butter and cheese, and share in all my pleasure and wealth, but the ceremony of marriage must not be performed. This is what is practiced in the outside world from the President in his chair to the lowest dog-whipper on the street that has means to obtain. They have their mistresses, and thereby violate every principle of virtue, chastity and righteousness. * * * (p. 271) * * * I would not go across this bowery for polygamy, if it only pertained to this world. It is for the resurrection; . . . . The female sex have been deceived so long, and been trodden under foot of man so long, that a spirit has come upon them, and they want a place, and a name, and a head; for the man is the head of the woman, to lead her into the celestial kingdom of our Father and God. 144. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11:301; Brigham Young; the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City; February 3, 1867. I do not wonder at this people having trouble; I do not wonder at some of our sisters having sorrow in what is termed plural marriage; for they do not live so as to have the Spirit and power of God upon them; if they did, they would see its beauty and excellence, and not a word would be said against it from this time henceforth and for ever. But they see this with a selfish eye, and say, "I want my glory and my comfort here;" their eye is not on the resurrection and on the kingdom we are looking for when Jesus will come and reign King of nations as he does King of Saints. 145. Deseret News; President Brigham Young; February 10, 1867. Polygamy was .one of the relics of Adam, of Enoch, of Noah, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, and Jesus and his apostles.' 146. "Minutes of Meetings Held in Provo City"; BYU Microfilm Room, Harold B. Lee Library, Film/977.2/Z99/V. 2; 17 November 1867 (Sunday). Evening meeting . . . Elder John Taylor continued his remarks mentioned the circumstance of Joseph Smith telling himself, Pres. Young and one or two others about the revelation concerning Plurality of wives. What a Bitter pill it was to them. Spoke at length upon the subject. . . 147. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12:261-263; President Brigham Young; delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; August 9, 1868. There is a little matter I want to speak upon to you, my sisters. It is a subject that is very obnoxious to outsiders. They have given us the credit for industry and prudence; but we have one doctrine in our faith that to their view is erroneous, and very bad; it is painful to think of. Shall I tell you what it is sisters? "Oh," says one, "I know what you mean, my husband has two, four, or half a dozen wives." Well, I want to tell the sisters how to free themselves from this odium as many of them consider it. This doctrine so hateful and annoying to the feelings of many, was revealed from heaven to Joseph Smith, and obedience is required to it by the Latter-day Saints,--this very principle will work out the moral salvation of the world. Do you believe it? It makes no difference whether you do or not, it is true. * * * Yes, this odious doctrine will work out the moral reformation and salvation of this generation. People generally do not see it; my sisters do not see it; and I do not know that all the elders of Israel see it. But if this course be pursued, and we make this the (p. 262) rule of practice, it will force all men to take a wife. Then we will be satisfied with one wife. I should have been in the beginning; the one wife system would not have disagreed with me at all. If the prophet had said to me, "Brother Brigham, you can never have but one wife at a time." I should have said, "glory, hallelujah, that is just what I like." But he said, "you will have to take more than one wife, and this order has to spread and increase until the inhabitants of the earth repent of their evils and men will do what is right towards the females. In this also I say glory, hallelujah. Do men do that which is right now? No. You see travelers--young, middle-- aged, or old--roaming over the world, and ask them where their families are, and the answer will generally be, "I have none." * * * Do not be startled, my sisters; do not be at all afraid; just get influence enough among the daughters of Eve in the midst of this generation until you have power enough over the males to bring them to their senses so that they will act according to the rule of right, and you will see that we will be free at once, and the elders of Israel will not be under the necessity of taking so many women. But we shall continue to do it until God tells us to stop, or until we pass into sin and iniquity, which will never be. Do you see anything very bad in this? Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And thus started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. * * * A good many young men go into the army, or go here or there. What is done with the daughters of Eve? In many countries they stick them in the factories, into the fields, the coal mines, and into the streets-* * * But the young men are sent to the wars. When England and the rest of the nations learn war no more, instead of passing a law in this or any other nation against a man having more than one wife, they will pass a law to make men do as they should in honoring the daughters of Eve and making wives of and providing for them. Will not this be a happy time? Yes, very fine. If you will produce this to-day, I'll tell you what I would be willing to do, I would be willing to give up half or two-thirds of my wives, or to let the whole of them go, if it was necessary, if those who should take them would lead them to eternal salvation. And then you may have my daughters, if you will only lead them in the way they should go that they may obtain eternal life; if you will teach them the gospel, how to live, how to honor their being, honor their God and live their religion. Do this and you are welcome to them. 148. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Remarks made at the funeral of Vilate Kimball by her husband, Heber C. Kimball; October 26, 1868. I have taken 40 wives and many without her knowledge but she afterwards gave them to me in the Temple. 149. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12:312; President Brigham Young; delivered in the Old Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; November 29, 1868. Our sisters need not be worried about any doctrine. Brother Penrose said it would be better for them if they believed in the doctrine of polygamy. But they do believe it; they know it is true, and that is their torment. It perplexes and annoys many of them, because they are not sanctified by the spirit of it; if they were there would be no trouble. I want to say this much-- the sisters do believe it. Where is the proof? You take a woman in this Church who does not believe in the doctrine of celestial marriage or plurality of wives, and she does not believe anything at all about the Gospel, and she will soon manifest this by her unwise course, and by and by she drops off and away she goes. But our sisters believe and know that this doctrine is true, and consequently they feel bound to abide it. 150. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Church Archives; 22 January 1869. In conversation at the feast at Sister Blackhurst Brother Joseph B. Nobles said that he performed the first Marriage Ceremony according to the Patriarchal order of Marriage ever performed in this dispensation By sealing Eliza Beman to Joseph Smith on the 6 day of May 1841. 151. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14:57-58; Elder George Q. Cannon; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; August 15, 1869. I am satisfied that there is an immense amount of misunderstanding among the people of the world with respect to the Latter-day Saints and their belief in this peculiar doctrine. It is generally believed that we have embraced it for sensual purposes, and that we are a sensual people. * * * How much easier it would be, if we were licentious, to practice licentiousness according to the popular method! Why go to the trouble and expense and incur the odium of sustaining wives and children merely to gratify licentiousness, when we could do it to the fullest extent, on the popular plan, without incurring odium or assuming responsibility and care? Read the records. . . and you may find that men can gratify their lustful desire without incurring odium. They can even destroy females by the thousands in the gratification of their sensual appetites, but because the Latter-day Saints choose to marry them, to make women and their children respected and honorable, all hell is moved against them. The devil does not like it. I will tell you a rule, brethren, sisters and friends, that I have observed through my intercourse with men, in my travels, and that is, that they who have opposed this principle most bitterly when they understood it, have been the most corrupt men, the very men who have practiced adultery and whoredom in secret; while openly, to hear them speak of our system of patriarchal marriage, one might think them immaculate; but I never found pure-minded men or women, honest and true to their God, and to their partners if they had them, but what, when they heard it explained as the Saints in this Territory understand, preach and practice it, let them believe what they might on other points, they would acknowledge that there was something god-like in that doctrine, if we carried it out as we believed it. That has been my experience. 152. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13:188-196; Orson Pratt; delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; October 7, 1869. * * * Let me say, then, that God's people, under every dispensation since the creation of the world, have, generally, been polygamists. . . . When God saw proper to call out Abraham from all the heathen nations, and made him a great man in the world, He saw proper, also, to make him a polygamist, and approbated him in taking unto himself more wives than one. Was it wrong in Abraham to do this thing? If it were, when did God reprove him for so doing? * * * When we come down to Jacob, the Lord permitted him to take four wives. They are so called in Holy Writ. They are not denominated prostitutes, neither are they called concubines, but they are called wives, legal wives; and to show that God approved of the course of Jacob in taking these wives, He blessed them abundantly, and hearkened to the prayer of the second wife just the same as the first. * * * (p. 189) . . . We have seen that in the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He approved of polygamy and blessed His servants who practised it, and also their wives and children.*** (p. 190) . . . There can be no doubt that many men in those days were compelled to be polygamists in the fulfilment of this law, for any man who would not take the childless wife of a deceased brother and marry her, would come under the tremendous curse recorded in the book of Deuteronomy, and all the people would be obliged to sanction the curse, because he would not obey the law of God and become a polygamist. . . . They were the people of God, governed by divine law, and were commanded to be polygamists; not merely suffered to be so, but actually commanded to be. * * * (p. 191) Coming down to the days of the prophets we find that they were polygamists; * * * He [the Lord] was with His servant, David the King, and blessed him. By and by, when David transgressed, not in taking other wives, but in taking the wife of another man, the anger of the Lord was kindled against him and He chastened him and took away all the blessings He had given him. All the wives David had received from the hand of God were taken from him. Why? Because he had committed adultery. Here then is a great distinction between adultery and plurality of wives. One brings honor and blessing to those who engage in it, the other degradation and death. * * * (p. 192) Let us now come to the record in the Book of Mormon. . . . The same God that commanded one branch of the house of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, "for if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;" that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I give unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him. * * * (P. 193) . . . In the fore part of the year 1832, Joseph told individuals, then in the Church, that he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for answer that the prin- ciple of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practised. * * * . . . Suffice it to say that God revealed the principle through His servant Joseph in 1843. It was known by many individuals while the Church was yet in Illinois; and though it was not then printed, it was a familiar thing through all the streets of Nauvoo, and indeed throughout all Hancock county. Did I hear about it? I verily did. Did my brethren of the Twelve know about it? They certainly did. Were there any females who knew about it? There certainly were, for some received the revelation and entered into the practice of the principle. * * * (p. 194) . . . So in regard to the revelation on plurality; it was only a short time after Joseph's death that we published it, having a copy thereof. But what became of the original? An apostate destroyed it; you have heard her name. That same woman, in destroying the original, thought she had destroyed the revelation from the face of the earth. She was embittered against Joseph, her husband, and at times fought against him with all her heart; and then again she would break down in her feelings, and humble herself before God and call upon His holy name, and would then lead forth ladies and place their hands in the hands of Joseph, and they were married to him according to the law of God. That same woman has brought up her children to believe that no such thing as plurality of wives existed in the days of Joseph, and has instilled the bitterest principles of apostacy into their minds, to fight against the Church that has come to these mountains according to the predictions of Joseph. * * * Let us speak for a few moments upon another point connected with this subject--that is, the reason why God has established polygamy under the present circumstances among this people. If all the inhabitants of the earth, at the present time, were righteous before God, and both males and females were faithful in keeping His commandments, and the numbers of the sexes of a marriageable age were exactly equal, there would be no necessity for any such institution. Every righteous man could have his wife and there would be no overplus of females. But what are the facts in relation to this matter? Since old Pagan Rome and Greece--worshippers of idols--passed a law confining man to one wife, there has been a great surplus of females who have had no possible chance of getting married. You may think this is a strange statement, but it is a fact that those nations were the founders of what is termed monogamy. All other nations, with few exceptions, had followed the Scriptural plan of having more wives than one. These nations, however, were very powerful (p. 195) and when Christianity came to them, especially the Roman nation, it had to bow to their mandates and customs, hence the Christians gradually adopted the monogamic system. The consequence was that a great many marriageable ladies of those days, and of all generations from that time to the present, have not had the privilege of husbands, as the one-wife system has been established by law among the nations descended from the great Roman empire--namely, the nations of modern Europe and the American States. This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans, for as God has implanted, for a wise purpose, certain feelings in the breasts of females as well as males, the gratification of which is necessary to health and happiness, and which can only be accomplished legitimately in the married state, myriads of those who have been deprived of the privilege of entering that state, rather than be deprived of the gratification of those feelings altogether, have, in despair, given way to wickedness and licentiousness; hence the whoredoms and prostitution among the nations of the earth, where the "Mother of Harlots" has her seat. * * * (p. 196) . . . We might go on from State to State and then to the census taken by the United States, and a vast surplus would be shown of females over males of a marriageable age. What is to be done with them? * * * "We are going to make them either old maids or prostitutes, and we would a little rather have them prostitutes, then we men would have no need to marry." That is the conclusion many of these marriageable males, between twenty and thirty years of age, have come to. They will not marry because the laws of the land have a tendency to make prostitutes, and they can purchase all the animal gratification they desire without being bound to any woman; hence many of them have mistresses, by whom they raise children, and, when they get tired of them, turn both mother and children into the street, with nothing to support them, the law allowing them to do so, because the women are not wives. Thus the poor creatures are plunged into the depths of misery, wretchedness and degradation, because at all risks they have followed the instincts implanted within them by their Creator, and not having the opportunity to do so legally have done so unlawfully. There are hundreds and thousands of (unmarried) females in this boasted land of liberty, through the narrow, contracted, bigoted State laws, preventing them from ever getting husbands. That is what the Lord is fighting against; we, also, are fighting against it, and for the re-establishment of the Bible religion and the celestial or patriarchal order of marriage. 153. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13:38-42; George A. Smith; the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; October 8, 1869. And I know, furthermore, that he [Joseph Smith] rejoiced in the fact that the law of redemption and Celestial Marriage was revealed unto the Church in such a manner that it would be out of the power of earth and hell to destroy it; * * * The Latter-day Saints believe the Bible. An agent of the American Bible Society called on me the other day and wanted to know if we would aid the Society in circulating the Bible in our Territory? I replied yes, by all means, for it was the book from which we were enabled to set forth our doctrines, and especially the doctrine of plural marriage. There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons, who suppose that they believe the Bible, that Christ, when he came, did away with plural marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy; * * * (p. 39) While we are considering this subject, we will inquire, did the Saviour in any place that we can read of, in the course of his mission on the earth, denounce a plurality of wives? He lived in a nation of Jews; the law of Moses was in force, plurality of wives was the custom, and thousands upon thousands of people, from the highest to the lowest in the land, were polygamists. The Saviour denounced adultery; he denounced fornication; he denounced lust; also divorce, but is there a single sentence asserting that plurality of wives is wrong? If so, where is it? * * * (p. 40) . . . Hundreds of Saints had more wives than one; and if it had been wrong, what would have been the result? Why, John would have denounced the practice, the same as the children of Israel were denounced for marrying heathen wives, had it not been that the law of plurality was the commandment of God. * * * If plurality of wives had been a violation of the seventh commandment those prophets would have denounced it, otherwise their silence on the matter would have been dangerous to themselves, inasmuch as the blood of the people would have been required at their hands. The opposers of Celestial Marriage sometimes quote (p. 41) a passage in the seventh chapter of Romans, second and third verses, to show that a plurality of wives is wrong; but when we come to read the passage it shows that a plurality of husbands is wrong. You can read that passage for yourselves. * * * A reference to the Scriptures shows that the reproach of women was to be barren, . . . The law regulating marriage previous to Moses, recognized a plurality of wives. Abraham and Jacob and others had a plurality. These are the men who are referred to in Scriptures as patterns of piety and purity. David had many wives. The Scripture says that David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, ... (p. 42) We will now inquire in relation to the Saviour himself. From whom did he descend? From the house of David a polygamist; . . . Then if plural marriage be adultery and the offspring spurious, Christ Jesus is not the Christ; and we must look for another. * * * Those who denounce Patriarchal Marriage will have to stay without and never walk the golden streets. And any man or woman that lifts his or her voice to proclaim against a plurality of wives, under the Government of God, will have to seek an inheritance outside of that city. * * * Is not the man that denounces Celestial Marriage a liar? Does he not work abomination? 154. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13:197-208; George Q. Cannon; the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; October 9, 1869. We have heard, during Conference, a great many precious instructions, and in none have I been more interested than in those which have been given to the Saints concerning that much mooted doctrine called Patriarchal or Celestial Marriage. I am interested in this doctrine, because I see salvation, temporal and spiritual, embodied therein. * * * I wish, here, to make one remark in connection with this subject--that while there is abundant proof to be found in the Scriptures and elsewhere in support of this doctrine, still it is not because it was practiced four thousand years ago by the servants and people of God, or because it has been practiced by any people or nation in any period of the world's history, that the Latter-day Saints have adopted it and made it part of their practice, but it is because God, our heavenly Father, has revealed it unto us. If there were no record of its practice to be found, and if the Bible, Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine and Covenants were totally silent in respect to this doctrine, it would nevertheless be binding upon us as a people, God Himself having given a revelation for us to practice it at the present time.*** (p.200) In the monogamic system, under which the possession of more than one living wife is regarded as such a crime, and as being so fearfully immoral, how could the promise of the Savior to his faithful followers, that they should have a hundred-fold of wives and children, in this present life, ever be realized? * * * God revealed that strait and narrow way to Abraham, and taught him how he could enter therein. He taught him the principle of plurality of wives; Abraham practiced it and bequeathed it to his children as a principle which they were to practice. * * * There is nothing with which the Latter-day Saints can, with more confidence, refer to the Scriptures for confirmation and support, than the doctrine of plural marriage, which at the present time, among one of the most wicked, adulterous and corrupt generations the world has ever seen, is so much hated, and for which mankind generally are so anxious to cast out and persecute the Latter-day Saints. * * * (p. 201) It is necessary that this principle should be practiced under the auspices and control of the Priesthood. God has placed that Priesthood in the Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this is a principle which, if not practiced in the greatest holiness and purity, (p. 202) might lead men into great sin, therefore the Priesthood is the more necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this principle. There might be circumstances and situations in which it would not be wisdom in the mind of God for His people to practice this principle, but so long as a people are guided by the Priesthood and revelations of God, there is no danger of evil arising therefrom. If we, as a people, had attempted to practice this principle without revelation, it is likely that we would have been led into grievous sins, and the condemnations of God would have rested upon us; but the Church waited until the proper time came, and then the people practiced it according to the mind and will of God, making a sacrifice of their own feelings in so doing. * * * Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her. * * * (p. 203) . . . The Romans did not believe in plurality of wives, but in divorcing them; in taking wives for convenience and putting them away when they got tired of them. In our country divorces are increasing, yet Roman like, men expect purity and chastity from their wives they do not practice themselves. * * * It [the monogamic system] had reached Palestine in the days of the Savior, hence by understanding the practices prevalent in those times amongst that people, you will be better able to appreciate the strong language used by Jesus against putting away, or divorcing wives. * * * (p. 204) We have received the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, the principles of which elevate all who honor them, and will impart to our sisters every blessing necessary to make them noble and good in the presence of God and man. Look at the efforts which are being made to elevate the sex among the Latter-day Saints! * * * The practice in the world is to select a few of the sex and to elevate them. There is no country in the world, probably, where women are idolized to the extent they are in the United States. But is the entire sex in the United States thus honored and respected? No, it is not. Any person who will travel, and observe while he is travelling, will find that thousands of women are degraded and treated as something very vile, and are terribly debased in consequence of the practices of men towards them. But the Gospel of Jesus and the revelations which God has given unto us concerning Patriarchal Marriage have a tendency to elevate the entire sex, and give all the privilege of being honored matrons and respected wives. There are no refuse among us--no class to be cast out, scorned and condemned; but every woman who chooses can be an honored wife and move in society in the enjoyment of every right which woman should enjoy to make her the equal of man as far as she can be his equal. This is the result of the revelation of the Gospel unto us, and the effect of the preaching and practice of this principle in our midst. * * * (p. 205) You, sisters, whose husbands have taken other wives, can you not bear testimony that the principle has purified your hearts, made you less selfish, brought you nearer to God and given you power you never had before? There are hundreds within the sound of my voice to-day, both men and women, who can testify that this has been the effect that the practice of this principle has had upon them. I am speaking now of what are called the spiritual benefits arising from the righteous practice of this principle. * * * (p. 206) The practice of this principle is by no means without its trials for the males. The difficulties and perplexities connected with the care of a numerous family, to a man who has any ambition, are so great that nothing short of the revelations of God or the command of Jesus Christ would tempt men to enter this order; the mere increase of facilities to gratify the lower passions of our natures would be no inducement to assume such an increase of grave responsibilities. * * * I know it is true on the principle that I know that baptism, the laying on of hands, the gathering, and everything connected with the Gospel is true. If there (p. 207) were no books in existence, if the revelations itself were blotted out, and there was nothing written in its favor, extant among men, still I could bear testimony for myself that I know this is a principle which, if practiced in purity and virtue, as it should be, will result in the exaltation and benefit of the human family; and that it will exalt woman until she is redeemed from the effects of the Fall, and from that curse pronounced upon her in the beginning. I believe the correct practice of this principle will redeem woman from the effects of that curse--namely, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." All the evils connected with jealousy have their origin in this. It is natural for woman to cleave to man; it was pronounced upon her in the beginning, seemingly as a punishment. I believe the time will come when, by the practice of the virtuous principles which God has revealed, woman will be emancipated from that punishment and that feeling. Will she cease to love man? No, it is not necessary for her to cease to love. How is it among the nations of the earth? Why, women, in their yearning after the other sex and in their desire for maternity, will do anything to gratify that instinct of their nature and yield to anything and be dishonored even rather than not gratify it; and in consequence of that which has been pronounced upon them, they are not held accountable to the same extent as men are. Man is strong, he is the head of woman, and God will hold him responsible for the use of the influence he exercises over the opposite sex. . . . the faithful man may receive the power of God--the greatest He has ever bestowed upon man--namely, the power of procreation. * * * We were told there is a glory to which alone that power will be accorded in the life to come. Still there will be millions of women saved in the kingdom of God, while men, through the abuse of this precious gift, will not be counted worthy of such a privilege. And this very punishment will, in the end, be woman's salvation, because she is not held accountable to the same degree that men are. * * * (p. 208) But in connection with the subject of plural marriage, the Priesthood is intimately interwoven. 155. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; February 2, 1870. Brother John Holemen made a long speech. . . . He contended that no person could have a celestial glory unless he had a plurality of wives. President Young said there would be men saved in the celestial kingdom of God with one wife, with many wives, and with no wife at all. 156. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13:309; President Brigham Young; Tabernacle, Ogden City; November 13, 1870. [Lord = Father] The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children; but at any rate they filled the Temple, and how many there were who could not get into the Temple I cannot say. This is the account given by Isaiah, whether he told the truth or not I leave every body to judge for himself. The Bible also says the Lord talked with Moses; He talked with the rich and the poor, the noble and ignoble. He sent His angels, and at last sent His Son, who was in the express image of the Father--His Only Begotten Son, according to the flesh, here on this earth. 157. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; CHO/Ms/f/115; July 15, 1871. President Young said he wished all who had a plurality of wives to make their will, and thought it well for all men to do so. 158. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; September 24, 1871. President Young spoke 58 minutes. He said a man may embrace the law of Celestial marriage in his heart & not take the second wife & be justified before the Lord. 159. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14:268-269; Elder John Taylor; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; December 17, 1871. We believe in the great truths which God has revealed for the salvation of the human family; we are engaged in building up and establishing (p. 269) the Kingdom of God on the earth. The great Eloheim is our father, friend and benefactor; we lean upon his arm, and we know that he will guide and direct, influence and control the affairs of his people, therefore we rely upon him. We have engaged in nothing but what we have been directed by the Almighty in, except some of us who have got aside into transgression. We are married to our wives and don.t want any other associations. We respect and honor them, we cleave unto them, and we will do so in time and throughout all eternity. (Congregation said "amen.") Some of our miserable apostates may shake and tremble in their boots when somebody at the East tells them what is going to come. They may break their covenants with God and their wives, and forsake them. We are not afraid of these things, we have learned a lesson, not in their school. We can.t forsake those whom God has given to us, but we will cleave to them for ever and for ever, worlds without end. 160. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 15:27-29; George A. Smith; the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday, May 19, 1872. "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach. "In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. "And it shall come to pass that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem." The portion of the prophecy of Isaiah which I have read indicates that at a certain day and under certain circumstances, spoken of by the Prophet as being holy, seven women would claim to be called by the name of one man. Most of us have a different opinion with regard to the application of this prophecy. God inspired the Prophet, and it might be necessary, peradventure, to inquire what it all means. Seven women (p. 28) are to lay hold of one man, saying, "We will eat out own bread and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." What is the meaning of this last sentiment? We will let the Bible explain it. You remember that when Rachel, the second wife of Jacob, the father of the tribes of Israel, found herself barren, while the other wives of her husband were bearing children, she prayed to the Lord that he, in his abundant mercy, would give her children, and when God heard her prayer and worked a miracle in her favor, causing her who was barren to become fruitful and bring forth a child, she said, God had taken away her reproach. This illustrates the meaning of the text. I did not make the prophecy, neither had I anything to do with making the history of Rachel, or even chronicling the event named. In relation to Father Jacob, it is true he had four wives, and they bore him twelve sons, and their descendants are the twelve tribes of Israel. We are told by the Apostle John that the names of Jacob's twelve sons--the sons of a polygamist and his four wives--will be written upon the gates of the holy Jerusalem; and there are none of us who expect to enter in through those gates but will have to acknowledge the truth of that doctrine. It is true that the principle of plurality of wives was adopted by the Church of Latter-day Saints in consequence of the revelation and commandment which God gave to Joseph Smith, and which, through him, were laid upon the heads of this people; and we quote the passages that we do quote, in relation to the principle of celestial marriage from the Old and New Testament, to prove that God is consistent with himself; that if he revealed to his Saints in the last days, the doctrine of plurality of wives, it was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah and others of the Prophets, and in accordance with the example which was set by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and by holy men of ancient days. ln relation to the word "reproach" in our text, I will make another reference. In the first chapter of Luke's Gospel, verses 23 and 24, we find Elizabeth rejoicing because God had taken away her reproach. She though she had been barren, became the mother of John the Baptist. These passages tell in so many plain words why it was that seven women wished to be called by the name of one man--it was that they might have the privilege of bearing children. Now, if God brings to pass this prophecy in the glorious day which our text speaks of, when holiness and righteousness are to rule, and when truth is to have dominion, and peace dwell in the earth, although all the world may have been opposed to it, we can not be responsible. Until some person can find a passage in the Old or New Testament that definitely forbids a plurality of wives, with the many incidents of history, items of law, and declarations of Prophets in relation to the practice by the ancient Saints of that doctrine, we are able to assert that the Bible is a polygamous book, and that no man can believe it without believing plurality of wives, under some circumstances to be correct. I know it has been said that the Old Testament permitted plurality of wives, but the New forbids it. The Savior said he came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it, and that not a jot or tittle of the law or Prophets should pass away, but all should be fulfilled. The new dispensation did not annihilate the principles of law and right, as revealed in the Old. Both John the (p. 29) Baptist and the Savior denounced all sins with an unsparing hand, and especially adultery, fornication and divorce; and not a sentence is found in the New Testament which prohibits plurality of wives, though the Savior and his Apostles lived in a country where it was practised; and it is impossible to believe that if it were a sin it would have escaped definite rebuke and absolute condemnation. 161. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16:122-123; President Brigham Young; the Bowery, Logan City; Sunday Morning, June 29, 1873. Brother George Q. Cannon says the sisters have borne a great deal. So they have, but if they could only stand in the shoes of their husbands who are good, true and faithful, they would know that they are by no means free from perplexities. Just fancy a man with two, three, or half (p. 123) a dozen of his beloved wives catching him on one side, and before he can take three steps more, catching him on the other, and "I want this," "I want that," and "this is not right," and "that is not right," and so on; their minds just pulled to pieces. I say if the hair is spared on their heads they may consider that they have got blessed good wives. I have as many wives as many other men, and I keep my hair yet. But as to trials, why bless your hearts, the man or woman who enjoys the spirit of our religion has no trials; but the man or woman who tries to live according to the Gospel of the Son of God, and at the same time clings to the spirit of the world, has trials and sorrows acute and keen, and that, too, continually. 162. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16:166-167; President Brigham Young; Bowery, Paris, Oneida County, Idaho; Sunday, August 31, 1873. Joseph received a revelation on celestial marriage. You will recollect, brethren and sisters, that it was in July, 1843, that he received this revelation concerning celestial marriage. This doctrine was explained and many received it as far as they could understand it. Some apostatized on account of it; but others did not, and received it in their faith. This, also, is a great and noble doctrine. * * * As far as this pertains to our natural lives here, there are some who say it is very hard. They say, "This is rather a hard business; I don.t like my husband to take a plurality of wives in the flesh." Just a few words upon this. We would believe this doctrine entirely different from what it is presented to us, if we could do so. If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives. The women are entitled to salvation if they live according to the word that is given to them; and if their husbands are good men, and they are obedient to them, they are entitled to certain blessings, and they will have the privilege of receiving certain blessings that they cannot receive unless they are sealed to men who will be exalted. 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 for ever and ever. But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. Well, that is very good, a very nice place to be a minister to the wants of others. 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, if I ever do get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor that I wish to perform. 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, (p. 167) "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. Now, sisters, do not say, "I do not want a husband when I get up in the resurrection." You do not know what you will want. I tell this so that you can get the idea. If in the resurrection you really want to be single and alone, and live so forever and ever, and be made servants, while others receive the highest order of intelligence and are bringing worlds into existence, you can have the privilege. They who will be exalted cannot perform all the labor, they must have servants and you can be servants to them. The female portion of the human family have blessings promised to them if they are faithful. I do not know what the Lord could have put upon women worse than he did upon Mother Eve, where he told her: "Thy desire shall be to thy husband." Continually wanting the husband. "If you go to work my eyes follow you; if you go away in the carriage, my eyes follow you, and I like you and I love you; I delight in you and I desire you should have nobody else." I do not know that the Lord could have put upon women anything worse than this, I do not blame them for having these feelings. I would be glad if it were otherwise. Says a woman of faith and knowledge, "I will make the best of it; it is a law that man shall rule over me; his word is my law, and I must obey him; he must rule over me; this is upon me and I will submit to it," and by so doing she has promises that others do not have. * * * If the men of the world would be honest and full of good works, you would not see them living as they do. And the women are entitled to the kingdom, they are entitled to the glory, they are entitled to exaltation if they are obedient to the Priesthood, and they will be crowned with those that are crowned. When Father Adam came to assist in organizing the earth out of the crude material that was found, an earth was made upon which the children of men could live. After the earth was prepared Father Adam came and stayed here, and there was a woman brought to him. * * * There was a certain woman brought to Father Adam whose name was Eve, because she was the first woman, and she was given to him to be his wife; I am not disposed to give any farther knowledge concerning her at present. There is no doubt but that he left many companions. 163. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 17:100; President George A. Smith; New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday, May 24, 1874. There is one ground of complaint that is alleged against us here, and that is, we believe in a plurality of wives. A great many men and women have practiced this principle rigidly, in all good faith; and until we can find some man who can show us a single passage in either the Old or New Testament, that actually prohibits it, we feel justified in following the examples of Prophets, Patriarchs, and holy men, fathers of the faithful, believing that if it were right in their case it can not be wrong in ours. We are told that the Old Testament sets forth such an example, but that the New Testament condemns it, for that the Savior did it away. The only question I would ask in reference to this subject is--If the Savior did away with plural marriage, why didn't he say so? If the Apostles put it down why did they not tell us of it? In the last two chapters of the Bible we have an account of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, the gates of which we are told are to be named after the twelve sons of four wives by one father; and if we enter the gates of that city we face this polygamy, and if we can not face this polygamy we cannot enter the gates into the city. So we understand the New Testament. 164. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 17:159-160; Brigham Young; Meeting House, Lehi, Utah; Sunday, August 9, 1874. Now Latter-day Saints, 1 want to say this to you, when a man lifts his heel against the counsel that we give him, I know that man will apostatize, just as sure as he is a living being, unless he repents and refrains from such conduct. Brother George A. Smith has been reading a little out of the revelation concerning celestial marriage, and I want to say to my sisters that if you lift your heels against this revelation, and say that you would obliterate it, and put it out of existence if you had the power to nullify and destroy it, I say that if you imbibe that spirit and feeling, you will go to hell, just as sure as you are living women. Emma took that revelation, supposing she had all there was; but Joseph had wisdom enough to take care of it, and he had handed the revelation to Bishop Whitney, and he wrote it all off. After Joseph had been to Bishop Whitney's he went home, and Emma began teasing for the revelation. Said she--"Joseph, you promised me that revelation, and if you are a man of your word you will give it to me." Joseph took it from his pocket and said- -"Take it." She went to the fireplace and put it in, and put the candle under it and burnt it, and she thought that was the end of it, and she will be damned as sure as she is a living woman. Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her. You sisters may say that plural marriage is very hard for you to bear. It is no such thing. * * * If it is the duty of a husband to take a wife, take her. But it is not the privilege of a woman to dictate the husband, and tell who or how many he shall take, or what he shall do with them when he gets them, but it is the duty of the woman to submit cheerfully. Says she--"May [sic] husband does not know how to conduct himself, he lacks wisdom--he does (p. 160) not know how to treat two wives and be just." That all may be true, but it is not her prerogative to correct the evil, she must bear that; and the woman that bears wrong--and any number of them do in this order--patiently, will be crowned with a man far above her husband; and the man that is not worthy, and who does not prove himself worthy before God, his wife or wives will be taken from him and given to another, so the women need not worry. It is the man who has need to worry and watch himself, and see that he does right. 165. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 17:214-225; Orson Pratt; the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Wednesday, October 7, 1874. It will be recollected that this law was given to a polygamic nation. When I speak of a polygamic nation, I mean a nation that practised both plural and single (p. 215) marriage, and believed one form to be just as sacred as the other. Their progenitors or ancestors were polygamists; and they were considered patterns for all future generations. * * * They were not only examples to the Jewish nation, but in their seed, the seed of these polygamists, all the nations and kingdoms of the earth were to be blessed. I hope that pious Christians in this congregation will not find fault this afternoon with their Bible, and with the Prophets and inspired men who wrote it. I hope that they will not find fault with God for selecting polygamists to be his friends. I hope that they will not find fault with Jesus because he said, some two thousand years or upwards after the days of these polygamists, that they were in the kingdom of God, and were not condemned because of polygamy. * * * (P. 219) Read along a little further, and it says--"Cursed be he that continues not in all things written in this book of the law." Oh, what a dreadful penalty that was. . . . Oh, what a fearful curse upon a man that refused to become a polygamist, and would not attend to the law of God! * * * (p. 220) We can.t help it; polygamy belongs to Christianity, as well as to the law of Moses. * * * (p. 221) God has said that seven women shall take hold of one man for the purpose of having their reproach taken away, that they may be called by his name, not cast off as harlots or prostitutes; not to take away the name of the father from the children, and cast them into the streets, as the Christian nations have been doing for many long centuries that are past. But these seven women will be desirous of having the name of their husband for themselves and their children. * * * Forbear, do not destroy the Bible because it advocates polygamy; but remember that every word of God is pure, so it is declared; and he has nowhere in this book, condemned plural marriage, even in one instance. * * * (p. 223) Now I wish to come directly to the point in regard to polygamy as it exists at the present time among the Latter-day Saints. I stated in the beginning of my remarks, that polygamy, or any other institution that was given at one age, might not be binding upon another, without a fresh revelation from God. * * * I still say, that we are not under the necessity of practicing polygamy because God gave laws and commandments for its observance and regulation in ancient times. Why then do the Latter-day Saints practice polygamy? * * * It is because we believe, with all the sincerity of our hearts. . . that the Lord God who gave revelations to Moses approbating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day Saints, not only approbating it, but commanding it, as he commanded Israel in ancient times. * * * (p. 224) . . . I want to say a few words in regard to the revelation on polygamy. God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle. . . . 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; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. * * * 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 from 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. * * * I will go on and tell the people why polygamy was instituted in this dispensation. So far as a future state is concerned, God has revealed to us that marriage as instituted by him, is to benefit the people, not in this world only, but to all eternity. 166. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 18:54-56; Orson Pratt; New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday afternoon, July 11, 1875. For instance, here is a good young man who courts up a wife in the kingdom of God. He says to her, "Let us go and be married for time and all eternity, according to the requirements of heaven." Very well; they are agreed in it; they attend to the ordinance, and it is sealed upon their heads and recorded (p. 55) for their benefit. We will say that, in the course of two or three months after this marriage, some accident befalls the wife and she dies. They loved each other and were married for all eternity, and he mourns over the fact that in his youth, in the very prime of his manhood, he is left alone, a widower. Now is it right for him to marry another wife after having been married to one for time and for all eternity? Is it right for him again to receive a young lady for a wife? "Oh, yes," you answer, "it is perfectly right, because that would not be living with two on the earth at the same time." Very well, he goes and marries again; and now the question arises, suppose that they only marry for time, or until death shall part them--we will suppose this, because the man already has a wife on the other side of the vail- - what is to become of the second wife in the morning of the resurrection? Can you answer that question? If he only marries her for time, she has no husband when the resurrection comes. Perhaps she is just as good a woman as the wife the man married first for all eternity. What are you going to do with her? Shall she be left in a condition where she can have no posterity, no endless increase, no kingdom in connection with a husband, and no husband? Shall she be left throughout all the future ages of eternity without any such privilege, while the first wife, no better than she is, is married for all eternity, and inherits all the blessings arising therefrom? Would not there be partiality in this? There certainly would. How are you going to remedy this? We answer, when this widower takes this second wife, let her also be married to him for time and all eternity, the same as the first; then, by and by, when the resurrection comes, there come up the two women. What will you do then? This introduces plurality into the next life, does it not? Polygamists in the next world? It certainly does; and these two women, both having received this man as their husband for all eternity, one of them will now be in just as good a condition as the other. Let this principle be extended. There are some cases in life where two women might die, and a man be still left in his young days without a wife, and he marries a third and perhaps a fourth; in the resurrection they are contemporaneously his wives. Plurality, therefore, would be perfectly consistent in the world to come, but, "Oh," says a sectarian, "how awful it is in this world!" Thus you see that the very moment we admit the eternity of marriage, the very moment that we admit that Adam and Eve were immortal beings, when they were married, and we undertake to follow that pattern, plurality necessarily comes along; either marriage has no bearing upon eternity, and no bearing upon immortality and immortal beings, or else plurality of wives necessarily must exist in eternity. Says one--"Turn it about the other way, then we shall have plurality of husbands." Let me say to the congregation that the object of marriage is to fulfill the commandment which God gave to immortal beings. Could a woman multiply faster by having two husbands? Everybody knows that in this respect there is a difference between the male and the female. In this life, at any rate, if one woman had two husbands, instead of making her more fruitful, the probability is that it would prevent her raising an offspring at all; and if she did, how would the father be known? And hence, God has strictly forbidden, in (p. 56) this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law. * * * "But then," says one, "polygamy is a crime." Who told you so? Does the Bible tell you so? Oh no, neither the Old nor the New Testament; no Prophet, no revelator, no Apostle, no man of God, nor Jesus himself, nor any angel ever denounced it as a crime, but on the contrary they advocated it, and the Lord himself administered in this divine ordinance. He gave to Jacob his four wives and children, so Jacob tells us in Genesis. 167. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 18:375; Elder Lorenzo Snow; in the temple, St. George; Thursday, April 5, 1877. The principles of Plural Marriage were revealed for the benefit and exaltation of the children of men, but how much unhappiness has arisen through failure, on the part of some who have contracted this order of marriage, to conform to the laws that govern it! But does it arise through any defect in the order of the marriage system? 0 no; but from ignorance and the folly and wickedness of those individuals who enter into it, who abuse, rather than righteously obey, it. 168. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20:37-39; George Q. Cannon; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday, July 7, 1878. A knowledge of the true condition of affairs in this Territory is gradually growing, and although it may be but slowly, it is of faster growth than we generally imagine. This is especially true of that much abused principle called plural marriage. It is becoming recognized in its true light, and people are beginning, as I never heard them before in my exper- ience, to talk about it and reflect upon it, often alluding to it in a way that shows that a better understanding of the subject is steadily spreading among the people. And there is a reason for this: this question has been so much agitated. It is a remarkable fact that every publication against this doctrine of the Latter-day Saints has the effect to spread the knowledge of it among the people and it makes men and women reflect upon it. * * * And no true doctrine need ever fear being assailed and denounced; for it will emerge from the conflict brighter and better understood than it otherwise would appear. * * * Because there are some men and some women who reflect upon these things, and who will contrast that which they hear of us, with that which exists in their midst. And when they see a man stand up boldly and say, "we believe in plural marriage; we do not believe in prostitution; we do not suffer women to become the slaves of men's lusts; but believe they ought to become honored wives and mothers, and that children ought to be educated and provided for and called by the name of their father, and at their father's death his property be equally divided among them even though their mothers should be plural wives." When they hear this, they cannot help thinking about such a condition of affairs; and they say, there is a moral courage which these people evince in this matter that is admirable. I have had it said to me often times, by both sexes, that it is better that we should live as we do, than such practices as exist elsewhere should come in our midst. * * * The opinion which some entertain who take their views from the slanderous reports published about us, is that we are a licentious people, who take wives (p. 38) to gratify lust. * * * A prominent gentleman with whom I recently conversed, entertained that opinion. I said to him, after conversing a little while: Sir, you believe the people of Utah are bad and licentious, and that they degrade women by their system of plural marriage. Let me ask you, if their purposes were only sensual, have they any occasion in this day to marry women? Could they not accomplish sensual ends much easier, cheaper, and without creating any especial remark by not marry women and not caring for and educating and legitimatizing their children? There are practices which prevail in society, and which are not unpopular if a certain degree of secrecy be observed which a licentious people could avail themselves of, without the trouble, care, expense and responsibility of marriage. What is the crime of which the people of Utah are accused? It is that of marrying women! It is not that of seducing or debauching them.* * * Not one word of condemnation, nor penalty of any character, is proposed for the seducer, or the vile betrayer of female innocence; he is to walk up to the polls and vote unchallenged; but the man who marries women, and maintains them honorably and virtuously, sustaining family and parental relations in all purity and sacredness, is to be disfranchised and visited with other pains and penalties! * * * If they were not a conscientious people, with strong moral and religious convictions, they would not risk becoming martyrs, as they do, for the sake of marrying women, when, if they followed the usual practice of the age, they could get them without marrying. He frankly acknowledged that what I had said had given him a new view of the case, and he admitted that if the gratification of sensual desires were our object, we could reach that without marriage and without exciting any particular odium. * * * Upon one occasion, while purchasing machinery in the East, he [Bro. Horace S. Eldredge] called upon a firm in Providence, Rhode Island, to whom he brought a letter of introduction. One of the members of the firm, after carrying him in his carriage to see the various objects of interest in the city, brought him back to his place of business and introduced him to his partner. This gentleman had a number of inquires to make respecting Utah and its people, and soon learned that Bro Eldredge (p. 39) was a "Mormon." After stating that he understood that the "Mormons" believed in marrying more than one wife, to which Bro. Eldredge replied in the affirmative, he asked if he himself had more than one, to which he again responded affirmatively. He then asked how many he had. To this bro. Eldredge replied: "I have such a plenty of my own that I have no occasion to trouble my neighbors.; and that is more than a great many in the land of steady habits can say." 169. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20:26-31; Elder Joseph F. Smith; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday Morning, July 7 1878. In the first place, it is a principle that savors of life unto life, or of death unto death; therefore it is well for those who have embraced the Gospel to obtain a knowledge in relation to this matter. It is a principle that pertains to eternal life, in other words, to endless lives, or eternal increase. It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment, not only so given in this dispensation, but particularly adapted to the conditions and necessities thereof, and to the circumstances, responsibilities, and personal, as well as vicarious duties of the people of God in this age of the world. God has revealed it as a principle particularly (p. 27) suited to the nature of the work we are called to perform, that it might be hastened to its consummation. It is a righteous principle not an unrighteous one. It is a pure and holy principle; and, therefore, persons, either male or female, who have not the desire in their hearts to become pure and righteous, have no business to practice it, for it cannot be practiced acceptably before God on any other principle than that of purity and righteousness, therefore no wicked unjust or impure person can enter into the law of celestial or plural marriage without incurring the displeasure of the Almighty and his own condemnation before the Lord, unless he speedily repent of all his impure motives and designs. A man that is not honest in his heart, who does not desire to be just and impartial, even as God is just and impartial, has no business in plural marriage; and before he enters into the practice of that principle he needs to repent, to learn wisdom, to get the Spirit of God, to get understanding in relation to the purpose God has in view in regard to this principle; that he may go into the practise of it understandingly, that his heart and mind may be set upon practising it in righteousness. * * * (P. 28) The principle is correct, great, ennobling and calculated to bring joy, satisfaction and peace, if we would but observe and practice it as we should. * * * Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. * * * The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturally shrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed upon him; foreseeing, as he did in part, the apparently insurmountable difficulties in the way of establishing it, in the face of popular opinion, the traditions and customs of many generations, the frowns, ridicule, slander, opposition and persecution of the world. Yes, this man of God, who dared to meet the opposition of the whole world with bold and fearless front, who dared to dispute the religious authority and accumulated learning and wisdom of the age--who dared everything for the truth, and shrank not even from (p. 29) the sacrifice of his own life in testimony of his divine mission, shrank, in his feelings, from the weight of the responsibility of inaugurating and establishing this new innovation upon the established customs of the world. But he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine. To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare that the principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the publication, by 0. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery. When the revelation was written, in 1843, it was for a special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form. * * * Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared that there was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would be revealed in due time, but this was sufficient for the occasion, and was made to suffice for the time. And, indeed, I think it much more than many are prepared to live up to even now. When the time came to introduce this doctrine to those who were worthy in the church, God commanded the Prophet and he obeyed. He taught it as he was commanded to such as were prepared to receive and obey it, and they were commanded to enter into it, or they were threatened that the keys would be turned against them, and they would be cut off by the Almighty. It need scarcely be said that the Prophet found no one any more willing to lead out in this matter in righteousness than he was himself. Many could see it--nearly all to whom he revealed it believed it, and received the witness of the Holy Spirit that it was of God; but none excelled, or even matched the courage of the Prophet himself. If, then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not enter into and establish the practice of it upon the earth, it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than (p. 30) one, being equally faithful. Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles, which must so far exceed those of monogamy as the conditions responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is my view and testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that should be taught and understood. The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order of marriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally by the wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divine law, but upon physiological and scientific principles. In the latter view, the wives are even more benefitted, if possible, than the husband physically. But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes, and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, are immensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage than in monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriage covenant. * * * It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple of God to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time and all eternity by the Authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the power of God, for they who are thus joined together "no man can put asunder," for God hath joined them. It is an additional privilege for that same man and wife to re-enter the Temple (P. 31) of God to receive another wife in like manner if they are worthy. But if he remain faithful with only the one wife, observing the conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the eternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the benefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithful and fuller observance of the law, he never will receive, for he cannot. As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. This is just and righteous. * * * I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. * * * This law is in force upon the inhabitants of Zion, and he that is qualified to obey it cannot neglect or disregard it with impunity. But it must be observed in righteousness. 170. Journal of Eliza M. Partridge (Smith) Lyman, pp. 92-94; 1879. It is now about thirty-six years since the Prophet Joseph Smith taught to me the principles of Celestial Marriage. I was then married by the order and have raised a family of both sons and daughters in what is called Polygamy, and I am not afraid to say that it is one of the most pure and holy principles that has ever been revealed to the LDS, and one that is necessary to our exaltation. * * * Then let us rejoice my Sisters, that we are numbered with the People of God, that we have embraced the Celestial Order of Marriage, and happy shall we be in a coming day if we have never spoken lightly of sacred things. 171. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20:198-201; George Q. Cannon; April 6, 1879. . . . It is a most difficult thing to get these Latter-day Saints to understand the principles that are as plain as the noonday sun--that they should receive readily, and why? Because, as I have said, they are heirs of the traditions of centuries that have come down through the dark ages. It is a wonderful thing to do what we have done respecting woman. Look at what monogamy has done. Look at its effects; trace its influence from the death of the Apostles, or soon afterwards, down to this the nineteenth century, and what do we behold? Why, in every generation a large percentage of our sisters has been consigned either to that nameless condition of which it is a shame to speak, or have died without ever knowing the joys of maternity. * * * (p. 199) For the sake of illustrating the point. Here are men and women in equal numbers and equal proportions, one sex not outnumbering the other--a man for a woman and a woman for a man, no surplus of women, no surplus of men. If they were to marry, each would have a partner, each man would have a wife and each woman would have a husband; each would be perfect, for the man is not perfect without the woman, nor the woman without the man. We turn in and make a law, such as prevailed at one time in Rome that every man shall marry a wife. Such a law was made at Rome at one time; it was aimed at celibacy. It was aimed at a certain class as the law of 1862 was aimed at us. One was enacted to prevent marriage, the other to compel marriage, that no class of men should grow up in the community without wives, and that no woman should be allowed to forsake man and become a nun. * * * Every woman is provided with a husband, and every man with a wife. But after a while somebody comes along and says, "I do not like this law, it is oppressive; I know, for instance, where it works very badly; I know men who do not want to have wives." They prefer a single life, and they succeed after a while in repealing the law, as they did in Rome. The law is repealed and men are at liberty to marry or not as they please. On the top of this another law is enacted, in effect that every man shall have but one wife, and shall not be permitted to take two or more wives. The women, of course, have to do just as the men say, they cannot compel the men to marry them, but must wait until they are invited to marry. This law suits a great many individuals. Many men say, "I prefer not to have a wife and especially if you will only make a law confining the men to marry but one wife each. I like that very well, because I will not then be under the necessity of keeping a wife. If I want a partner, an associate, I can have one without being at the trouble or expense of keeping her as such. Because if (P. 200) you confine marriage to one man and one woman there will neces- sarily be a share of the women who cannot be married; that is, if the sexes are equal in numbers. Then I can do as I please. I know the confiding nature of woman; I know how she loves, how she clings to the object of her love. This will by my opportunity." But what shall be said respecting the women. The men so far as they are concerned, have the right to marry or not as they please. But here is a large percentage of the women who by this law are to a certain extent deprived from marrying, even supposing the sexes to be equal. A civil commotion arises. Men go to war, they go to sea, they engage in commercial pursuits, they leave their homes, they engage in hazardous occupations. The result is that though in the beginning the men and women were equal in numbers, by the effects of war, and of engaging in hazardous pursuits which women do not follow, the men die and are killed, and the women survive and outnumber the males. The operation of a law then, such as I have described, increases the hardship, increases the percentage of those who are not married and who have no opportunity of marrying. Here comes along a man after witnessing the evils that have grown up among his brothers and sisters, and says, "I have a plan to suggest which I believe will cure the evils that exist among us. I see that a dreadful vice called prostitution has crept into our midst, and arising from it are dreadful diseases, diseases that I cannot describe, so appalling are they that the very thought of them makes the heart recoil with horror; they have appeared in our family circle and they are destroying our young men and women. And now then, the plan that I have to propose to our family is this, that every man shall marry until all the women are married, until every woman that wants a husband shall have one, so that the men who will not marry shall not have a class of unmarried women, to prey upon, to commit violence with, or to prostitute. "Now," says he, "if you let all these men and women marry, there will be some women who will not want to marry, but that proportion will be very small; and by this means you will arrest this dreadful evil that is growing in our midst." * * * I would say, as a father, if I had a family of that kind, by all means let my daughters marry, let every woman have a husband that wants one. Then if every man marries a wife, they will only have a wife apiece; but if there should be any of the boys that do not want wives, the girls would not necessarily go without husbands. I consider our false tradition upon this subject one of the greatest evils at the present time that exists upon the earth. It has come down to us from the Greeks and Romans, than whom a more abominable lot of people never lived upon the earth. * * * (p. 201) The fairest of Earth's daughters fall yearly sacrifices to the abominable lusts of men. 172. "Historical Record", Vol. 6:224, by Andrew Jensen; Eliza R. Snow, a wife of Joseph Smith, the Prophet; Affidavit published in the Deseret News; October 22, 1879. Recently, to my great astonishment, I read an article headed 'Last Testimony of Sister Emma,' published in the Saints' Advocate, a pamphlet issued in Plano, Ill. In the article referred to, her son Joseph reports himself as interviewing his mother on the subject of polygamy, asking questions concerning his father. Did his father teach the principle? Did he practice or approve of it? Did his father have other wives than herself? To all of these and similar inquiries, Sister Emma is represented as answering in the negative, positively affirming that Joseph, the Prophet, had no other wife or wives than her; that he neither taught the principle of plurality of wives, publicly or privately. I once dearly loved 'Sister Emma,' and now, for me to believe that she, a once highly honored woman, should have sunk so low, even in her own estimation, as to deny what she knew to be true, seems a palpable absurdity. If what purports to be her .last testimony. was really her testimony, she died with a libel on her lips--a libel against her husband--against his wives-- against the truth, and a libel against God; and in publishing that libel, her son has fastened a stigma on the character of his mother, that can never be erased. It is a FACT that Sister Emma, of her own free will and choice, gave her husband four wives, two of whom are now living, and ready to testify that she, not only gave them to her husband, but that she taught them the doctrine of plural marriage, and urged them to accept it. And, ii her son wished to degrade his mother in the estimation of her former associates, those familiar with the incidents of the period referred to, he could not do it more effectually than by proving her denial of any knowledge of polygamy (celestial marriage), and its practice by her husband. Even if her son ignored his mothers reputation for veracity, he better had waited until his father's wives were silent in death, for now they are here living witnesses of the divinity of plural marriage, as revealed by the Almighty, through Joseph Smith, who was commanded in introduce it by taking other wives. 173. "Minutes of the Peoa Ward, Summit Stake", pp. 158-159; Ch. Hist. Lib.; for a meeting held Sunday morning, Oct. 26, 1879. Elder John Pack . . . spoke on celestial marriage. Said he knew that Joseph Smith had many wives sealed to him. Hyrum Smith taught my wife, my mother, and myself, the law of celestial marriage. Hyrum said my wife and I were not one; to become one, we would have to be sealed up to eternal life; my wife was then sealed to me. And I acted in behalf of my father, who was dead, and was sealed to my mother. The law of celestial marriage was taught me before the death of Joseph; and I practiced it before he died. He compared the glory that a man would have with only one wife and asked could he expect to receive the reward that a man would have, who had fulfilled all the law? Certainly not. Certain promises are given to those who obey the law; and unless they fulfill it, they will not receive the reward. 174. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 21:9-10; Elder Joseph F. Smith; delivered at the funeral services over the remains of Elder William Clayton, held in the 17th Ward Meeting House, Salt Lake City; Dec 7, 1879. It was his pen that wrote for the first time the revelation in relation to the eternity of the marriage covenant and of a plurality of wives. Although that revelation had been given to the Prophet Joseph many years before, it was not written until the 12th of July, 1843, at which time Elder William Clayton, acting as a scribe for the Prophet, wrote it from his dictation. * * * (p. 10) . . . having come from the mouth of the Prophet, this doctrine of eternal union of husband and wife, and of plural marriage, is one of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of the world. Without it man would come to a full stop; without it we never could be exalted to associate with and become gods, neither could we attain to the power of eternal increase, or the blessings pronounced upon Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the fathers of the faithful. 175. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22:96-97; Elder Charles W. Penrose; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday afternoon, May 1, 1880. But some may say, "You are a very bad people. You marry many wives and are raising up a host of children." Well, we are no worse than the father of the faithful, Abraham, the friend of God, and if you do not like men who have more wives than one, I am very much afraid that when you get to the gates of the holy city, the New Jerusalem, on which will be inscribed the names of twelve men who were the sons of four women by one man--and if you should pass through the gates into the celestial city, and find Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God, with their wives and children as the beginning of their everlasting glory and dominion, that you will say, "I want to go somewhere else; let me get out of this city, it is inhabited by polygamists." Before I sit down let me say, my friends that those in this community who have married more wives than one have done so from pure motives. But some people cannot comprehend that. This generation is so corrupt and so licentious that some cannot understand how a man can marry one wife from pure motives. * * * God Almighty has given us a revelation concerning this matter. We marry our wives under divine direction and divine sanction, and under the . . . holy Priesthood. . . . I will just say that our marriage is celestial marriage for time and all eternity-- like that with which Adam was married to Eve in the Garden of Eden when they were (p. 97) immortal beings, and when there was no one to unite them but God. * * * After that pattern are we married for time and all eternity, and we expect when we come up in the resurrection of the just, if we have been worthy, to receive our wives to our bosoms, and our children to the family circle; that they will be the beginning of our exaltation and glory; that then the blessings of Abraham pronounced upon us shall be fulfilled, and of our increase there shall be no end. The Lord will multiply our seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore. And when we enter this holy order of marriage, whether it be with one or two, or more wives, we marry in this order and in the fear of God, and under the direction of his spirit and for holy purposes, and not for the gratification of lust, and those that say we do are either very much mistaken or they wilfully lie. 176. "St. George Stake General Meeting Minutes"; Church Archives; Joseph B. Noble remarks at Birthday Celebration of the Prophet Joseph Smith; 23 December 1880. . . . He [Bro. Noble] spoke of Joseph unfolding to him the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant to convince him of the truth of which was no small matter--Joseph bore testimony that the [sic] he had received a revelation on this principle in Kirtland but the Lord then told him "not yet." The angel of the Lord came to him in Nauvoo and told him [next page] the time had come and Joseph's obedience should be followed by blessing--25 min 177. Helen Mar Kimball Whitney Papers, 1828-1896; Church Historical Department, Ms/d/744/1 folder; unaddressed statement; Salt Lake City; March 30th 1881. Typed as in original without [sic]. I was baptized by Uncle Brigham Young in a branch of the Chagrin river my father cutting the ice for that purpose. He & Brigham Young belong to the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Years passed away and we were living in the City of Nauvoo. Just previous to my father's starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle of Celestial Marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophets. own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seemed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Moon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrifice but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty-four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph who came next morning and with my parents I heard him +e+eh teach & explain the principle of (p. 2) Celestial Marriage after which he said to me, "If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your fathers. household & all of your kindred. this promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mothers bleeding heart when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied "If Heber is willing I have nothing more to say. She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older, who better understood the step they were taking & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, falling in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me. I thought through this life my time will be my own The step I now am taking for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free, And as the part hath been the future still will be. To my guileless heart all free from worldly care And full of blissful hopes and youthful visions rare The world seemed bright the threatening clouds were kept From sight and all looked fair but pitying angels wept. There saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold And poison starts from slanderous tongues were hurled, Untutored heart in thy generous sacrifice, Thou didst not weight the cost nor know the bitter price; Thy happy dreams all are thou doomed alas to be Barred out from social scenes by this thy destiny And o'er thy saddened memories of sweet departed joys Thy sickened heart will brood and imagine future worlds And like a feddered bird with wild and longing heart Thou daily pine for freedom and murmur at thy lot But couldst thou see the future & view that glorious crown Awaiting you in heaven you would not weep or mourn. Pure and exalted was thy father's aim, he saw A glory in obeying this high celestial law, For thousands who died without the light 'T will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright. I'd been taught to revere the Prophet of God And receive every word as the word of the Lord, But had this not come through my dear father's mouth I should ne'er have received it as God's sacred truth. Two years after the martyrdom Joseph and Hyrum I love and married your father Horace Kimball Whitney, eldest son of Bishop Newel K. and Elizabeth /s/ Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney [sic] 178. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22:186-191; Elder John Nicholson; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday afternoon, June 26, 1881. . . . We regard the Constitution of our country as sacred, and the will of our Heavenly Father as supreme. That sacred instrument--the Constitution of this land--says that a man and woman in the practice of their religion shall not be interfered with, that Congress shall have no power to make such interference as that proposed by the law to which I have made allusion. But it might be said in regard to this that it is a law nevertheless because it has passed the Congress of the United States and been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States. Nevertheless--I now speak for myself--I lay it down as a proposition that any law that infringes upon my religious rights cannot be a constitutional law, if all the courts in the world should decide that it is of that character. But it may be said-- and it is said frequently--that our system of marriage--the same system of marriage that obtained among the ancients who held direct communication with the Almighty--is not a part of religion. But I state, so far as I am individually concerned, that I hope never to get into the position where any man or class on the face of this earth shall prescribe to me what shall or shall not be my religion. * * * But it is sometimes said that our system of marriage is obnoxious to the ruling sentiment of the country, and especially to those whose crafts are in danger, and who are professors of other religions. Then on the same principle, if we were in the majority would it be right for us to use coercive means to put down in the religions of others what might be obnoxious to our system? It is a poor rule that will not work both ways. * * * (p. 188) . . . When a man enters into this holy bond, whether it be in taking more wives than one, merely for the gratification of his passions he infringes upon a law of God, of nature and of this Church, for this Church decides that its members shall be pure in every respect; therefore those who are governed by impure instincts, feelings and sentiments are departing from the genius, the spirit, and the true practice of this Church, whoever they may be. But this is not the purpose. There (p.189) are purposes in the mind of Jehovah in regard to this principle, at least we accept them as such. God has decreed that in this day He will build up His Kingdom, and we are seeking to build it up, and as it is said in the Book of Mormon that... if the Lord should desire to raise up children to himself, that He shall command His people, otherwise they shall not practice the principle of plural marriage. * * * This kingdom must have people, and if the people of the world will not come and join with us and build up the kingdom of God, we will build it from the internal strength within itself. Let a person who does not believe in this go through this Territory from north to south and from east to west, and see the flocks of beautiful children who are growing up in the midst of this people, who will aid in bearing off this kingdom. * * * (p. 191) I say we claim that God has revealed this system, and the only concessions which can be made so far as our principles are concerned must be made by their Author, otherwise they are null and void. So far as religious liberty is concerned, we claim the same as other people. 179. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22:280-281; President George Q. Cannon; Meadow Creek, Millard County; October 31, 1881. And there are other things very remarkable, which show that God, in his dealings with us, intends to make us a people different from any other. I allude now to our system of marriage. * * * It is a noticeable fact that the men among our people who have obeyed this commandment of God to us are the men most prospered in the land. * * * It might be supposed, naturally speaking, that that would be the means of impoverishing them; that the men who marry wives take upon them burdens that would crush them and that they would necessarily have to live in poverty in consequence. But the contrary of this is the case; and actual experience has proven to us that God is determined to remove from us the old traditions of the world, and show us that he is able to build up his kingdom upon a new plan and upon an entirely different basis from the kingdoms of the world. * * * (P. 281) . . . a young man says it is as much as he can do to take care of himself, without attempting to sustain a wife. But a young man marries a wife, and he sustains himself and his wife too. He feels as though he would not be able to sustain a wife and child; but the baby comes, and they are able to get along as well after as they did before the child came. And thus it seems the way is provided for a second child and a third. And in times past some of our young men have taken second wives, and they have got along as well, and in many instances a little better, than when they had but one wife. And as the family increases, they have been able to provide for them all. God is building up a peculiar people, a people of faith, a people who will do that which he requires of them, although what he may require of us may be directly opposed to our traditions. 180. Journal History, p. 3; February 17, 1882. At the funeral service for Sister Elizabeth A. Whitney on the above date, President Joseph F. Smith was one of the speakers. In his remarks concerning the lovely character of this good sister, Pres. Smith said that there was a crown laid up for her and it was a queenly one. He knew that such women would stand in the presence of the Eternal God, crowned with glory, honor and eternal life. Here, the speaker said probably for the first time in public, that the women who entered into plural marriage with the Prophet Joseph Smith were shown to him and named to him as early as 1831, and some of them were given in marriage to him as early as that date, although it was not then prudent, under the circumstances, to make these facts public. And when the Lord showed these women to Joseph, some of them were not even acquainted with the church much less him. 181. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 23:225-233; Erastus Snow; Salt Lake Assembly Hall; Sunday afternoon, February 26, 1882. The word translated concubine in this Scripture must not be confounded with the modern practice which obtains so largely in the great cities of Christendom, and with the more wealthy portions of old communities. * * * The word translated concubinage in King James version of the Bible, is translated by Luther and is found in Scandinavia and Germany, where the Lutheran translation still prevails, as meaning an associated wife. In the Danish Bible it is huustro for wife and medhustro for concubine; the sacred name of wife is given to both classes, the preposition med connecting them together and conveying the idea of the second class being an associated wife, or a wife in a secondary or subordinate position, in contradistinction of the first. Close students of the Bible have not failed to recognize this as being the character of the plural wives of Moses and the prophets. * * * The Latter-day Saints regard the intercourse of the sexes, both in time and in eternity, as regulated by sacred law given by our Father in heaven who has organized us male and female for a wise purpose in Himself, and that purpose is made manifest in the first great command given to our first parents, namely, to multiply and replenish the earth. * * * (p. 226) When the institution of marriage is founded in religious sentiment and is confirmed by the enduring love of husband, wives and children, and the responsibilities attending that relationship, as we find it in many of the ancient worthies, there is not necessarily any defilement in plural marriage. * * * Those best acquainted with the inner workings of the system among the Latter-day Saints throughout all of their settlements, if they testify honestly and truthfully as to the result of their careful observations extending over a period of over thirty years--the time that this system of plural marriage has been practised by us in these mountains, they would, in effect, say, that there is less discontent, less strife and fewer family broils and less divorce, and less casting off wives and casting upon the community of children without care, than would be found in the same number of monogamic families. * * * They cannot comprehend the spirit that governs us, the devout God-fearing spirit of self-sacrifice which leads us onward to all that is noble, forbearing and long-suffering, that teaches us to love one another and to be charitable to all men, and which teaches us that the relationships which we make through the marriage covenant are but the foundation of eternal glory and exaltation in the worlds to come; and it also teaches us that the glories of the future that open up before us are greatly dependent upon the faithfulness of our relationships and associations in this life; and that a man must be found capable to properly govern and guide his family and preserve in time the wives and children that are given to him, leading them in the way of life and salvation, and rearing his children in all that is pure and praiseworthy, so that he can receive them in the morning of the first resurrection, (p. 228) there to have the Father confirm upon him his wives and children, the foundation of his individual kingdom which will exist for ever and ever. The outside world cannot comprehend this, and simply because they cannot believe it. It is this same religious sentiment that prompts women and the best of women, the most devout women, women of the purest motive and character to enter into this sacred relationship, and to cause them to determine in their own minds that they would sooner be associated with a man who has proven himself a man of integrity, a man of strict virtue and honor, who can be relied upon by God and man--they would rather trust themselves with such a man than to be the only wife of a man devoid of these qualifications, * * * Referring again to Abraham, and his wife Sarai. * * * This Sarai, one of the noblest of women, received the promise of her son Isaac while in old age, a promise made to her by the angel of God, and this because of her barrenness and because too of the integrity of her heart towards her husband and her willingness to sacrifice her womanly feeling in giving to her husband other wives. And after she had given to Abraham Hagar, that she might bear him children, mark the Scripture: It was for the purpose that he might not be childless because she was childless. It was after she had thus sacrificed her womanly feeling, thereby manifesting her love and integrity to her husband, that the Lord had compassion upon her and granted the desire of her heart, promising her that she should in course of time bring forth a son, and telling her that his name should be Isaac, in whom and in whose seed all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. * * * (p. 231) And it reminds me of a remark made recently by a gentleman in Congress. It was proposed that the bill, now being urged in Congress against polygamy, be so amended as to include adultery; the gentleman to whom the proposition was made was at first inclined to endorse the amendment, but on reflection, he turned to his friend and said, if that be done it would leave us without a quorum in the House. No, my friends, it is not adultery they wish to punish; it is not whoredom they wish to punish; it is not the cause of public or private virtue they champion; it is merely the hue and cry of the bigotry of our time against a people who are aiming at a higher morality than now exists, who are aiming to do away with and effectually destroy out of their midst the evil that is sapping the strength and vitality of our nation--a community that does not seek to shun the responsibility and the cares and labors and expense and trouble of rearing families and of educating them and making their children honorable men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, citizens of the state and defenders of human liberty. * * * (p. 233) Some of the law-makers of our nation would not only imprison Abraham were he living now, and also his plural wives, but they would disfranchise and imprison Sarah, his first wife, because she consented to his marrying other wives. 182. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; March 14, 1882. Since the country passed the Edmunds Bill they are turning the last keys for their destruction. 183. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 23:64-66; President John Taylor; Sunday, April 9, 1882. When Joseph Smith first made known the revelation concerning plural marriage and of having more wives than one, it made my flesh crawl; but. . . I received such evidence and testimony pertaining to this matter, scriptural and otherwise, which it was impossible for me as an honest man to resist, and believing it to be right I obeyed it and practised it. * * * This principle is connected with the Saints alone, and pertains to eternity as well as time, and is known to us by the appellation of "celestial marriage." It does not belong to them, nor does (p. 65) it pertain to all of our own people. None but the more pure, virtuous, honorable and upright are permitted to enter into these associations. * * * Should we preach the doctrine of plurality of wives to the people of the United States? No; you know very well that it is only for honorable men and women, virtuous men and women, honest men and women who can be vouched for by those who preside over them, and whom they recognize as their Presidents; it is only such people as these that can be admitted to participate in this ordinance. * * * . . . It makes provision for our marital associations in the other world, and that while we have our wives here we expect to have them in eternity; and we believe in that doctrine that reaches beyond time into eternity. Others make their marital relations to end in death; their covenants last only till death does them part. Ours take hold of eternity, they enter into the eternal state of existence, and contemplate as eternal union of the sexes worlds without end. * * * Is it a thing incredible that the finest and most exalted ties and sympathies of humanity, sanctified by family relations-- pure undefiled love, should continue in the resurrection? *** (P. 66) But with regard to those not of us, I will tell you what I believe about the matter. I believe it would be much better for them to have even polygamy in their state of existence than this corroding, corrupting, demoralizing and damning evil that prevails in their midst. We look upon it that polygamy is the normal condition of man; but that has nothing to do with Mormon plurality of wives, or what is termed "celestial mar- riage." I would state also, that when we speak of its being the normal condition, it has so existed throughout all ages. * * * Polygamy means the propagation of human life. 184. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 23:131-133; Wilford Woodruff; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday, May 14, 1882. I was reading in the NEWS last evening a speech reported to have been made by Joseph Smith, son of the Prophet Joseph Smith, in which he accuses us of pursuing an entirely different course from that of his father; . . . that his father had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage; * * * I wish to say, that Joseph Smith [III] utters falsehoods when he says what he is reported to have said about his father: * * * Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation; and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. * * * (p. 132) We declare to all men that the God of heaven commanded Joseph Smith to introduce and practice the patriarchal order of marriage, including the plurality of wives. And why? Because it was the law given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for certain purposes; that holy men might have their wives and children with them in the morning of the first resurrection in their family orga nization to inherit kingdoms, thrones, principalities and powers in the presence of God throughout the endless ages of eternity. * * * Our wives and children we love and respect, and we could no more deny them their claims upon us as husbands and fathers, than we could deny our God. Another thing, there is no man that has ever lived who can claim a wife or child in the resurrection unless he and she were married and sealed by divine authority by a man delegated of heaven to perform the ordinance of marriage. All contracts not ordained of God entered into by men, end with this life, and are therefore without binding effect in the world to come. And herein is the difference of the position of the Latter-day Saints and of the Christian world with respect to the married state. The nature of our marriage covenant is sacred and binding both for time and eternity, and I would just as soon think of denying my God as to sever the relationship existing between me and (p. 133) my wives and children. Our plural wives and our children are just as dear to us as the one wife and the children of the Gentiles are to them; and what is more, we have married our wives by command of God, and by authority of His Priesthood, which has been restored again to earth; and if we prove faithful and true to Him and to one another, we shall claim our wives and children in the world to come. Amen. 185. Questions & Answers Concerning Celestial Marriage, pp. 1- 12; a revelation through President John Taylor; Church Historians Office; June 25, 1882. Question: Is the law of Celestial Marriage a law given to this nation or to the world? Answer: No, in no other sense than as the Gospel is given, and in accordance with the laws thereof. So far as it is made known unto them as the Gospel is made known unto them and is a part of the New and Everlasting Covenant; and it is only those who receive the Gospel that are able to, or capable of, entering into this Covenant. (p. 2) Have I not said through my servant, Joseph, that "all Kingdoms are governed by law," and if they re- ceive not the law of My Gospel they cannot participate in the blessings of celestial marriage, which pertains to my elect. No person, or people, or nation can enter into the principle of celestial marriage unless they come in by me, saith the Lord, and obey the law of my Gospel through the medium of him who is appointed unto this power, as made known unto my people through my servant, Joseph, in a revelation on "The eternity of the marriage covenant, including plurality of wives." * * * You are not now sent to proclaim this principle to the United States, nor the world; nor to urge it upon them. It is not for them as a nation, or nations, only as many as accept the law of my Gospel and are governed thereby. Behold, if you were to preach this principle unto them and they said, "We accept it," Could you then administer it unto them? Verily, I say unto you, Nay. Have I not said, "Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion." 186. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24:40-46; President George Q. Cannon; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday, June 25, 1882. As I have repeatedly said, we believe in marriage, we have opened the door in that direction, and we say to the sexes marry; but we close the door in the other direction, and say, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not seduce, defile, prostitute or lead astray innocent beings; if you do, and we had the power, we would punish you. It seems like a paradox that those who do that which is according to their religion should be punished, while those who trample upon their religion should go free. And yet this is really true. All that we can be accused of is, we have embodied in our religion practices that belonged to the Patriarchs, which we believe, and so declare, God has revealed to us, for the purposes of salvation and of producing greater purity and of checking the flood of vice that is sweeping through the land and sapping the foundation of this nation and all the nations of Christendom. We have adopted the principle of plural marriage as part of our religion. We have not led women astray, we have protected them. We have not coerced them or used violence, but have thrown around them a shield of protection, and at the same time have left them to exercise the fullest liberty and the most extensive right of free choice in every respect. But this is a sin; this shocks, we are told, the moral sense of the nation. While, on the other hand, there are communities who say they do not believe in adultery or in seduction--that is, their religion teaches them that these things are wrong; but many of whose members practice these crimes, and yet they pass along unnoticed and undisturbed. * * * (P. 45) Government has the right, and owes it to its citizens, to protect them in their rights--to protect their live, to protect their property, to protect them in all their civil rights and in their religious rights also, and to prevent others from doing them violence. Beyond this it should not go. And they call our system of marriage, bigamy. Such confusion of terms! The essence of the crime of bigamy is that a man, already married to one wife, clandestinely marries another. Both women are wronged and deceived; the first by his marrying a second time during her lifetime; the second by his concealment of the fact that he already has a living wife. In the anxiety to attach odium to our system of marriage, our enemies call it bigamy, ignoring the fact that, according to our rules, a man who has one wife does not take another wife without the consent of the first wife; no advantage is taken of her by keeping her in ignorance. The new relationship has been entered into by common consent. There is no element of crime about this--that is, of the crime of bigamy. It is, as I have said the concealment that makes it a crime; it is the fact that both women are deceived and wronged by the act of the man. And such a man ought to be punished. That which has been done has been done in the face of high heaven, in the light of day, believing, as we did, that it would be the means of preserving this community in purity, that if every means were used to provide for marriage there would be no margin of unmarried women left for lust to prey upon. Men have said to me: "Mr. Cannon, we cannot understand why it is that women will consent to such arrangements." "My dear sirs," I have said, "do you not think that the ladies who occupy questionable relationships to gentlemen in this city (Washington) would be very glad to have that relationship sanctified by marriage; do you think they would object to it? Would any true woman, if she loved a man, put herself in such a false position in society, and yet not marry him if she could do so honorably? Which relation would (p. 46) be the better and more honorable?" I do not wish to convey the idea that plural marriage can be universal. In the very nature of things as I have often said, it is impossible; * * * Besides all this, it should be borne in mind, that God did not give this revelation and commandment to us to urge upon the world for its practice. 187. "Revelations"; John Taylor; CHO Ms/d/41; 27 June 1882. Free Agency; Lord as supreme ruler "Verily, thus saith the Lord, I have instituted my Kingdom and Laws, with the Keys and power thereof, and have appointed you as my spokesmen and my Constitution, with President John Taylor at your head, whom I have appointed to my Church and my Kingdom as Prophet, Seer and Revelator unto my Church and unto my Kingdom, and to preside over my Church, and over my Kingdom, and to be my mouthpiece unto my Church and unto my Kingdom, and I will honor him, and he shall speak forth the words that I will reveal unto him from time to time by the whisperings of my Spirit, by the revelation of my will and my word, or by mine own voice, as I will, saith the Lord; and ye shall listen to his words as my words, saith the Lord Your God. Thus saith the Lord God who rules in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, I have introduced my Kingdom and my Government, even the Kingdom of God, that my servants have here before prophesied of, and that I taught my disciples to pray for, saying, "Thy Kingdom Come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", for the establishment of my rule, for the introduction of my law, for the protection of my Church, and for the maintenance, promulgation and protection of Civil and religious liberty in this nation and throughout the world; and all men of every nation, color and Creed shall yet be protected and shielded thereby; and every nation and Kindred, and people, and tongue shall yet bow the Knee to me,and acknowledge me to be Ahman Christ, to the glory of God the Father. And my law, and my rule, and my dominion shall extend over the whole earth, and no one shall stay my or question my authority; for I rule by right in the heavens above, and in the earth; and my right, and my rule, and my dominion shall yet be Known and extended to all people. And now, behold, I speak unto you through my Servant John, whom you have acknowledged, and shall acknowledge as my spokesman: Thus saith the Lord God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Ruler of the Universe, whose right it is to rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, behold, I raised up my servant, Joseph Smith, to introduce my Gospel, and to build up my Church, and established my Kingdom on the earth; and I gave unto him Wisdom, and Knowledge and revelation, and intelligence pertaining to the past, the present, and the future, even to that extent which was not known among men; and I endowed him with power from on high, and conferred upon him the Priesthood of Aaron, and also the Priesthood of Melchisidek [sic], which is after the order of the Son of God, even the holiest of all, and after the power of an endless life, and administereth forever in this world and the World to come. He was called and ordained to his office before the World was. He was called by me; and empowered by me, and sustained by me to introduce and establish my Church and Kingdom upon the earth; and to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to my Church and Kingdom, and to be a King and Ruler over Israel. He was slain for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God; but he yet lives, and is with me where I am. And now I speak unto you who are members of this Council and of my Kingdom, and I say unto you, as I said unto my disciples of old, Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. I called you by my servant Joseph, and by my servant Brigham, and by my servant John. You did not teach and instruct me; but I have taught and instructed you, and organized you according to my eternal laws. Ye are my Constitution, and I am your God; and I will be acknowledged; and my will and my word, and my law shall bear rule in my Kingdom, saith the Lord. If it does not, then it is not my Kingdom, and then are ye not my spokesmen; for if it is by the wisdom of man, by the intelligence of man; and under the direction of man; then it is a Kingdom of man, and is not of me, and I will not acknowledge it, saith the Lord God! Have I not instructed you in all that you know, and that this Kingdom organized and directed by revelation from me? Is it not called the Kingdom of God? If, therefore, it is not my Kingdom, why do you make use of my name, and invoke my authority and my aid? Is this Kingdom not called, "The Kingdom of God, and His laws, with the Keys and power thereof, and judgment in the hands of his servants, Ahman Christ." And because I am Kind and beneficent to all peoples, and because I have given to man his free agency, and have always maintained that free agency among all peoples, and have treated all men alike among all nations, and made the sun to shine on the evil and the good, on the just and the unjust, and have never controlled the consciences of men; think ye, therefore, that I have no rights, and will yield up all my authority to the dictates and caprices of wicked and corrupt men? Verily, I say unto you, nay. Behold, Satan sought to take away the free agency of man in the beginning, for which cause he was thrust out of heaven, and has sought to introduce the same principles upon the earth, which principles are opposed to me, to my institutions and my laws, and to the freedom, the welfare and happiness of man, and by which principles the Government of the United States has sought to deprive my people of their free agency; and because men have been under the influence and power and dominion of Lucifer and because tyranny and oppression and evil have abounded by him, and not by me, saith the Lord your God, shall righteousness and justice, and judgment, and truth, and virtue, and holiness be forever trampled under foot? and the principles of tyranny, oppression and misrule, and anarchy, deception, and fraud forever prevail? Verily, I say unto you nay; and for this Cause have I introduced my Church and my Kingdom, that pure and righteous principles might be inculcated, and in and by his free agency yield a willing obedience to my law; for after this testimony and the rejection thereof, I will sweep the earth of evil doers as with the bosom of destruction; for this is my right, and while man has his free agency, judgment belongs to me, saith the Lord; And I will Come out of my hiding place and vex the nations of the earth because of their iniquities, their misrule, their tyranny, their oppression, their Corruption, their murders, their adulteries and fornications and all their abominations; and because my servant Joseph, whose soul was pained because of their cruelties and oppression, the injustice, fraud and Corruption, and the inhumanity of men, proclaimed himself the advocate of human rights, the advocate of liberty, and the friend of man; and because, according to my eternal decrees, the free agency of man should be guaranteed to all men, I moved upon him to introduce into my Kingdom Certain parties not in my Church, for the purpose of exhibiting unto my Kingdom that I would still maintain the free agency of man, and that I hold inviolate that principle, and will still maintain it to the end. Think ye, therefore, that because they are thus admitted to a share in my government and my laws that they shall be permitted to break their covenants, violate their obligations, and reject me and my laws and authority, and seek to overthrow the Kingdom of God, and deprive my people who are Contending for freedom and who shall yet maintain it, of their agency, and of my laws? Verily, I say unto you nay. They may be admitted to the right of representation in the manner appointed, after subscribing to my Covenants and Commandments, and have a full and free opportunity of presenting their views, interests and principles, and enjoying all the freedom and rights of this Council; but they shall acknowledge me and my laws in this Council, saith the Lord God; for my people's rights and immunities and free agency shall be acknowledged as well as those of all other people, and my laws and government shall be sustained, or I will not acknowledge you, saith the Lord. I have invested you with the Keys and power of my Kingdom and they cannot be bartered away to others. Shall all men be free? Yes, free to do right, free to express their sentiments and opinions, and have a full, fair and free representation; but no man shall violate his covenants, pervert my laws, subvert others. free agency, and trample upon mine authority in this Council, saith the Lord your God. Again, I say unto you as I said before, Henceforth, do as I shall Command you, saith the Lord Your God. Even so, Amen. 188. "Revelations"; John Taylor; CHO Ms/d/41; July 1882. King of Kings and Lord of Lords "Am I not King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Do I not rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, as I will, saith the Lord? And though men do not acknowledge me yet do I control them; and I will Control them according to my will and purpose; and I will make use of the Kings of the earth, and the rulers and powers of the earth to accomplish my purposes, saith the Lord God your Redeemer, and none shall stay my hand. And I will build up my Kingdom as I have heretofore decreed and made Known through the mouth of mine holy Prophets, so far as they have declared my purposes pertaining thereto; and I have many other things to make Known and to proclaim relative to my Church and to my Kingdom, and to the building up of my Zion on the earth. Behold, you are my Kingdom, and rulers in my Kingdom and then you are also many of you, rulers in my Church according to your ordinations therein. For are you not of the First Presidency, and of the Twelve Apostles, and some Presidents of Stakes, and some Bishops, and some High Priests and some Seventies and Elders therein? And are ye not all of my Church and belong to my holy Priesthood? And then, are ye not all of my kingdom, and do you not belong to my Kingdom, and are ye not the representatives thereof, even my Constitution? And am I not your God, even your Redeemer and your King? Behold, I have told you to do as I command you, and have I not a right to dictate in the affairs of my Kingdom, and is it not incumbent upon you to obey me as your Lord, your lawgiver and your King? Behold, thus saith the Lord, 1 will be obeyed by my Council, and if they do no acknowledge me, I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord of hosts, the God and King of the whole earth. Speaking of my Church, Behold I establish my Church that I might reveal unto them my word, and my will and the law of the Gospel, and the order of the Holy Priesthood, and I set in order my Priesthood, even the Aaronic and Melchisidek [sic], and I have sent forth mine Elders to the world to preach this Gospel of the Kingdom to all people, and to gather mine elect from among all nations, that a people might be prepared through my Gospel, through the manifestation of my Spirit, even the Spirit of Truth, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, and through the teachings of my holy Priesthood and the revelations of my Will, to comprehend the law of my Gospel, to be one with each other, and to be one with me as I am one with the Father, to Comprehend and obey the principles of righteousness, virtue and holiness, purity, and the love and fear of God, and to assist in building my Zion unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and to prepare for the salvation and redemption of the world, even the living and the dead. And, again, it required this Gospel, this Priesthood, this revelation, this unity, this Spirit, to introduce the Kingdom of God, that the will of God might be done on earth as it is done in heaven. 1 rule now among the nations but not by their Consent, and the rulers of the earth do not Know me or my law, nor recognize my authority. They have their free agency and use it; so have also my people, and they use their agency through my Gospel to serve me, to obey my law and to build up my Church and Kingdom. For outside of my Church there is no people on the earth who will listen to my law, and if there not be people who would listen to my law, how could I have a Kingdom, and how could I be their ruler? I have established my Kingdom to be a shield and protection to my Church, to learn and comprehend my law, and to carry out my purposes, that my will may be done on earth as it is done in heaven, the Church through the law and Spirit of the Gospel to preserve the virtue and purity of my Kingdom; and the Kingdom to preserve and protect the Church from the aggressions of the wicked and ungodly. And behold, I do not want my own will, but the will of my Father; the same is my Father and my God, and your Father and your God, and your Father and your God, and we are one, I in Him, and you in me. Are I and my Father with the Church? Yes. Are we not also with the Kingdom? Yes. Am I not your God, your Ahman Christ? You so acknowledge me. My Father is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. I rule as my Father directs me, and if ye rule and direct according to my will, under the direction of my servant who is your president and head, are we not one, and is it not the rule and government of God? And any Kingdom, or government, or dominion that is not under my direction, and does not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge, saith the Lord of hosts; and if they fight against me and my laws, and my Church, and my Kingdom, they shall be overthrown in mine own due time, for I have so decreed, Even so, Amen." 189. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 23:240-241; President John Taylor; Ephraim, San Pete County; Sunday, August 20, 1882. Some people tell us we ought to proclaim polygamy. We have no such mission. Further, if we were to proclaim the principle that they call polygamy, they could not obey it. We believe in celestial marriage, in celestial covenants, in men and women being united for time and for all eternity. Are (P. 241) we going to suffer a surrender of this point? No, never! No, never! We intend to be true to our covenants in time and in the eternities to come. They call it bigamy. What is a bigamist? A man who marries one wife promising to be true to her, and afterwards representing himself as an honorable man, marries another one and deceives both of them. He is a breaker of covenants. A polygamist does not do that. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon did not perpetrate such infamies. Nor do we. Bigamy is an institution of a perverted Christianity and not ours. We make covenants with our wives, and we will be true to them and they to us in time and in eternity. Supposing, I say, we were to preach this doctrine to the world, and tell them what David and Abraham and the Patriarchs did, and they were to say we accept it; could we administer in it? No, and they could not enter into this thing. There are only a few in Utah associated with this matter, comparatively, and those none but the most honorable, pure and virtuous, yet our nation has seen fit to condemn everybody, the non-polygamists as well as the polygamists, because the non-polygamists happen to live in the same place as the polygamists. 190. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 23:294-301; Erastus Snow; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Saturday morning, October 7, 1882. I believe it was in 1856, that the Republican party was organized; at their first convention held in Philadelphia, they incorporated in their platform the noted plank, "the two relics of barbarism--slavery and polygamy," and pledged themselves to rid the country of these two evils. * * * The authors of this republican plank have taken polygamy as taught by the Latter-day Saints as being synonymous with the polygamy of oriental nations, and the bigamy of the Christian nations; this is clearly shown in the law of 1862, passed by the Congress of the United States, designed for its suppression, the term bigamy being used instead of polygamy. The offence was made to consist in (p. 295) the marriage rather than in the cohabitation; . . . when in reality there was very little, if any, similarity. The bigamy of England and the American States consists in crime and deception, the betraying and wronging of two innocent and unsuspecting women. While the corrupt, lying, deceiving, unprincipled husband was feigning virtue and integrity, both violating their confidence by lying and deception, and by violating all the duties and obligations of marriage--the duties that the father owes to the wife and children and also to the State. But the fact that our lawmakers took this view of our social system when they passed this law, shows how poorly and ill they comprehend the system of marriage as taught by the Latter-day Saints. The republican party had this view of the case, no doubt, when they first announced this noted plank. * * * Anciently, when God's laws provided a government for ancient Israel, marriage was honorable both plural and single, as all students of the Bible know full well. At the same time adultery was punished by death. * * * But our Christian statesmen are offering premiums, for licentiousness, and are seeking to make odious the honor and purity of marriage. * * * (p. 297) For it is known to all students of history . . . that polygamy has been the rule-- . . . polygamy has existed, and has been recognized to a greater or less extent, so far as its practice was consistent with the conditions of the people of the various nations, it has been the rule from time immemorial; and there has never been a time in the history of the world when it has not been common and recognized among the nations of the earth, with the exception of modern Europe. * * * (P. 298) It is sheer sophistry on the part of our sectarian friends and groundless assertion that monogamy, to the exclusion of polygamy was introduced into Europe by the primitive Christians; for that system of marriage was introduced prior to the establishment of Christianity in Europe, by the Roman empire, and became the form of marriage in early times when, as history alleges, men were more numerous in Rome than women. And the earlier settlers of Rome were political refugees, renegades and scapegraces from surrounding nations, and were under the necessity of making raids upon their neighbors to procure wives; and it became a matter of necessity and for mutual protection, to limit the number to one. It was the Roman state that limited the number of a man's wives to one, and not the Christian church; and this being done, it was perpetuated. And history teaches us that under that monogamic system, Rome became the most licentious of all nations. * * * (p. 301) And so did the Congress of the United States know what they were doing in passing the Edmunds Bill, for when an amendment was introduced making that proposed law binding upon adulterers, it was quickly disposed of; and one gentleman who was sitting near Captain Hooper at the time, remarked, that if that were to carry, it would leave the House of Representatives without a quorum. Such an amendment, of course, did not express the mind of our American statesmen and that of hireling priests; they needed adulterers, whoremongers, and fornicators, to carry out the vote in Utah over the Mormons. * * * It is not morality they seek; it is not public purity they wish to maintain. The decision of the heavens is already passed upon them, and they will go down like a mighty millstone cast into the depths of the sea. They cannot hold the reigns of government of this American soil, only to work out their own destruction. 191. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 23:278-280; President George Q. Cannon; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday, October 8, 1882. Now, I want to say for myself personally, if I had not obeyed that command of God, concerning plural marriage, I believe that I would have been damned. That is my position; but I do not judge any other man. I am so organized that I could have lived, if necessary, and God had commanded it, as a Catholic priest is supposed to live, without knowing woman. I believe that with God's help I could have done that all the days of my life, if it had been necessary for my salvation; but, on the contrary, when I had taken one wife, after I had returned from one of my missions, a spirit rested upon me that (p. 279) I could not resist; I felt that I should be damned if I refused or neglected to obey that law of God. It was not prompted by any improper feeling; it was not prompted by a feeling of lust, or a desire for women; but it was an overpowering anxiety to obey the commandments of God. * * * I knew that God had commanded me, whether He had other men or not; and I did obey it because of this overpowering command, believing, as I have said, that I should be damned if I did not. * * * The Prophet Joseph Smith said, and so taught, when he first communicated this principle, that there had come a time in the history of God's people, when if they did not obey that law, all progress would cease, that the kingdom could go no further. And He commanded the servants of God, His associates, the Apostles, to obey it, under penalty of losing the Spirit of God, under penalty of their ceasing to progress in the work of our God. * * * There is no other (p. 280) course for me; that is the only alternative before me. To be untrue to my God, to be untrue to the revelations of my God; to be untrue to the convictions of my nature; to be untrue to the women--wives--whom I have covenanted for time and all eternity to love, to revere and to protect, and to my children, children borne to me by those women--to be untrue to these, or to endure all the consequences that man may inflict upon me for disobeying laws which are framed against my religion. I am willing to trust to my God. 192. Wilford Woodruff, History of his Life and Labors, by Matthias F. Cowley, p. 542; 13 October 1882. For a reprint of the revelation see The Life of John Taylor, pp. 349-351, by B. H. Roberts; The Gospel Kingdom, p. 390 (4th ed., July 1964), by G. Homer Durham. (See quote #194 and #195.) On the 27th of the following September [1882] they met in council to consider fully all the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Council of Seventies. It was decided to leave the nominations entirely to the President of the Church, which has been largely the custom from the beginning. On the 13th of October the First Presidency and the Twelve met to receive the revelation of God to President Taylor, in which the duties of the Priesthood and of the Saints were set forth. In the same revelation appears the call of President George Teasdale of the Juab Stake, and President Heber J. Grant of the Tooele Stake to the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve. Elder Seymour B. Young was called to fill the vacancy in the First Council of Seventies and requested to keep the whole law of God as a preparation for his new calling and labors. 193. Life of Wilford Woodruff, p. 542, by Matthias F. Cowley; October 13, 1882. Concerning the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, President Taylor said: .If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned against us. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept, we cannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law.' In harmony with the remarks of President Taylor, Elder Woodruff observed: .The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or any law or ordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church cannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over stakes will have to obey the law of Abraham, or they will have to resign.' 194. The Gospel Kingdom, p. 390; 4th ed.; revelation given to President John Taylor; October 13, 1882. You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood. 195. BYU Special Collection, Mss 188, L. John Nuttall Papers, etc. Box 5, file folder #11, "Doctrine"; John Taylor. This is made from a xerox of xerox of the original paper which is also located with the papers. See also Messages of the First Presidency, 2:348-9 and The Gospel Kingdom by G. Homer Durham, 4th ed., p. 390; 13 October 1882. Heber J. Grant and George Teasdale to fill vacancies in Twelve; instructions to priesthood leaders-- "Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the Priesthoods and People of my Church: Let my servants George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant be appointed to fill the vacancies in the Twelve that you may be fully organized and prepared for the labors devolving upon you, for you have a great work to perform, and there proceed to fill up the presiding Quorums of Seventies, and assist in organizing that body of my Priesthood who are your co- laborers in the ministry. You may appoint Seymour B. Young to fill up the vacancy in the presiding Quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my Priesthood; and, then proceed forthwith and call to your aid any assistance that you may require from among the Seventies to assist you in your labors in introducing and maintaining the Gospel, among the Lamanites throughout the land. And then let High Priests be selected under the direction of the First Presidency to preside over the various organizations that shall exist among this people; that these who receive the Gospel may be taught in the doctrines of my Church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, and also in the things pertaining to my Zion and my Kingdom, saith the Lord, that they may be one with you in my Church and in my Kingdom. Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let the Twelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me and am one with the Father. And let the High Priests organize themselves, and purify themselves, and this Priesthood and People of the Stakes over which they preside, and organize the Priesthood in the various stakes according to my law, in all the various departments thereof, in the High Councils, in the Elders Quorums, and in the Bishops and their Councils, and in the Quorums of Priests, Teachers and Deacons, that every Quorum may be fully organized according to the order of my Church; and, then, let them inquire into the standing and fellowship of all that hold any Holy Priesthood in their several Stakes; and if they find these that are unworthy let them remove them, except they repent; for my Priesthood, whom I have called and whom I have sustained and honored, shall honor one [me] and obey my laws, and the laws of my Holy Priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to hold my Priesthood, saith the Lord. And let my Priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek not their own will but my will; for if my Priesthood whom I have chosen, and called, and endowed with the Spirit and gifts of their several callings, and with the powers thereof do not acknowledge me I will not acknowledge them, saith the Lord; for I will be honored and obeyed by my Priesthood. And, then, I call upon my Priesthood, and upon all of my people to repent of their sins and shortcomings, of their covetousness, and pride, and self will, and of all their iniquities wherein they sin against me; and to seek with all humility to fulfill my law, as my Priesthood, my Saints, and my people; and I call upon the heads of families to put their houses in order according to the law of God, and attend to the various duties and responsibilities appointed therewith, and to purify themselves before me, and to purge out iniquity from their households. And I will bless and be with you, saith the Lord, and ye shall gather together in your holy places wherein ye assemble to call upon [me], and ye shall ask for such things as are right, and I will hear your prayers, and my Spirit and power shall be with you, and my blessing shall be upon you, upon your families, your dwellings, and your households, upon your flocks and herds and fields, your orchards and vineyards, and upon all that pertain to you; and you shall be my people and I will be your God; and your enemies shall not have dominion over you, for I will preserve you and confound them, saith the Lord, and they shall not have power nor dominion over you; for my word shall go forth, and my work shall be accomplished, and my Zion shall be established, and my rule and my power and my dominion shall prevail among my people, and all nations shall yet acknowledge me. Even so, Amen. 196. ???--from xerox copies of original holographs. Xeroxes are in L. John Nuttall Collection at HDC, d 1269, Box 3. Originals may be at BYU. Two page Ms. "Correspondence" CHO; October 14, 1882. At a Meeting of the First Presidency, Apostles & Pres of stakes held at Pres Taylor's office S L City Oct 14, 1882 at 10 a.m. The Revelation given through Prest John Taylor respecting Priesthood read to the Apostles--was read to the Meeting. President Taylor referring to the Revelation upon Celestial Marriage said when this principle was first made known to us by Joseph Smith, it was in Nauvoo, and many of you will remember the place very well. We were assembled in the office over the brick store, there being present Bro B. Young Heber C Kimball, Orson Hyde & myself. Bro Willard Richards may have been present too, but I am not positive. Upon that occasion Joseph Smith laid before us there the whole principle pertaining to this doctrine and we believed it. Having done this Joseph felt, as he said that he had got a big burden rolled off his shoulders. He felt the responsibility of that matter resting heavily upon him. Notwithstanding, however, that we received the principle & believed it, yet we were in no great hurry to enter into it. Sometime after this, I was riding out of Nauvoo when I met Joseph coming up. We met in the old graveyard--if any of you remember the place--and I moved to Bro Joseph and he moved to me, 1 think we were both on horseback, but of that I am not sure. Said he "Prest Taylor stop" and I stopped. He looked me right in the eye, and spoke with all the solemnity that I ever heard him speak, said he: "Brother Taylor, that principle has got to be complied with forthwith; and if not, the Key will be turned." He had told us before that if this principle was not entered into, the Kingdom could not go one step further. Well now that was a singular kind of a statement to make. Why? We had not made covenants that would reach unto [second page] eternity. We were married to our wives only until Death, and he said that if we could not enter into covenants that the Gods had entered into in the eternal worlds of what use was our religion? We had got, it is true, the first principles of the Gospel--doctrines that were very good to live by, but would not go high enough to be resurrected by. And in regard to the attitude of people against us now, why we have nothing of that kind to give up or sacrifice. No, they may chop us into a thousand pieces, any one among us, we could not do it, and we would not do it. We[ll] I though[t] I would refer to this at the present time. Afterwards, I had the principle made manifest to me definitely and positively so that I knew, and I have never had a particle of doubt since. The 3 & 4 verses of the Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, See 132 D & C, having been read Pres Taylor said Now the question arises, would arise are men--The President of the Church, The Twelve & others--men holding holy Priesthood who do not enter into this order, fit to preside over the Priesthood and why. If a man is not going to obtain an exaltation in the celestial Kingdom of God is he fit to preside over the priesthood that are expected to go there? These are questions for us to ask. The 5 & 6th verses were read. Pres Taylor said These are very important things and they bring these matters home to us. It is proper that we should comprehend these things. We are not at liberty to observe such principles as God imparts as pleases ourselves [and] to reject the others & then claim blessings from the hand of God. Thursday June 21/83 [sic] The Council house was burned this morning commencing at 1215 o'clock. Sunday Oct 8/82 Elder Erastus Snow testified that Joseph Smith was the sixth angel spoken of in the Revelations; It was so recorded in the Kirtland Temple. 197. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; October 14, 1882. A man obeying a lower law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher law. E[rastus] Snow said that Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus spoke of that the man who had one talent & hid it in the Earth was the man who had but one wife & would not take another would have taken from him & given to one who had more. 198. Letter to Mrs. Malinda J. Merrill from Pres. John Taylor; BYU Special Collections, File #M 1267; January 19, 1883. Mrs. Malinda J. Merrill Salt Lake City, Utah Fremont, Piute Co., Utah January 19, 1883 Dear Sister: In regard to the question which you have proposed pertaining to plurality of wives you say: "According to my understanding the revelation, I thought it was sealing, but some say it is plurality." Permit me to say that it is both, you will find that the revelation is on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including Plurality of Wives, and the first paragraph reads: "Verily thus saith the Lord, unto you my Servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand, to know and understand wherein I the Lord justified my Servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; as also my servants Moses, David and Solomon, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." The question that was asked was evidently in relation to those people, and especially in relation to the plurality of wives. In the 4th verse it is said: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned, for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. For all who will have a blessing at my hand shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof as were instituted from before the foundation of the world, and as pertaining to the New and Everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory, and he that receiveth a fullness thereof, must and shall abide my law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." You ask: "If a man and woman go to the House of the Lord and get their endowments and are sealed for time and all eternity, and they two live together quietly and peaceably and teach their children the principles of life and salvation, and bring them up in the fear of the Lord, will they gain an exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom with a continuation of their seed or not? I have been sealed to my husband, and my patriarchal blessing says: "I shall raise children in the Millennium," and I would like to live so as to gain that blessing. I hear men say that one cannot gain an exaltation and a continuation of their seed in the eternal world unless they take more wives than one, and I am anxious to understand it." In fulfilling this, you have entered so far into the everlasting covenant, which is so far acceptable before the Lord, but in regard to the Law, it is further said, verse 32: "Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham." The question is: What is the Law? The 34th verse says: "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises." In the 37th verse it is said: "Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode my law: as Isaac also, and Jacob did not other things than that which they were commanded." "David also received many wives and concubines, as also Solomon and Moses my servants; as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin, save in those things which they received not of me." 38th verse. You seem desirous to take part of the Law and reject the other part, but it is plainly stated as above quoted, that they were "to do the works of Abraham, and that if ye enter not into my law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father which was made unto Abraham." It is further said: "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and that the reason why she did it was because it was the Law." It is evident therefore from the whole of the above that other wives were included in this law as well as the one. You further inquire: "What is the difference in a man having dead wives sealed to him than living women, so that he has one living wife; will they gain as great an exaltation if they have dead women sealed to them as they would if they had living women sealed to them?" This law pertains more particularly to the living, and on this point I refer you to verse 52 wherein it is said: "And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God," and in the 64th verse: "And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her this law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law." "This is the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." You seem to be desirous to having dead women sealed to your husband instead of living ones, where as the law pertaining to these matters does not put things in that shape. We read that the Lord commanded, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and it is for wives as well as husbands to perform their part in relation to these matters as explicitly stated in verse 64 wherein it is said: "If he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God." Circumstances do not always place it in the power of man to enter into this covenant and these matters are left with the Lord to adjust, but no man or woman has authority to point out any other way than that which the Lord has appointed. Respectfully your Brother in the Gospel, /s/ John Taylor 199. Utah Stake Historical Record, 1877-1888, p. 271, record #64904; Church Archives; Quarterly Conference held March 3rd and 4th 1883, Sunday 2 P M. Prest. Smoot then made brief explanations in regard to the progress of the Tabernacle. Prest. W. Woodruff then occupied the stand reading from the Doc. and Covt. relative to the sealing ordinance. followed by Prest. Jos. F. Smith who gave a history of the coming forth of the Revelation on Celestial Marriage; and said as follows. Bro Woodruff has read a portion of a Revelation written in 1843, known as the Revelation on Celestial Marriage which however was revealed in 1831 one thousand eight hundred and thirty one. but never written untill July 12, 1843 but was not then given as a commandment to the Church, but was given for a specific purpose and was not presented to the Church untill 1852 or 3. it was then first read to the Church in Conference assembled up to that time it was not in force unto the whole church but only to those to whom it was given but since 1852 it has been binding upon the whole Church: there were many speculations in regard to its real meaning what was the duty of the Latter day Saints in regard to this Revelation and what was meant by the principles here set forth: Joseph received it in 1831 but he was told by the Lord that the time was not come to reveal it, and was forbidden to publish it save it be to a few. Joseph did entrust this to a few soon after 1831. Lyman E. Johnson one of the Apostles received this from Joseph, we also understand that Oliver Cowdery received it from Joseph did not know of any others that Joseph entrusted it to. L. E. Johnson testified of this to Orson Pratt as early as 1832 or a little later, and Brother Orson Pratt has left his written testimony of the facts relating to this matter: Oliver Cowdery was not so discreet in regard to this matter but in consequence of his conduct brought reproach upon the Church bringing upon the Church the accusation of fornication and polygamy - he wrote an article to stave off the impression that had been made which was published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants which has been left out of the New Edition because it was not one of the Revelations in latter times Joseph Smith was commanded to take wives, he hesitated and postponed it, seeing the consequences and the trouble that it would bring and he shrank from the responsibility, but he prayed to the Lord for it to pass as Jesus did, but Jesus had to drink it to the dregs so it was with Joseph Smith, the Lord had revealed it to him, and said now is the time for it to be practised but it was not untill he had been told he must practice it or be destroyed that he made the attempt - in 1841 he had wives sealed to him - from that time untill his death he had wives sealed unto him - Emma, his wife yielded but it was not without considerable argument that she consented and with her own hand gave to Joseph Smith four wives in this new and everlasting covenant their names are Emily and Eliza Partridge and Sarah and Maria Lawrence the latter two being sisters of Henry Lawrence of Salt Lake City and I have their testimony and of the witnesses of the Ceremony of their marriage - not withstanding this young Joseph (the son of the Prophet) has published to the world that his Father never had a plurality of wives. I do not think that Emma (Joseph Smiths wife) ever made such an assertion and if she did she lied. Soon after the marriage of Joseph to the four ladies mentioned Emma repented of having given them to Joseph and told Joseph that if [he] would not give them up, she would bring him up before the law and became very bitter about this time under this threat and on account of the determined manner of Emma, Joseph went to his brother Hyrum and had a talk with him about it. Hyrum told Joseph if you will write the Revelation I will take it and go and see Emma for I can convince her that it is true. Joseph smiled at Hyrum saying you do not know Emma as well as I do - but Hyrum said he still had faith that he could do as he said, and to satisfy his brother Hyrum, Joseph caused the Revelation to be written on the 12th July 1843. Joseph with Hyrum went into the office and Joseph commanded Wm. Clayton to write as he should dictate. Joseph was asked by Hyrum to get the Urim and Thummim. Joseph said he knew it from beginning to end, he then dictated it word for word to Wm. Clayton as it is now in the Doctrine and Covenants it was written for this purpose at Hyrums suggestion, after it was done, Joseph said there that is enough for the present, but I have a great deal more, which would be given hereafter; Hyrum went to Emma and returned without making any impression upon her; some two or three days after this Emma getting so violent Joseph burned the Revelation to pacify her saying "there that is the last of it" and for the rest of the time he was more or less in her power, and all he done hereafter in relation to this law, was done in secret, unbeknown to Emma: the new and everlasting Covenant is marriage, plural marriage - men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted, why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four, many question me in this manner I suppose they are afraid of Edmunds, what is the Covenant? it is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a plurality of wives and takes both to make the law - the Lord leads the mind along step by step to this point - first that all covenants must be made by this power - next the eternity of the covenant reaching into Eternity after this the Lord tells us what the Law is and how he justified his servants. God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because this was the law ordained for the fullness and glory of God before the world was. This was the law and from Hagar sprang many nations, the Lord has said that to whom this Revelation is given, that they are eligible to this law, its blessings and its requirements - the men can only be saved by acts of Righteousness and the woman are under the same law. Joseph Smith declared that all who became heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ must obey his law or they cannot enter into the fullness and if they do not they may lose the one talent, when men are offered knowledge and they refuse it they will be dammed and there is not a man that is sealed by this priesthood but covenants to enter into the fullness of the law and the same with the woman she says she will observe all that pertains to the new and everlasting Covenant both are under the Covenant - and must obey if they wish to enter into a continuation of the lives or of the seeds. The choir sang an anthem and the conference adjourned. 200. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24:75; Erastus Snow; Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, April 6, 1883. It is as Jesus said concerning the man who hid it in a napkin; he laid it carefully away, and by and by brought it out, saying, here it is as I received it, not having increased at all; in other words, we are just where we were when we started. Another one says I received two talents; and have increased to four, another says I received five talents, and now have ten; the master says to the one who hid his talent, who perhaps laid it carefully away and kept it nice, watching over it with the greatest care; or in other words, to him who did not multiply and increase, but on the contrary took pains to avoid doing so, .Take from him that which he seems to have and give to him that has ten; for he that has and improves upon that which he receives, shall receive more abundantly.' 201. Messages of the First Presidency, 2:354; John Taylor; 14 April 1883. Organization of Seventies "What ye have written is my will, and is acceptable unto me: and furthermore, Thus saith the Lord unto the First Presidency, unto the Twelve, unto the Seventies and unto all my holy Priesthood, let not your heart be troubled, neither be ye concerned about the management and organization of my Church and Priesthood and the accomplishment of my work. Fear me and observe my laws and I will reveal unto you, from time to time, through the channels that I have appointed, everything that shall be necessary for the future development and perfection of my Church, for the adjustment and rolling forth of my kingdom, and for the building up and the establishment of my Zion. For ye are my Priesthood and I am your God Even so. Amen. 202. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24:146; George Q. Cannon; Quarterly Stake Conference held in Logan, Cache County, Utah; Sunday morning, May 6, 1883. And I obeyed the doctrine of patriarchal marriage, upon the same principle of salvation and of exaltation, and that if I would be exalted in the presence of God I must obey the law. 203. Abraham H. Cannon "Journal", Vol. IV:47-8 of original journal; BYU Special Collections; 10 June 1883. Sunday June 10th 1883 - At a mtg in Centerville, several Apostles & all of the First Council of Seventy were present and the discussion of plural marriage came up. "Bro. Thomas Grover testified to having heard the revelation on celestial marriage read by Hyrum Smith in the high council previous to the death of the Prophet. All of the council present excepting three accepted the doctrine, and those three soon afterwards apostatized. Bro. Nobles testified to having performed the first ceremony in celestial marriage in this generation he sealing his wife's sister to the Prophet Joseph." 239. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 12:217; Salt Lake City; July 9, 1890. Mina was very much changed in feeling this evening. She repented the course she had taken, and after considerable talk she begged my forgiveness for what she said last night. This I readily granted, and all past differences were settled. Her mother had been down today and gave her a good scolding for her folly, and this helped, I suppose to convince her of her foolishness. 240. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 12:218; Salt Lake City; July 10, 1890. Though rabid anti-Mormons are working against the people, yet the Republican Party are becoming more favorably impressed with regard to the importance of securing Mormon votes and influence and the leaders feel as though Utah should be admitted as a State into the Union. Even Secretary of State Blaine is desirous of Utah's admission; while Stephen B. Elkins says he is in favor of admitting the Territory 'polygamy or no polygamy.' The Democrats might have won several States had they but possessed sufficient courage when Cleveland was President to admit Mormons to political power, but they failed to do so and now realize their loss.---The resolution of the First Presidency of June 30/90 in regard to plural marriages was read. It is to the effect that none shall be permitted to occur even in Mexico unless the contracting parties, or at least the female, has resolved to remain in that country. 241. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 13:112; Salt Lake City; September 26, 1890. (After just arriving from a trip south.) . . . I was met by Mina with the buggy, and drove to the farm where I found all well. There is considerable comment and fault-finding among some of the Saints because of a manifesto which Pres. Woodruff issued on the 24th inst., in reply to a statement made by the Utah Commission that plural marriages were still authorized and celebrated, and that within the past year some 40 or more had been performed. Pres. W. denied this allegation, and said that such marriages were forbidden by the Church in this Territory, and he called upon the Saints to submit to the law of the land in this particular. In his declaration, however, there is no renunciation of principle nor abandonment of families recommended, as some fault-finders try to make it appear. 242. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon; Salt Lake City; Tuesday, September 30, 1890. I was at the office by 8 a.m. and was copying our Quorum meeting minutes nearly all day until noon. At 2 p.m. our Quorum meeting was held. There were present Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Moses Thatcher, Francis M. Lyman, John H. Smith, Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor and myself. J. W. Taylor was called to act as clerk. Opened by singing, .Come let us anew,' etc. Prayer by John H. Smith. Pres. Snow was pleased to meet and felt that if we really deserve a blessing we will get it as the Lord is willing to bestow light and wisdom upon us, and in these meetings it is our privilege to receive great knowledge. Some business matters pertaining to Stake Conferences, missionaries and changes in Bishops, etc., were briefly discussed. Referring to Pres. Woodruff's late manifesto concerning plural marriage, Pres. Snow said: The Lord will not permit any faithful Saint to loose blessings through the acts of the wicked, or because of circumstances over which the individual has no control. . . . God has a right to suspend His law, as He has done in the inspiration under which Pres. Woodruff wrote the manifesto, and as the Savior did when He suspended the law of Moses and permitted the disciples to pluck corn on the Sabbath day when they were hungry. The very important law concerning baptism is at times suspended as in the case of married women whose husbands are opposed to the gospel, or minors whose parents object to the baptism of their children. I can see great good and no inconsistency in this matter. Many honorable men in this nation have been opposed to us because they believed we were disloyal, but this declaration will remove stumbling blocks from the paths of such persons. F.D. Richards: In the issuance of this Manifesto I see good, and those who possess the spirit of revelation will understand and appreciate it. Before the War of the Rebellion slaves were refused baptism unless their masters consented, and because of the refusal of the latter to permit such things the gospel was withheld for 25 years from the Southern States. When Pres. Woodruff prepared his Manifesto it was without the aid or suggestions of his counselors. He took a clerk and went to a room alone where under the spirit of inspiration he dictated the declaration he desired to make, and there was only one slight change made therein when it was read to Counselors Cannon and Smith. Therefore I feel it is from the Almighty. The Lord is causing the wisdom of men to fail. The Supreme Court held the case of the Church property under advisement for over a year and then rendered so foolish a decision that when they began to consider the result, they vacated their own order, and in some matters will give a decision later. Thus the highest tribunal in this land is confused and disgraced when it seeks to do wrong to the Saints. John W. Taylor: When I first heard of this Manifesto I felt to say 'Damn it', but on further thought I felt it was not right to be so impulsive. I do not yet feel quite right about it. My father when President of the Church sought to find a way to evade the conflict between the Saints and government on the question of plural marriage, but the Lord said it was an eternal an unchangeable law and must stand. Pres. Woodruff lately received an encouraging revelation in regard to this principle, and now I ask myself, .Is the Lord a child that He thus changes?. Yet I feel that the Lord giveth a law and he can also take it away. Moses Thatcher: In 1885 Pres. Taylor made a public statement in the Tabernacle that he had taken a house to place himself outside the reach of the law, and many persons then felt and do feel that he was seeking to evade the issue, just as many now feel concerning Pres. Woodruff's declaration. Yet I feel that both of these brethren acted exactly right. The law of God is not abrogated, but in order to try the nation which has long called us traitors because of the practice of this principle, the cause of offence is removed, so that the law-makers and people may be left without just excuse in their prosecution of the Saints. This Manifesto will doubtless have the effect, however, to make the attacks upon us in other directions more bitter, and we may have to suffer greatly at the hands of the wicked, yet it is satisfying to my feelings. It may force us to make friends with the .battle-axe' of the Lord in Canada and Mexico, and we will yet become the saviors of the Constitution of our country. . . . F. M. Lyman: I endorse the manifesto, and feel it will do good. I design to live with and have children by my wives, using the wisdom which God gives me to avoid being c aptured by the officers of the law. He gave a brief account of his recent labors. We then adjourned till tomorrow at 10 a.m. Benediction by John H. Smith. . . . 243. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon; Salt Lake City; Wednesday, October 1, 1890. . . . At the latter time I went to my Quorum meeting (10 a.m.) in the Gardo House. In addition to the brethren of yesterday Anthon H. Lund was present today. Singing, "0 My Father," etc. Prayer by Lorenzo Snow in which he asked that if it was the Lord's will, we might be permitted to see his face even as Joseph and Oliver, and Moses of old did. John H. Smith: I cannot feel to say that the manifesto is quite right or wrong. It may be that the people are unworthy of the principle and hence the Lord has withdrawn it. I cannot consent to cease living with my wives unless I am imprisoned. Heber J. Grant: I approve of the Manifesto, and feel that it is merely a public announcement of the course which we had already decided in our private councils to adopt, and this being the case I do not know why we should not receive any possible benefits which may arise from a public declaration. Yet I believe greater trouble will follow the prominent Elders in the Church through the adoption of this policy. If this plan had been accepted in the beginning of this crusade the nation would not have been tried as it has been, and would not be worthy of condemnation such as it now merits, hence I feel this has come at the proper time. Anthon H. Lund: Sickness prevented my being here yesterday to my sorrow. I feel that the manifesto will result in good. I gave my approval to what had been said. Moses Thatcher: I think the brethren should so arrange their families that women bearing children shall not be in constant fear of capture. For this feeling is bound to affect the offspring both in mind and body to its injury. The troubles will perhaps cause us to seek refuge in Mexico where there are twelve millions of Lamanites to whom we can then turn our atten- tion, and when they are converted they will form the battle-axe of the Lord, and we will help them to redeem and build up Zion. Lorenzo Snow: I am pleased at our unanimity of feelings, and know that the Lord will direct us aright. . . . 244. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon; Salt Lake City; Thursday, October 2, 1890. . . . At 12 o.clock our Quorum met with the First Presidency. Present: W. Woodruff, Geo. Q. Cannon, Jos. F. Smith, L. Snow, M. Thatcher, F. M. Lyman, J. H. Smith, H. J. Grant, J. W. Taylor, A. H. Lund and myself. . . . The Manifesto was next discussed, and finally on motion of F. M. Lyman all voted to sustain and approve it. The question as to whether or not it should be presented to the Saints for approval or rejection at our conference was discussed at some length. Some felt that the assent of the Presidency and Twelve to the matter was sufficient without committing the people by their votes to a policy which they might in the future wish to discard. Joseph F. Smith: He presented the view that it would lack much force and would not bring the desired results unless accepted by the vote of the people. The Manifesto had already been the means, he was convinced, of presenting [preventing?] the enactment of Edmunds. bill, which passed the Senate, confiscating the Church personal property to the school fund. Now if we could convince leading men of the nation that it is the bona fide intention of the people to have no more plural marriages in this country in conflict with the laws, it would no doubt bring some concessions on the part of the government towards those who have already entered into the plural relation. The matter of presenting the Manifesto to the Conference was left open for the present. 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. 245. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 13:129; Salt Lake City; Sunday, October 5, 1890. After meeting (Conference in the Tabernacle) our quorum met the First Presidency at the Gardo House where we agreed that John T. Caine would suit us as Delegate to Congress, if he was acceptable to the convention which meets on Tuesday. A telegram was read from J. T. Caine concerning an interview with Secretary of the Interior Noble. The latter felt that he could not accept Pres. W. Woodruff's Manifesto without its acceptance by the Conference as authoritative, against the statements of the Utah Commission and Gov. A. L. Thomas. It was therefore decided to present the matter tomorrow for the vote of the people. It was said that Gov. Thomas had overreached himself in his zeal, and this thing would break his influence... At 7:30 the largest Priesthood meeting I ever attended was held in the large Tabernacle. . . . 246. Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, revised edition, 1951, pp. 836-837; Publication Committee: Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Marion G. Romney; MANIFESTO was dated Sept. 24th, 1890 & read & accepted in General Conference on October 6, 1890. This is the full text of the Manifesto: 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 nor 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 allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the spring 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 without delay. Inasmuch 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 reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy, and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any 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 President Wilford Woodruff issued his Manifesto against the practice of plural marriage, and this was accepted by a unanimous vote of the General Conference assembled in Salt Lake City, Oct. 6th, 1890. (Commentary, p. 836) 247. General Conference, October 6, 1890. See end of D&C for reference to following: President Lorenzo Snow speaking after the Manifesto was read: I move, that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the manifesto which has been read in our hearing and which is dated Sept. 24, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding. The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous. 248. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 13:130; Salt Lake City; Monday, October 6, 1890. . . . The Church authorities were presented and sustained. O. F. Whitney then read the Articles of our Faith and on motion of Franklin D. Richards they were accepted by the Church as its rules of guidance. Pres. Woodruff's manifesto was then read, and Lorenzo Snow moved that recognizing Pres. W. as the only man who now holds the keys of the sealing ordinance upon the earth, we sustain him in his action in this matter. The vote was unanimous. . . . Pres. Woodruff (12 min.) expressed his gratitude to the Saints for the support they had given him. He knew God would over rule this act for the good of His Saints. His course had been taken under direction of God, and rather than do anything contrary to the will of God, he would allow himself to be taken out to his death. . . . 249. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 13:131-134; Salt Lake City; Tuesday, October 7, 1890. . . . I then went to the Gardo House where the majority of the First Presidency, Twelve, First Seven Presidents of the Seventy, Presiding Bishopric and Presidents of Stakes were assembled. . . . George Q. Cannon: 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. Women should be encouraged, for some feel as though they had been betrayed, and a man who will act the coward and shield himself behind the Manifesto for deserting his plural wife or wives, would be damned. I will prophesy that in our action at conference yesterday lies safety; the Lord has revealed this much to me. I believe that before long your men will be allowed to vote. If it were not for my public duties I would not live a day in my present condition, but my family understand that my liberty depends on refraining from visiting them in their homes and they are contented. W. Woodruff: This manifesto only refers to future marriages, and does not affect past conditions. I did not, could not and would not promise that you would desert your wives and children. This you cannot do in honor. W. F. Rigby of Bannock State: I know of cases in Bannock and Cache Stakes where some men are legalizing certain wives by marrying them before the Justice of the Peace, and then abandon the others. The sons of these deserted wives feel so enraged that they threaten to kick their fathers if they ever darken their doors. Moses Thatcher: "If such things are done, those guilty should repent and do right or be severed from the Church." Father thought a private labor should be immediately commenced with such faithless men. 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. . . . 250. John M. Whitaker Daily Journal; Journal 7, p. 11 (Vol 1:242, U. of U. edition); November 1, 1890. Typed as in original without use of [sic]. November 1st, 1890. Tonight after my days work, we all attended the regular anniversary Party of President John Taylor in the 14th ward assembly Hall, at which Presidents Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon and other of the General Authorities were present, and at which Presidents Woodruff and Cannon related how President Taylor was tried as Abraham of Old, by the Prophet Joseph Smith just after the revelation on Plurality of wives was received, at a special meeting of the Twelve when the prophet explained the revelation to them, a number were very reluctant and in fact felt they could not support such a principal and John Taylor was the only one who stood up for the Prophet and a short time after this, the Prophet went to the home of President Taylor, and said to him, "Brother John, I WANT LEONORA, president's Wife,, of all the requests coming from the Prophet, this was the last straw; it is said. John Taylor never answered the prophet, turned away and walked the floor all night, but the next morning, went to the home of the Prophet's and said to him, Brother Joseph, IF GOD Wants Leonora He can have her. That was all the prophet was after, to see where President Taylor stood in the matter, and said to him, Brother Taylor, 'I don't want your wife, I just wanted to know just where you stood.' President Taylor was one of the most devout, loyal and Trustworthy persons the Prophet ever had save his Bother Hyrum, he loved him and offered his life for him at Carthage, when he stood in the doorway, parrying off the bullets fired by the mob, and at the Family Reunions often told his family How he loved the Prophet, and also said there is no love in the world equal to the Love I had for Joseph Smith How I loved that man, it was a different kind of love, surpassing an love for woman. He often wept in relating his experiences with the Prophet to his family and from the prophet he drank in the spirit of the Celestial order of thing and breathed in his heart the spirit of Celestial things, and no man in or out of the church has a better understanding of the great principles of the Kingdom of God and of Heavenly order of things than John Taylor. He breathed it in his speeches and in his writings as a Defendant of the Faith, and even President Brigham Young once said of him, John Taylor is the greatest mind I have ever met. 251. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 13:159-160; Salt Lake City; November 2, 1890. In relation to S. F. Ball who desires to go to Mexico and get a fourth wife, Father said it could not be done, as such things had ceased to occur even there. One young man who recently had this privilege, came back and allowed the knowledge of it to go out, and thus put the Church in danger. Father feels, as I do, that it is best to entirely cease the performance of such marriages for the present and thus make the brethren more appreciative of present blessings. 252. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 13:184; Salt Lake City; December 1, 1890. Pres. Harrison's message to Congress today expresses pleasure at the increase of the Gentiles in Utah, and at Pres. Woodruff's manifesto. He says, however, that the doctrine of polygamy is not abolished by this announcement, and while not wishing to see legislation against a mere belief he suggests that the Mormons be given no power whereby they may make this practice lawful. 253. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 13:185; Salt lake City; December 2, 1890. I attended my Quorum meeting. . . . We then spent nearly two hours in interesting and instructive conversation on various points of doctrine. The subject of the Josephite Church, its authority and gifts, was discussed, in the course of which John Henry Smith read a letter to him from the head of that Church-- Joseph Smith--dated Nov.r 7th - the people and authorities here are congratulated therein for our abandonment of plural marriage, and the writer suggests that this matter could not have originated with the Lord or it would have remained unchanged.--- This man is certainly not sincere or he would have accepted the truth long ago, as he has had abundant evidence given him that his father, the Prophet, had more than one wife. 254. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 14:87; Salt Lake City; April 2, 1891. (At the Gardo House with the Quorum) Thereafter Pres. Woodruff spoke: In the name of Jesus Christ I say that God has not forsaken the Presidency or Twelve. He inspired me to issue the Manifesto and if he had not done so I should never have taken that course even though all ordinances for the living and the dead had ceased, and our temples had fallen into the hands of our enemies. The principle of plural marriage will yet be restored to this Church, but how or when I cannot say. God will hold this nation responsible for the wrongs done this people. 255. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 15:36-37; Salt Lake City; August 20, 1891. (Respecting anticipated meetings with the Master in Chancery) I attended my regular council meeting where all the Presidency and Twelve were present excepting Brigham Young, John Henry Smith and Geo. Teasdale. . . . it is felt that the situation here demands the saying of something in regard to the Manifesto and our future intentions in regard to polygamy, and hence it is expected that we will prove that the latter is really abandoned. Written questions, which it is likely will be asked in court, has been sent to all the Twelve for their replies. . . . 256. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 15:85-88; Salt Lake City; October 7, 1891. . . . attended a meeting of the Presidents of Stakes, their counselors, the Bishops and their Counselors, the Presidency, Twelve and First Council of Seventies. . . . President Jos. F. Smith spoke. Among other things he said: 'God will not justify you in kicking out your families and stultifying yourselves in the eyes of all good men. We do not want you to leave your wives because of the Manifesto. Tell your people to take care of their families just as they have always done. What, cohabit with them? I would advise them not to do it in the United States. Take them where they will be safe and where you can live with them without violating the law. The time will come when those who endure faithful in this practice will receive a full, complete deliverance and be more exalted. All the principles are just as true as they ever were, and if they have been withdrawn it is because the people as a rule are unworthy of them. . . .' Pres. Woodruff said among other things: 'I never would have issued the Manifesto had it not been for the inspiration of God to me.' About 3:15 p.m. we adjourned, and the Presidency and Twelve went to the Gardo House where we had some dinner, and then had a Council meeting concerning the replies we shall give concerning polygamy and cohabitation when the Church cases come before the Master in Chancery in the near future. There was considerable discussion with the result that we all got to the point where we realize that polygamy is no longer a law of the Church, and as far as our present families are concerned we must support and honor them, though if we live with them it is at our peril. 257. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 15:103; Salt Lake City; October 19, 1891. (Wilford Woodruff on witness stand before Master in Chancery) Father and Pres. Woodruff were placed on the witness stand and questioned as to the uses to which Church funds received from tithing and donations had been put. They were also examined as to the meaning and intent of the Manifesto. They gave it their views that plural marriages had ceased in the Church and cohabitation was discountenanced. In fact, Pres. Woodruff said that he intended in the Manifesto to cause men who had plural wives to cease associating with them. This was on reply to Dickson's inquiry. 258. Wilford Woodruff Diary; Wilford Woodruff; Oct. 25, 1891. "Thus saith the Lord" not to be used excessively ". . . The Lord is with us & gives us revelation. But I will say for myself that I wish to Avoid saying 'Thus Saith the Lord' as far as I Can when I give the will of the Lord to the people. In the days of Joseph Smith it was 'Thus saith the Lord' almost daily until the revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrine & Covenants had been given. Since that day President Brigham Young and John Taylor to myself have seldom used the words 'Thus saith the Lord' when giving the word of the Lord to the people. In the 68 Sec of the Book of D&C we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is word of the Lord & revelation. 259. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 15:110; Salt Lake City; October 29, 1891. (Abraham H. Cannon visit with his father, George Q. Cannon) He believes as I do that after a while a change will come whereby polygamists will be allowed to live with the families they already have. 260. Deseret News; reported by Arthur Winter; November 7, 1891. Remarks made by President Wilford Woodruff at the Cache Stake Conference, held in Logan, Sunday afternoon, on November 1, 1891. I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the Manifesto. The Lord has told me by revelation that there are many members of the Church throughout Zion who are sorely tried in their hearts because of that Manifesto. And also because of the testimony of the Presidency of the Church and the Apostles before the Master in Chancery. Since I received that revelation I have heard of many who are tried in these things, though I had not heard of any before that particularly. Now, the Lord has commanded me to do one thing, and I fulfilled that commandment at the conference at Brigham City last Sunday, and I will do the same here today. The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter. The question is this: 'Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue---to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the land against it and the opposition of 60,000 people and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of all personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would not [?] stop the practice), or after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law and through doing so, to leave the Prophets, Apostles, and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the gospel, both for the living and for the dead?' The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it would have had no use for Brother Merrill, for Brother Adlefson, for Brother Roskelley, for Brother Leishman, or for any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout the whole Church and we would have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world, by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. I know there are a good many men and probably some leading men, in this Church who have been tried and felt as though President Woodruff had lost the spirit of God and was about to apostatize. Now, I want you to understand that he has not lost the Spirit nor is he about to apostatize. The Lord is with him, and with this people. He has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it. I have been called upon by friends outside the Church and urged to take some steps with regard to this matter. They knew the course which the Government was determined to take. This feeling has also been manifested more or less by the members of the Church. I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time, but I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself; and let every other man go there; had not the God of Heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and wrote what the Lord told me to write. I laid it before my brethren--such strong men as Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother Joseph F. Smith, and the Twelve Apostles. I might as well undertake to turn an army with banners out of its course as to turn them out of a course that they considered to be right. No. Why? Because they were moved upon by the Spirit of God and by the revelations of Jesus Christ to do it. . . . 261. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 15:119-120; Salt Lake City; November 11, 1891. Heber J. Grant who just returned from a pleasure jaunt in California and elsewhere, came in to obtain my views this afternoon concerning the recent testimony by the Presidency before the Mastery in Chancery. He feels that according to their statements made under oath none of us who have plural wives can live with them any place on the earth. He thinks, therefore, that the brethren should issue another manifesto commanding polygamists to cease cohabiting with plural wives, at least within the jurisdiction of the United States, otherwise some of us will be watched and captured with the result that we will nullify the testimony of the Presidency, and brand ourselves as a set of base deceivers. The testimony which they gave is opposed to what was decided should be given, at former council of ours. Heber will bring the matter up for discussion in an early council. 262. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon; Salt Lake City; November 12, 1891. (At a council meeting with the First Presidency and members of the Quorum of the Twelve) The matter of the Manifesto and the extent of its meaning was then discussed. Pres. Woodruff said that he was placed in such a position on the witness stand that he could not answer other than he did; yet any man who deserts and neglects his wives or children because of the manifesto, should be handled on his fellowship. Our talk resolved itself into this that men must be careful to avoid exposing themselves to arrest or conviction for violation of the law, and yet they must not break their covenants with their wives. 263. The Contributor, p. 197; Feb 1892. HISTORICAL NOTE: The President [of the United States] and the Cabinet discussed this earnest appeal, and because the question arose as to the President's power to grant the amnesty, a bill was introduced by Senator Paddock amending the Edmunds-Tucker Act so as to give the President the desired authority. Salt Lake City, Utah December 21, 1891 TO THE PRESIDENT: We have the honor to forward herewith a petition signed by the President and most influential members of the Mormon Church. We have no doubt of its sincerity, and no doubt that it is tendered in absolute good faith. The signers include some who were most determined in adhering to their religious faith, while polygamy, either mandatory or permissive, was one of its tenets, and they are men who would not lightly pledge their faith and honor to the Government or subscribe to such a document without having fully resolved to make their words good in letter and spirit. We warmly recommend a favorable consideration of this petition, and if your Excellency shall find it consistent with your public duties to grant the relief asked, we believe it would be graciously received by the Mormon people and tend to evince to them what has always been asserted, that the government is beneficent in its intentions, only asks obedience to its laws, and desires all law abiding citizens to enjoy all the benefits and privileges of citizenship. We think it will be better for the future if the Mormon people should now receive this mark of confidence. As to the form and scope of a reprieve or pardon, granted in the exercise of your constitutional prerogative, we make no suggestions. You and your law advisers will best know how to grant what you may think should be granted. We are, very respectfully, /s/ Arthur L. Thomas, Governor of Utah /s/ Charles S. Zane Chief Justice of Utah Territory 264. The Contributor, Vol 13:196-97; Junius F. Wells, Editor; Salt Lake City; February, 1892. AMNESTY The following petition for amnesty has been presented to the President of the United States: Salt Lake, Dec. 19, 1891 "We the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beg respectfully to represent to your Excellency the following facts: "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come. "That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890. Our people are devout and sincere, and they accepted the doctrine, and many personally embraced and practiced polygamy. "When the Government sought to stamp the practice out, our people, almost without exception, remained firm, for they, while having no desire to oppose the Government in anything, still felt that their lives and their honor as men were pledged to a vindication of their faith; and that their duty towards those whose lives were a part of their own was a paramount one, to fulfill which they had no right to count anything, not even their own lives, as standing in the way. Following this conviction hundreds endured arrest, trial, fine and imprisonment, and the immeasurable suffering borne by the faithful people, no language can describe. That suffering, in abated form, still continues. "More, the Government added disfranchisement to its other punishments for those who clung to their faith and fulfilled its covenants. "According to our faith the head of our Church receives, from time to time, revelations for the religious guidance of his people. "ln September, 1890, the present head of the Church, in anguish and prayer, cried to God for help for his flock, and received permission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended. "At the great semi-annual conference which was held a few days later, this was submitted to the people, numbering many thousands and representing every community of the people in Utah, and was by them in the most solemn manner accepted as the future rule of their lives. "They have since been faithful to the covenant made that day. "At the late October conference, after a year had passed by, the matter was once more submitted to the thousands of people gathered together, and they again in the most potential manner, ratified the solemn covenant. "This being the true situation and believing that the object of the government was simply the vindication of its own authority and to compel obedience to its laws, and that it takes no pleasure in persecution, we respectfully pray that full amnesty may be extended to all who are under disabilities because of the operation of the so-called Edmunds and Edmunds Tucker laws. Our people are scattered; homes are made desolate; many are still imprisoned; others are banished or in hiding. Our hearts bleed for those. In the past they followed our counsels, and while they are thus afflicted our souls are in sackcloth and ashes. "We believe there are nowhere in the Union a more loyal people than the Latter-day Saints. They know no other country except this. They expect to live and die on this soil. "When the men of the South, who were in rebellion against the government, in 1865, threw down their arms and asked for recognition along the old lines of citizenship, the Government hastened to grant their prayer. "To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the government and people, our people have voluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle. "Have they not the right to ask for such clemency as comes when the claims of both law and justice have been fully liquidated? "As shepherds of a patient and suffering people, we ask amnesty for them, and pledge our faith and honor for their future. "And your petitioners will ever pray. Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, John Henry Smith, M. W. Merrill, John W. Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Moses Thatcher, Anthon H. Lund, H. J. Grant, Franklin D. Richards, Francis M. Lyman, Abraham H. Cannon. 265. Letter to the Honorable A. Saxey, Provo, Utah from Joseph F. Smith; CHO, d1325/Bk4/fd 1; Jan. 9th, 1897. Jan. 9th 1897 Hon. A. Saxey---- Provo. Dear Brother: * * * With reference to the "Manifesto" prohibiting plural marriages, I scarcely need to say more than that you expressed yourself on that matter Strictly in accord with my own views, and in harmony with the views of President Woodruff-and the facts. The doctrine is not repealed, the truth is not annulled, the law is right and just now as ever, but the observance of it is stopped. And as to the future--no man knows, only as it may be revealed to him, and no one is authorized to foretell. We may have opinions, but it may not be wise to express them for by doing so antagonism might be engendered [P. 4] Altho our belief would necessarily come within the relm of conjecture only. I am willing to let the matter rest with God for I feel I have done my whole duty, as an individual, in regard to that matter. Of course this is not germane to your question, but I trust you will pardon the digression. I certainly believe fully in the Revelation and I know the principle is sound and right. I believe those who entered into it, are as sacredly obligated today to fulfil their covenants as they ever were. The Manifesto stopped further pl. marriages in time, but it did not divorce a single wife--nor relieve a man who had entered into the Covenant, of a single responsibility. The operation of the law--as to further pl. marriages was suspended--or stopped: but the obligations already incurred were not touched. * * * With very Kind regards, I am &c. /s/ Jos. F. Smith 266. Notes from the Historical Department, Vol. 3:111; Thursday, October 26th, 1899. The following report was read by the secretary to the Council, it having been collated through correspondence with the several stake presidents. All the stakes were included in this report excepting Wayne, that is, the stakes within the confines of the United States:-- In 1890, at the time of President Woodruff's manifesto, there were 2,000, 451 polygamic [sic] families in existence. Since then this number has been reduced as follows: 750 by death, 63 by removals into Mexico and Canada, 95 by divorce; leaving 1,543 polygamic families in the United States. This shows that 37% of these families had ceased to exist as polygamist families since Woodruff's manifesto. 267. William H. Smart Diary, 1901-1902 Book, p. 94; July 28, 1901. At Wasatch Stake MIA Conference, remarks of Sister and President Joseph F. Smith: "Sister Smith bore a very strong testimony to the divinity of the principle of plural marriage. Pres. Smith endorsed it. He said it was taken away from the people--like the law of consecration--because the saints rejected it, and neither would be restored until there is a people prepared to live them. Anyone should beware that casts slurs upon the birth of those born under this covenant. Also that men who will not appreciate their wives and children and provide for them will lose them." 268. Statement by Mary E. Lightner; BYU Spec Coll Mss 1132; Copied from a xerox copy of a negative copy of the original; Feb 8, 1902. I was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet by commandment, in the Spring of 1831. The Savior appeared and commanded him to seal me up to everlasting life, gave me to Joseph to be with him in his Kingdom even as he is in the Fathers Kingdom. In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a wife, I was a thousand miles from him, he got afraid. The angel come to him three times the last time with a drawn Sword and threatened his life. I did not be- lieve, if God told him. So, why did he not come and tell me. [p. 2] The angel told him I should have a witness, and an angel came to me, it went through me like lightning, I was afraid. Joseph Said he came with [unreadable word] more Revelation and Knowledge than Joseph ever dare reveal. Brigham Young sealed me to him, for time and all eternity. Joseph Said I was his, before I came here. he said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him. I was Sealed to him in the Masonic Hall over the Old brick Store, by Brigham Young in Feb 1842, and then again in the Nauvoo Temple by Heber C. Kimball [p. 3] reconfirmed in St. George Temple and the Manti Temple [unreadable word] and Salt Lake Temple after I came to Utah. /s/ Mary E. Lightner Feb 8th, 1902 Witness: Mary R. Rollins Minersville, Beaver Co., Utah 269. Letter to Pres. Joseph F. Smith from George H. Brimhall; original in-coming correspondence, Joseph F. Smith Papers, Church Archives; April 21, 1902. Headnote: President's Office Benjamin Cluff Jr. Brigham Young Academy President. and Church Normal Training School Provo City, Utah, Pres. Joseph F. Smith., Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Brother: April 21, 1902 I herewith enclose a statement of one of our aged sisters who while visiting me here in Provo during Conference time related to me for my entertainment some of her Nauvoo experiences, and thinking that perhaps the enclosed statement might be of interest to you, if not a matter of sufficient importance to become a part of Church history, I had a stenographic report make on the points set forth by her concerning the practice of plural marriage and the endowments, both of which are so strenuously denied by the so-called Reorganized Church. My health is, I believe, somewhat better, yet I am far from being on a working basis. In many respects I feel much better. I have planned to visit the Temple to-morrow and be baptized for my health and receive such blessings there as the Lord may have in store for me, then on the 23rd go with Brother Joseph E. Robinson, President of the California Mission, to the Coast. With kindest regards and brotherly love, I am as ever Your brother in the Gospel, /s/ G H Brimhall 270. Benjamin F. Johnson Papers, no number, in CHO. It is an original written in pencil on a pink lined paper; 12 May 1903. b 28 July 1818 Mesa City Arizona 12 May 1903 Pres Anthon H. Lund Historians Office Salt Lake City Dear Brother In reply to your request through the "News" that "Copies of all publications by the Elders in defence of the truth should be forwarded to your office" To comply with which I inclose two pamphlets. The first is a mutilated and only copy I have left of a pamphlet written in Honolulu ST and published in San Francisco in 1854. Which was one of the first publications in defence of plural marriage by the missionaries sent out in 1852. And now should this old broken copy be deemed by you of little or no worth to the office I would be grateful to you for its return. The other pamphlet was written in the "Crusade" just before the "Manifesto" and both pamphlets in their times were efficient in closing the mouths of our enemies, and now Brother Lund I respectfully ask if there is anything further needed in Testimony from one who received the Gospel in 1831 and from 1833 until the time of his death was a close observer and much of that period a close associate with the prophet. Being from the earliest days at Kirtland and acquainted personally with D. P. Thurlbut and with the Spauldin Fake from its inception after which in the winter of 1840 I baptized into the church some of the "Spauldins" where that romance was written/ I was with the Prophet at Far West and at Adam ondi Ahman where at the time Pres Joseph F. Smith was born I was prisoner in Gen Wilsons camp At the Prophets Escape from Mo I was with him at old commerce then called "the grave yard" and was his constant atendant through his severe sickness there in Sep 1839 - the same fall I left there and after a mission to Canada and the middle states returned to Nauvoo in the spring 1842 when as the Prophets legal atorney or agent I was placed in charge at Ramus Soon after which I was instructed in the Sealing Powr of the Priesthood and taught the duty of plural marriage and he then having my sister widow of Lyman R. Shirman as wife by proxy he soon through my consent took another sister then living with us to be his wife, after which I proceeded with his means and my own to build a large brick joint residence for his wife and my own which was just being completed at his death. The first plural wife brought to my house with whom the prophet stayed was Eliza Patridge after which he was there with my sister Almera as his wife - on April 2d and May 16th 1843 the Prophet was at my house with Wm Clayton as scribe at which time was written in answer to questions asked all of sections 130 to 131 Doc & Cov and he then gave to us all keys of knowledge contained in sec 129 & 132 of the both before it was written On may 17th He sealed to me my first wife and he gave to me to be my wife a young orphan girl then living with us who I think is now the only woman in Israel still living with the man to whom she was given by the Prophet. With the prophets home life both in the "Mansion" with Emma as before I was well acquainted with the "Lawrence Girls" that I knew were living in the "mansion" by Emma's consent as his wives as also others with homes elsewhere of which she knew of the prophets circle of friends or private council I was among the first called and am now the only one left to remember the wonderful things that he taught unto the marvelous incidents that transpired just previous to his death especially the one in which he while filled with Prophetic Teaching turns to the Twelve who were present as members of that council and with a powr of language rarely heard by mortals he reviewed the past of his life in labor and sacrifice under the burden of responsibilities that had heretofore rested upon him pertaining to the Kingdom of God which was now upon earth The responsibility of which "To bear it off to all the world he then and there placed upon the shoulders of the twelve in conection with that council declaring with a voice that shook the very house and thrilled every heart that he was clean from the blood of this generation and from all men and he raised himself from the floor with a vehemuth not to be described as he shook his skirts free from the blood of all men and from all further responsibility in bearing of the kingdom of God to all the earth, and said that those who were now made responsible would be damned did they not fulfill there calling" and altho both his words and his doings forboded his death we yet could not deem it posible that he would leave us - and now at about 85 in age I am the only one left to bear testimony as he said I should "When Hoary with age" In relation to the "Kingdom and Government of God as it would exist imbracing all nations upon earth" I was with him when writing the "Powrs and policy of the U S Government" His letters to Clay Calhoon and to James Arlington Bennet and was Conversant with all the last acts of his life. And am now the only one left of the old Colonial Council of the "State of Deseret" Your Fellow Labour B. F. Johnson (on the back written in a different hand and in pen) This letter was received by President Anthon H. Lund, May 20, 1903 and filed away the same day by J. F. Smith Jr. 271. Post Woodruff Manifesto Plural Marriage and the Reed Smoot Hearings, Extracts from some letters of Carl A. Badger, Secretary to Reed Smoot; the Carl A. Badger papers may be found in Archives & Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; March 18, 1904. . . . the admissions made by President Smith and Apostle Lyman have greatly angered the country. Speaking of their testimony generally, I would not want to change a word. Some things might have been made clearer, some might have been shown up in a more favorable light, but as a whole, they did the best they could. An honest confession being good for the soul, I think the testimony ought to do us all good. I think it might have been better if the President had not said that the Gentiles "condoned" his lapses; that gave them a chance to quibble,--and they have taken advantage of it. If he had simply said that he had broken the law, that his offenses were generally known, or at least, that he had not covered them up, that the courts are open and the officers of the courts non-Mormons, the state of things would have been generally recognized. . . . The hard part of the testimony is to come yet. President Smith and Apostle Lyman have admitted that they have broken the law of the land and the law of God in their course of conduct, and though Brother Lyman said he was "not repentant" yet if the declaration is to count for any thing it means that polygamy is to go with the generation which began its practice before the Manifesto. I do not think that the brethren realize what they say when they declare that they have broken the law of God,--they make him out a very easy "Boss". The truth of the matter is that very few of our people have been willing to admit that the Manifesto was a revelation and that the leading authorities have not encouraged this view, but rather that the necessities of the cause compelled that we openly give up what we secretly clung to. Now Senator Smoot's answers to the protests have insisted that the Manifesto was the word of God and the President of the Church has so declared it, and, in spite of his conduct to the contrary, this will carry great weight, unless it be conclusively proved that the leaders have never so regarded it, and that some of them are not willing to so regard it at the present time. I refer to the possible contingency that Apostles Cowley and Taylor will refuse to regard it so. I want to see Brother Taylor compelled to make this admission. I think we are greatly indebted to him for all this "unpleasantness"--if you can refer to a national scandal as such. I for one want to see polygamy go, and I believe that we have got to ask aid from the enemy to have it go, that is, that we have not strength of character to live up to our promises, we need a little compulsion from the outside. . . . 272. Post Woodruff Manifesto Plural Marriage and the Reed Smoot Hearings, Extracts from some letters of Carl A. Badger, Secretary to Reed Smoot; the Carl A. Badger papers may be found in Archives & Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; April 7, 1904. . . . I almost tumbled out of my chair when the boy brought the paper this morning and I read the heading,--"Yield to the Law"--"Polygamy Renounced by Conference of Mormons." I was very glad to read the statement made by President Smith. I do not see how he could do more. I wish it had come ten years ago, but, in this world we are not changed in the twinkling of an eye, we grow more and more unto the perfect day. The fact that President Smith was sustained by the conference is completely lost in the statement that polygamy--new polygamous marriages,--will be prosecuted by the Church courts. Of course, the charge is on the tongues end of the opponents that this declaration is not made in good faith, and the President is inconsistent in what he denounces, or makes punishable, the sins of others, but leaves his own violations of the law unmentioned, but we will let that go in the general thanks--saying that we who do not want to see polygamy reestablished can stand on the declaration of the President of the Church that the Church will punish these things. If I wanted to be critical, I would point to the fact that the language of the statement is all in the future tense, that is, the part which declares punishment. Then the wording "will be liable to be dealt with", etc, might, according to my opinion, be better rendered, "will be excommunicated"; that word "liable" is a weak word, but if the people will put strength into it, it will serve the purpose. . . . 273. Post Woodruff Manifesto Plural Marriage and the Reed Smoot Hearings, Extracts from some letters of Carl A. Badger, Secretary to Reed Smoot; the Carl A. Badger papers may be found in Archives & Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; December 17, 1904. . . . It is impossible to say just what the developments of the last week will do. If the Senate comes to the conclusion that the obligations taken in the Temple are merely archaical, academical, and that they do not bind the conscience and the conduct of those who take them, I suppose that they will not be sufficient to unseat the Senator; but if these ceremonies are thought to mean just what they say, I do not see how the judgement that they are against "public policy" will be avoided. Do not quote me on this matter. . . . 274. Post Woodruff Manifesto Plural Marriage and the Reed Smoot Hearings, Extracts from some letters of Carl A. Badger, Secretary to Reed Smoot; the Carl A. Badger papers may be found in Archives & Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; February 12, 1905. . . . This is a contemptible attitude for us to be in. We have said that certain things do not exist, they are proved to exist; we say that if they are proved to exist that the guilty ones will be punished, and now they are going to wait to see if we mean what we say. James H. Anderson tells me plainly that there is nothing in the manifesto. Think of such a thing. And I know that there are many of the leaders of the Church who are acting on this theory. It is abominable. We are occupying a cowardly, hypocritical attitude in this matter, and cannot but reap a harvest of humiliation and shame. There is no use quibbling about whether we made a "compact" or a "covenant", no one doubts but what the country, which had been fighting us on this issue for a quarter of a century, understood that polygamy had gone, and we allowed them to have such an impression,-- encouraged them in it for our own ends, and we are now estopped to say that we made no agreement. Where is our honor in this matter. It makes me angry. Well, the end is not yet. . . . 275. Post Woodruff Manifesto Plural Marriage and the Reed Smoot Hearings, Extracts from some letters of Carl A. Badger, Secretary to Reed Smoot; the Carl A. Badger papers may be found in Archives & Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; May 11, 1906. . . . Did you read the editorial in the News of May 1st, "Wrong and Irrational." The News could hardly have done the Senator greater damage if it had deliberately planned it. The common understanding is that Taylor and Cowley were compelled to resign because they had been guilty of taking new wives since the Manifesto; the News says they were out of harmony with the Apostles in regard to certain regulations, and being out of harmony, handed in their resignations. It looks as though the action of conference was in bad faith. The truth of the matter is that it was. The same men who were then deposed could have been sustained by the same people who voted against them. The fact that without explanation the successors of these men could be sustained and the men thereby deprived of their callings, is a striking instance of the unthinking, blind obedience of the Mormon people. Well, it will end someday. . . . 276. Post Woodruff Manifesto Plural Marriage and the Reed Smoot Hearings, Extracts from some letters of Carl A. Badger, Secretary to Reed Smoot; the Carl A. Badger papers may be found in Archives & Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; June 22, 1906. . . . Let me come to the point of difficulty first: I am not disposed to argue the question of polygamy; that day has gone by. I do not agree with you on the merits of the question, but I think we should agree that there can be no new marriages. That polygamy is right, divine, a perfect relation cannot change the matter; we have said that God has told us not to enter into the relation any more, and we must keep our promise, and will. Now, I know, as you do, that a great deal of our difficulty has come from the fact that a large number of these new marriages have taken place in Mexico--when I say know, I do not mean that you have been present when the marriages took place, but that you know it as we know other things by indisputable evidences that such things have occured; among our people the fact that a woman bears children is positive proof that a marriage has taken place, and that the parties living in that relation feel that their union has the approval of God above and his Church below. I have no patience with the silly subterfuge by which these persons say they assume the complete responsibility and that the Church does not share with them in the matter; what is meant is that the Church shall not be compelled to bear the consequences of the act which the participants believe the Church sustains them in--what they mean is that they will say that the Church is in no way responsible to protect the Church, but that these people do not think that they have the approval of the priesthood is inconceivable to one who knows the persons concerned and the views of all Mormons in relation to virtue,--a moral relation is only possible to one who has gone through the Temple when the priesthood has authorized its assumption. Well, there is nothing new in this, I am sure. When I say that I am glad that you have not married a new wife, I say so because I believe our honor is more to us than anything on earth; and we must keep our word sacred. If we wish to convert the world to the truths of polygamy, let us first be honest. If as a people we had strictly observed the Manifesto, I believe that our example would have challenged the admiration of the world; but we have thought that there is something higher than honesty, and behold our confusion. I resent anyone saying that I am not as loyal to my people as those who deny conditions which they know exist; and I affirm my determination to try to tell the truth about everything. I wish it could have been said to the Senate Committee: Come, gentlemen, bring your searchlights; go into every corner; we will hide nothing; our record is like the saying of the Almighty, one jot or one tittle of the word that has proceeded from our mouth has not remained unfulfilled. How proud we would be today if this were so, though it had caused the blood to flow from many hearts. One man at the head of the American nation has done more in five years for reform because he has been honest, than has been accomplished in any twenty years before. Simple honesty, the facts, publicity, is his sovereign remedy; a remedy from which we shrink--but I pray for the last time. I wish it were possible for me to hurl in the teeth of the world the accusation and the boast: While you have been cruel, we have been honest. Of course what we have done is but an exhibition of human nature, and it is remarkable that no more instances of new marriages have taken place than have really occured, but those that have occured are to our discredit. We have had the proud title of a people who kept their word; I have lived to see the day when honorable, conscientious men have disputed that we held the title by right; I want to see our claim to this title acknowledged again, and will. You ask if I intend to repudiate the principle that gave me birth. I hope to heaven I never shall. I believe I have defended its virtues, its benefits, its cleanness, its humanity, as strongly as I know how; and I am sure that I love and respect my father and mother for what they have done for me. I cannot see that polygamy is ideal in an ideal state. It seems to me that one honorable woman and one honorable man form the ideal union, but as I have said before, I regard any argument based on the question of the merits of polygamy as out of the question as far as it affects the question of the practice of the principle. We have said that we have given up the practice, and no matter how high we regard it, we must give it up. We cannot go back to the practice of the principle without dishonor, and I have always been taught that dishonor was impossible for a Mormon. 277. Anthony Woodard Ivins Journal; Special Priesthood Meeting; 10:00 a.m. October 8, 1906. John R. Winder. . . read from remarks of Pres. Smith April Conference 1904 regarding plural marriages. Also resolution presented by F. H. Lyman. It is said that the above was done simply for effect and was not intended to be enforced. That there is an inner circle where these things are better understood. THERE IS NO INNER CIRCLE. The Presidency & Apostles are united to a man on this question and maintain the declarations made above & expect it to be enforced. There is no inner circle and this policy is sapping the faith of young people in the Church and we want every officer present to see that the policy of the Church is maintained. I am speaking for myself. Pres. Smith: "You are speaking for all of us." Pres. Smith: While Pres. Winder made himself clear I desire to make his remarks clearer. This whispering which has been so prevalent and which has brought some of our brethren into trouble is wrong. Every sensible man ought to know that when we make public assertions that we mean it, and when men come around whispering that there are other Counsels, that there is an inner circle other than they have received, and some of them have not received what they merited. The talk about Reed Smoot being the cause of the trouble is ridiculous nonsense. Sustain those who sustain you. Get out of debt. Do not seek pleasures to excess. . . . Every young man in Israel should marry and not go whoring after the world. Very important. Officials should not be called by official titles. 278. Post Woodruff Manifesto Plural Marriage and the Reed Smoot Hearings, Extracts from some letters of Carl A. Badger, Secretary to Reed Smoot; the Carl A. Badger papers may be found in Archives & Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; February 21, 1907. . . . I must confess that the situation is beyond me. The Senator has just said that he intends to tell the brethren when he gets home that if they want to continue this "polygamy business" they must leave the United States. I asked if he meant unlawful cohabitation, and he said no. Well, I am dumfounded that there should be the least suggestion of the possibility of the Church attempting to establish polygamy; that it should be thought of for a moment. The Senator also says that if Taylor and Cowley are brought back and placed in the quorum of the apostles nothing will save us from the wrath of the American people. I cannot entertain the thought that such a thing is possible. To think of it as being possible is to make the Church out a hypocritical fraud; but here is the Senator talking about the calamity as though it were a possibility.... 279. Letter from the First Presidency to Elder Henry H. Rolapp; Notes from the Historical Department, Vol 3:153; April 10, 1909. April 10th, 1909 Elder Henry H. Rolapp, Ogden Dear Brother:-- Referring to your favor of the 29th ult., containing enclosure in the shape of a copy of letter from Mr. Fred J. Kiesel to Mr. A. Plehn, Emperial German Consul at Denver, answering the Consul on the present statis [sic] of polygamy, we suggest that you use Mrs. Kiesel in the way indicated by you, that is, as a means of conveying to the German Consul the facts in relation to the stand taken by the Church on the question of polygamy. In this connection we may remind you that we fought this question through the courts, maintaining our right under the Constitution to practice plural marriage as part of our religion, and that this was done until the court of last resort decided the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional, and that since President Woodruff's manifesto of 1890, the Church has in no wise sanctioned the solemnization of plural marriages. But that while we have no direct testimony, we have reason to believe the Elders Taylor and Cowley fell [sic] to strictly observe the manifesto, and for that reason failed to appear at the Smoot hearing at Washington, and were therefore dropped from their position as members of the Quorum of Apostles; but it is our understanding that whatever they did was done in Mexico in the belief that the manifesto applied only to the United States. We may add also that a consensus [sic] of the polygamist families in America has been taken on two different occasions, and a report of the same made to the government, going to show that they are fast dying out, and that it is only a question of time when they will cease to exist. For your information we may say that Prest. Sergef. Ballif of the Swiss and German mission has been in correspondence with Senator Smoot with a view to the Senator's inter esting himself in behalf of our Church in Germany, by way of getting the Secretary of State to take the matter up with the German Government with a view to the German Government's granting to our missionaries the same liberty accorded to other foreign missionaries. And anything you can say, that Mr. Kiesel, to the German consol [sic] at Denver May 8, and perhaps hasten favorable action. We suggest however that you do this yourself, as we do not wish to be put under obligations to Mr. Kiesel for obvious reasons. Your brethren, Joseph F. Smith John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund First Presidency 280. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Thursday, 8 September 1910. Attended meeting of Quorum at Temple. President Smith was still suffering with rheumatism. He is confined to his bed. The Quorum discussed the question of New polygamy cases and I stated that it was my opinion that all new cases should be excommunicated from the church and that action should be taken at once. Also that the church should not retain any man taking a plural wife after the Manifesto in a church position where people were asked to support him. All members present agreed with this position. Present at meeting Lyman, Smoot, Penrose, Whitney, Richards, McKay and Jos. F. Smith Jr. . . . (Later) I told Pres Lund and John Henry Smith my ideas of the action that should be taken by the church in the new polygamy cases and also thought Pres Smith should instruct the Presidents of Stakes and Bishops and Wards to begin action against any such living in their stakes or wards. Pres Lund wanted me to tell Pres Smith and I will do so as soon as he is well enough. ln the evening I met Bp Mibley and we spent a couple of hours in discussing the coming campaign and I told him what I had said to the Quorum of the new polygamy cases. He agreed with me that action should be taken. 281. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Tuesday, 27 September 1910. Attended a meeting of Quorum of Apostles at 10 oclock AM. All present but Clawson, Geo A. Smith and Ivins. I opened meeting by prayer. I made a statement regarding the new polygamy cases and insisted that the church take action against them at once. I believe that every person taking a plural wife since the manifesto should not be sustained in prominent positions in the church where the people have to vote for them and I strongly demand that cases at least since April 1904 be excommunicated and vigorous action commenced at once. The question was discussed the whole day. The most of the members agreed with me but thought that a wholesale slaughter should not be made of those who were induced to take plural wives by Taylor, Cowley, Woodruff and Merrill before Pres Smith's declaration of April 1904, but drop them as fast as conditions will permit without making a great stir about it. 282. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Wednesday, 28 September 1910. I called on President Smith and told him what I said to the Quorum on new polygamy cases and I told him I thought some public statement should be made by him at the coming Conference and instruct the President[s] of Stakes and Bishops of Wards to handle all new cases. This must be done to prove to our people we are sincere in our opposition to new polygamy. We talked for over one hour and I tried to cover the whole ground. Meeting of the Quorum at 11 oclock. Israel Barlow Jr. was summoned before the Quorum to answer to charges against him of marrying Miss Welling within the last few years, also for lying and forgery. He did not appear. He was excommunicated for marrying the girl. The girl's brother was present and stated he knew his sister was not married in April 1909. 283. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Saturday, 1 October 1910. At 11 oclock met with the Quorum of twelve. All present but Clawson and Geo A Smith. We had before us Patriarch Judson Tolman having cited him to appear and answer the charge of his having married different men to plural wives contrary to the rules and regulations of the church. We tried to get the whole truth out of him but could not do it. He acknowledged to having performed fifteen plural marriages. We tried to get out of him who they were but he said he could not remember. He mentioned four as follows: Bp Muir, Jas Eldridge, a Mr. Pratt and Merrill. We could not get the names of the others but found out he had married a woman himself but did not know who performed the ceremony. The party had a mask on. He, himself, married most of the parties on the street and some in buggies and one or two in a house. He told us the first marriage he performed was Bp Muir and he insisted all were before April 1904, the year of the declaration of President Smith. It was evident to all he was not telling the truth and had been instructed what to say but he would not tell with whom he had been talking. We adjourned until 3 oclock and asked Bp Muir to be present. He was present and admitted he married a plural wife on June 14/05. He would not inform on anyone else--did not believe the declaration of President Smith was made in good faith nor the Woodruff manifesto was ever intended to put a stop to polygamy--claimed they had been going on ever since 1890 and no action taken. Believed now that they were stopped because action was being taken. The bunch, as he designated them, knew each one ran a risk and was liable to be excommunicated if found out. We agreed to summon Judson Tolman before us again to show cause why he should not be excommunicated next Monday, October 3rd, at 10:30 am. at Temple rooms. We also thought we would get some additional information from him. I have insisted that action should be taken long ago and today's proceedings demonstrate it beyond a question. 284. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Monday, 3 October 1910. Meeting at the Temple at 10:30 a.m. Judson Tolman was present as requested. He told a little more about how he came to perform the illegal marriages and had been instructed to put them all back of April 1904, by Henry S. Tanner and others because it was necessary to save himself and others. He continued to evade and even lie about certain actions of his. After he was excused it was unanimously agreed to excommunicate him from the church for performing plural marriages and also for having married a woman himself contrary to the rules and order of the church. 285. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Wednesday, 5 October 1910. Meeting of Quorum at 9 oclock. We discussed the Tolman case for nearly one hour and Pres Lyman was instructed to send him a notice of excommunication similar to published notice in News of last evening. We did not mention his lying and taking another wife in 1905. Pres Lund and John Henry came in at 10 oclock and reports were made. We clothed and Lyman prayed in opening and I in circle. We took up the question of a circular letter to be signed by the First Presidency to the Presidency's [sic] of all the stakes of Zion, calling their attention to new polygamy cases and directing them to bring action against any such persons who have violated the declaration of Pres Smith made at April Conference, 1904. At one oclock adjourned until 5 oclock. . . . Meeting at Temple 5 oclock. We agreed upon the letter and construction of same after nearly two hours discussion. We discussed the question of dropping all known polygamists for positions where the comming [sic] Conference was asked to vote for them; that is, all polygamists marrying since 1890. I made the motion but it was not carried as President Lund suggested we do not present the auxiliary organizations at this conference and in doing this we avoid presenting any such person. This was agreed to. I thought the President if he was able to attend meeting should make a statement and define his position on new Polygamy cases in such a way that none can misunderstand. Adjourned a few minutes after 8 oclock. 286. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Saturday, 8 October 1910. The special priesthood meeting held at 10 oclock in the Assembly Hall. Very large attendance. Pres Lund in his remarks called attention to new polygamy cases and stated they were against the rules of the church and rumors had become so numerous and in some cases proofs that it was found necessary to take some strong stand and repeat[ed] the letter that was agreed upon that was going to be sent to each Stake Presidency with instructions that all cases be handled and excommunication be administered in cases found guilty. He was followed by President Smith and he did not mince words. He stated no man has been authorized by him to solemnize a plural marriage since the manifesto and [any] man claiming he had [been] was a liar and if proven he should be excommunicated from the church. He wanted the Bishops and Presi- dents of Stakes to do their duty and handle such cases. Pres Lyman spoke and referred to men starting the rumor [that] I was out of harmony with my quorum and stated it was not true. This rumor was started by Jos. Cardon of Logan so Pres Lyman informed me. Pres Smith asked me to speak and I did so for a few minutes pleading with all men to be true to their pledges made to man and God. After meeting the Quorum met and agreed to issue summons on Jas W. Summerhays to appear next Wednesday before the Quorum and show cause why he should not be excommunicated from the church for performing plural marriages and also taking a plural wife. 287. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Wednesday, 12 October 1910. Went direct to Temple and found the Quorum present with Jas W. Summerhays. Pres Lyman read the summons and asked Summerhays to make whatever statement he wished to. He was talking and questioned until one oclock and adjournment was taken until 4 oclock. He claimed President Smith advised him in 1898 to take another wife and gave him authority to marry Miss Sears in Mexico in February 1906. When questioned he said he thought President Smith had done so and stated the circumstances, but Pres Smith told me his statements were not true. At 4 oclock we met and talked the statement made by Summerhays over and all were in favor of dropping him from all church positions but not to excommunicate him with the exception of Lyman and myself. I think he made statements that were not true and so did Lyman. He wanted to place the blame on Pres Smith. The decision agreed upon by majority vote was to drop him from all church positions. 288. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Thursday, 13 October 1910. Meeting of Quorum and Presidency at Temple. . . . We agreed to summons M. F. Cowley, John W. Taylor and H. S. Tanner before us to show cause why they should not be excommunicated from the church for marrying plural wives and performing said marriages and other actions unbecoming a member of the church. We agreed upon the changing of several Stake Presidencies where polygamists were in them having married their wives since the Manifesto. When the changes are made the new presidencies will be asked to handle new cases of polygamy. The crowd that [has] been marrying and getting others to marry plural wives [is] beginning to think the church is in earnest. 289. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Wednesday, 9 November 1910. Meeting of Quorum at Temple at 10 oclock. All present but Grant, Geo A Smith and Rudger Clawson. H. S. Tanner was present to answer to the charge of having married plural wives and performing plural marriages contrary to the rules of the church, also encouraging others to enter plural marriages. His position was that he had done no wrong and would not answer certain questions. He was given one week to decide whether he would answer of not. He claimed the party performing the marriage required him to never divulge his name, the date and place. He was to see the party and find out if he would release him from the obligation entered into. 290. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Tuesday, 15 November 1910. Held a meeting with first Presidency and F. M. Lyman for purposes of discussing the question of new polygamy cases and what action the church was going to take with them. I wanted to know positively so if asked by President Taft or other Senators I could answer with a knowledge that my position would be right. All cases after 1904 would be handled and if testimony could be secured against them they would be excommunicated from the church. All cases between the Woodruff manifesto and 1904 should be dealt with according to the circumstances and if drawn into by Apostles they would not be excommunicated but would be relieved of all positions in the church where the people were asked to vote for them. President Smith wanted to wait until tomorrow morning for final decision on latter point and we were to meet in the morning at 9 oclock. 291. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Wednesday, 16 November 1910. Met at Presidents office and agreed upon the future action of church on the new polygamy cases as outlined yesterday. 292. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Tuesday, March 4, 1911. Held a long meeting with the Presidency and presented my views on the present situation on the new polygamy cases and the sentiment of the leading men of the country. The immediate cause of the renewal of the discussion of this subject is the many magazine articles on the mormon question charging a return to the practice of polygamy by the church members. I again insisted that the only way the church can clear itself is to handle every new case of polygamy and remove from any position in the church. The church or church authorities cannot or will not be believed as to their sincerity in abolishing polygamy if men violating the rules and promise that it should cease are sustained as officers of the church such as Bishops and Presidents of Stakes etc. They seem to think that the fact that the church has not approved or sanctioned the marriages [means] it cannot be held responsible for them. Many of them were authorized by President Cannon. The Presidency seem to be fearful of results on members of the church if a wholesale action is taken. I am of the opinion non action will have a worse effect especially upon the young people. 293. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Thursday, 16 March 1911. Attended meeting of Quorum at Temple 10:30 A.M. . . . I again called the question of new polygamy cases up for consideration; again told them of the danger to the church of holding men entering into polygamy since the manifesto in office and stated it was my opinion that we should drop them from all positions where people are asked to vote for them. If we do not do so we cannot convince Pres Roosevelt or the American people that we are honest or sincere. I spoke of the letter of Pres Roosevelt's to Isaac Russell that he expects to publish in Colliers magazine in connection with an article he is preparing as an answer to [Frank] Cannon's articles. I am in doubt as to the wisdom of it for we know there have been new cases. ... [Later] With Ed Callister called on the Presidency and discussed the Roosevelt letter to Isaac Russell and both of us impressed upon them with as much force as we could the necessity of dropping men who have entered into polygamy since the manifesto. No other data [?] will answer. We looked over the Stake authorities and there was not over 14 or 15 in office and by the removal of a President of Stake in some cases we removed three. This is the case in David and Granite Stakes. 294. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Friday, 31 March 1911. I sent a long telegram to Geo F Gibbs for President Smith on effect of the Anti-Mormon magazine articles and expressing my opinion as to what must be done with men holding positions in the church that have married in polygamy since the manifesto. 295. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Saturday, 1 April 1911. Received an answer to my telegram of yesterday. 296. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Sunday, 2 April 1911. The Presidents answer was a disappointment. He does not understand the feeling of the people. The country will not accept excuses and they will not consider it humiliating a man to punish him for same. It is evident no action against the persons taking polygamist wives before 1904 will be taken. If there is another investigation I do not know how present position will be justified in face of testimony given in my case before Senate Committee. We are in a bad position for an examination or investigation. 297. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Friday, 7 April 1911. Received a cipher telegram from President Smith stating he would read at conference this afternoon an answer to the charges made by the magazines and asked me to have the Associated Press instruct their local representative to secure synopsis of statement of about 1200 words and have it published in papers generally. I called Mr. Elliott Associated Press Representative and asked him to see that Salt Lake Representative was instructed to get synopsis of statement and have it carried as full as possible. He took it up with Melvin Stone over the telephone. 298. Reed Smoot Journals; Archives and Manuscripts, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University; Saturday, 8 April 1911. President Smith wires me that he will not make answer to magazine articles at conference until Sunday and wants me to arrange with Associated Press to carry a synopsis of statement of 1200 words. I wired Melvin Stone Mgr New York asking him to do so. Received answer as follows: "Cannot promise but will have synopsis brought in here as special and will see what can be done." I wired Pres Smith accordingly. 299. Susa Amelia Young Gates Papers; Church Archives, Msd/393/Box 4/Folder 7; Feb. 9, 1919. Mrs. Susa Young Gates My dear sister Please pardon my delay in answering your note. I will gladly give you what information I can concerning my mother, Elvira Anna Cowles, daughter of Austin and Phebe Cowles was born Nov. 23, 1813, at Unadilla, Otsego Seal, New York. She was treasurer for the first Relief Society and also one of the plural wives of the Prophet Joseph Smith. After the Prophets death, she was sealed for time to Jonathan H. Holmes, (then a widower with on [sic] child). to them was born 5 children (of which I am the only surviving one) she buried her first child I believe (page 2) in Winter Quarters. She came to Utah with the pioneers in 1847. She had with her, her little step daughter, my father being in the Mormon Battalion. She walked and drove her own ox and cow team the entire way across the plains. She settled in S.L.C. with the saints until her husband joined her after being released from the M.B. she taught the first school that was taught in what was called the "old fort" and took wolf meat, sego and thistle roots for pay. Her first child born after entering the valley, was born in the "old fort," July 17, 1849. Soon after that time, they moved to Farmington. She was a teacher, in the first R.S. in that place. She was a weaver by occupation and in her time, she wove all (page 3) kinds of weaves, from bed counter pains to mens wear, woven out and women's out and underwear, table linen towels and gingham for aprons. My father raised sheep and flax from which she made cloth, thread and head and foot wear. She was a hard working, industrious women [sic], an affectionate wife, a kind and loving mother, a good neighbor and a true and faithful Latter-Day Saint. Through exposure she died at the age of 58 years at Farmington Davis Co. Utah. I have only an enlarged, old, and very old fashion picture of her, it is very poor and still it has some of the features of a clear mother's face. If such a picture would be of any use to you, I will gladly send it to you and you may return it or, have it with (page 4) Sister Emiline B. Wells (dear "Aunt Emm") and I will call for it, when I am down to the temple. Sister Wells could give you more information concerning my mother's early history, also Mrs. Sarah M. Cleveland than I possibly could. Of Mrs. Cleveland I know nothing, except that I have heard mother speak of her in connection with the Relief Society. I would think she was Coun. to Sis Emma, but would not be sure. I know nothing of her family or relatives in the Church. Trusting you may be able to gleen a little from this rambling sketch. I am very truly /s/ Mrs. Pheb L.H. Welling 300. Letter From Anthony W. Ivins to Mr. Thomas H. Jones, Colonia Dublan, Chihuahua, Mexico; CHO, Film 272/Box 15/Letters #499-501; President Joseph F. Smith is being quoted in the letter; June 25, 1926. Brother Ivins, plural marriage must be discontinued, in Mexico as well as in other parts of the Church. When you return to Mexico I want you to see that no more plural marriages are solemnized there. Tell the brethren there that they must cease their activities. There is no man who is authorized to perform a plural marriage, not even I can do it after the action taken by the conference, unless they shall vote again in favor of it. 301. "1926-Memoirs of the Life of Rudger Clawson Written by Himself", (498 pp. typescript), pp. 7-8; Utah Historical Society, 603 South East Temple, Bx 1/fd 1. Margaret Gay Judd Clawson was the mother of eleven children. She was my father's second (or plural) wife. I was her third child and of course was a product of plural marriage. Many people look upon plural marriage as inferior to monogamous marriage and actually believe it is wrong. If it were judged by its fruits, why then it must surely be regarded as a superior marriage, and furthermore it's a Biblical marriage. Abraham, Jacob, Moses and others of the holy prophets who were approved of God were polygamists. It is not to be wondered at that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant, modern prophets, my father himself a bishop and patriarch, and many others should have followed in the footsteps of those ancient worthies. This great law of plural marriage is set forth plainly in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Some members of the Church, not being able apparently to discern between principle and practice have gone so far as to say that under the manifesto plural marriage has been abrogated, or done away with by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Such, however, is not the case. The principal is not abrogated, or done away with, but plural marriage is suspended at the present time (1934) and any Latter Day Saint who now presumes to enter into its practice would be summarily excommunicated from the Church. Plural marriage, like monogamous marriage, is a principle of the Gospel and could not very well be other wise under the marriage ceremony of the Latter Day Saint Church. Those who are worthy of so great a blessing are married (or sealed together) as husband and wife, by one having the authority for time and all eternity. Death is not taken into account; death does not, will not separate them. When death intervenes followed by the resur- rection, they will still be husband and wife. If the wife dies and the husband takes another wife by the Temple ordinance, and she dies, he will be a widower on earth but later when death overtakes him, his marital status will be unchanged. He will be recognized as a polygamist in the spirit world--a man with three wives. I have been led to make the foregoing observation because of my father's and mother's status in the marriage relation and the further fact that I am a product of that relationship. I believe and know and testify that plural marriage is a true principle and cannot be abrogated except the marriage ordinance be eliminated from among the sacred ordinances of the holy Temple of God, and it seems to me that that cannot now and never will be done. 302. Evidences & Reconciliations, p. 342, 344, 393; Elder John A. Widtsoe; Copyright 1960. The apparant denials by Church leaders in Nauvoo days that the Church practised plural marriage were correct. At that time, the Church members as a whole had not heard the revelation, nor had they been given an opportunity to accept it. But many of the leaders knew of it and were polygamists. (P. 344) Did Joseph Smith introduce plural marriage? Many of the elders in Nauvoo entered into plural marriage, under the authority of Joseph Smith who was yet living as certified to by the men and their wives. (p. 342) It should be remembered that permission to enter the system was granted only by the President of the Church, and after careful examination of the candidate. (p. 393) 303. Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, p. 578; Bruce R. McConkie; 1966. Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the second coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium (Isa. 7). 304. Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol. 1:361-62, 518; Elder Bruce R. McConkie; 1973 edition. In this dispensation, the promulgation of the law of plural marriage had an effect similar to the presentation of the doctrine of the Bread of Life in the meridian dispensation. Opposition from without the Church increased, while some unstable members of the Kingdom itself found themselves unable to accept the fulness of the revealed program of the Lord. There were many important reasons why the Lord revealed the doctrine of plurality of wives. But if plural marriage had served no other purpose than to sift the chaff from the wheat, than to keep the unstable and semi-faithful people from the fulness of gospel blessings, it would have been more than justified. In Missouri and Nauvoo the mobs were often led by ministers; throughout the whole era when plural marriage was made the pretext for persecution, those who caused the earthly kingdom to suffer violence, who sought to destroy it, who took the children of the kingdom by force, were themselves the most immoral and adulterous of men. (p. 518) 305. The Ensign, "I Have A Question"; Daniel H. Ludlow; September 1980. What laws governed the inheritance of birthright in the Old Testament? * * * When the father had only one wife, there was no question as to who the birthright son would be. However, in those days the Lord permitted some of his patriarchs to have more than one wife (polygamy). Then the father might have several "firstborn" sons, possibly one from each of his wives. The question then naturally arose as to which firstborn son of which wife would become the head of the entire family upon the death of the father. Custom and tradition indicated that the first wife should have precedence over the other wives; thus it was determined that the firstborn son of the first wife would be the birthright son as long as he proved worthy. Only in case of unworthiness or death would the birthright go to the firstborn son of the second wife. No second-born sons were considered for the birthright unless all firstborn sons proved to be unworthy. PLURAL MARRIAGES AFTER THE 1890 MANIFESTO By D. Michael Quinn Bluffdale, Utah 11 August 1991 I'm glad to be with you. I attended your general meeting about two years ago, and I was very pleased to have that opportunity and pleased for the fellowship here. Brother Woodward told me that you are planning on a two hour meeting, and you've already been in two or three hours of meeting. I admire your courage and physical endurance. Because of the length of the meetings you've already been through and the one that is now going to start, after about an hour at whatever point I am after about an hour I'll just interrupt myself where it seems to work at a convenient stopping point, and give you an opportunity to stretch and stand up and walk around for a few minutes before we continue for the next hour of the meeting. In the relations of the L.D.S. Church and plural marriage from the 1890 Manifesto onward, there were basically two dimensions. There was what was happening publicly, and then there was what was happening privately. The private directions of the L.D.S. Church were mixed. Some of those were consistent with the 1890 Manifesto. others were not consistent. And I will be focusing primarily on what was not consistent among the General Authorities of the L.D.S. Church with the 1890 Manifesto. But before that, I'll summarize the public position of the L.D.S. Church from 1890 to 1907. In September of 1890, the Manifesto of Wilford Woodruff officially ends the practice of plural marriage and unauthorized new plural marriages. In October, the General Conference sustained that. In October 1891, the First Presidency testified in court and at stake conferences and in the Deseret News, that the Manifesto prohibited new plural marriages, but it also prohibited cohabitation with plural wives married before the Manifesto, and that this applied anywhere in the world, and that any Church member who violated either one of these prohibitions either marrying new plural wives or sexually cohabiting with wives married before the Manifesto; such Church members were subject to excommunication. So in October 1891, that becomes the law of the Church. A person is liable to be excommunicated either for polygamous cohabitation, or for marrying in new plural marriage. Then in 1904, the U.S. Senate published testimony by the Church President. and other General Authorities that they admitted violating the 1891 Church law by having cohabited with their wives since 1890, and by fathering children for them during the previous twelve to thirteen years. In April 1904, Joseph F. Smith published his statement, the so-called "Second Manifesto," which denied that there were any plural marriages after 1890, but then threatened excommunication for anyone entering into or performing plural marriages after 1904. ln reality, that was no different than what the First Presidency said in October 1891, at least as a statement in its content. In April 1906, the Quorum of Twelve formally and publicly drooped Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley for "being out of harmony" with the Manifesto. In November of 1906, and this is all in the public record, Joseph F. Smith plead guilty to unlawful cohabitation and paid a fine in a court. Then in April 1907, Conference adopted the First Presidency declaration that the Church "has been true to its pledge respecting the abandonment of the practice of plural marriage," and that the few violators had been acting on their own responsibility. Then in October and November of 1907 occurred the Churches's first excommunications and disfellowshipping for violating the 1904 Manifesto. And these excommunications included a Bishop. In July 1909, Joseph F. Smith appointed a committee of the Apostles to investigate and excommunicate persons entering into plural marriage after the 1904 Manifesto. Excommunications that year included a General Board member. From 1909 to 1910, the Salt Lake Tribune printed the names and marriage information of more than 200 men who married plural wives after the Manifesto. In October 1910, the Conference adopted a Presidency order for stake president to investigate and excommunicate officiators and husbands of post 1904 plural marriages. That month, Patriarch Judson Tolman was excommunicated. Then in 1911, John W. Taylor was excommunicated, as well as Patriarch John W. Woolley and several stake presidents in 1914. And the policy continues to the present. Up until 1930, known post-1890 polygamists spoke and prayed at General Conferences at the same time that the Church was excommunicating fundamentalists in local wards and stakes and prohibiting them from speaking. In 1933, the First Presidency statement denied that there was an 1886 revelation and denied that there had ever been any post-Manifesto plural marriages that occurred with the authorization of the First Presidency. In 1935, suspected polygamists were required to sign a statement that they "repudiated any intimation that any one of the Presidency or the Apostles of the Church is living a double life," and refusal to sign this statement meant that the person was automatically going to be excommunicated. I'm going to present the details, but there's a large number of details, and I'm going to be looking at each man who served in the General Authority positions from the Presidency down. This will be a large number of men with a large amount of detail, so let me give a summary of the secret dimensions of what was happening that was contrary to the public record. The 1890 Manifesto, the 1904 Second Manifesto, the release of Apostles Taylor and Cowley as Apostles in 1906, and the Church trials of new polygamists which began in 1907, were all surrounded by ambiguity, and the General Authority involvement in new plural marriages overlap the early stages of what we can call Mormon Fundamentalism and its officiators, which began in 1906. All First Presidency members either allowed or authorized new plural marriages from 1890 to 1904, and a few as late as 1906 and 1907. One Church President married a plural wife, and three Counselors in the First Presidency performed marriages for men who had living wives already. A Presidency's secretary proposed polygamous marriage in 1903, and another Presidency's secretary performed a polygamous marriage in 1907. Of the sixteen men who served only as Apostles in other words, their service did not extend into the First Presidency, but they served only as Apostles from 1890 until April 1904, eight of these sixteen men married post-Manifesto plural wives. Three of them who did not do so, performed plural marriages. Two of them who did not do either of the above, arranged for plural marriages. Only three of the men who served only as Apostles from 1890 to 1904 did not participate at all in encouraging, promoting or entering into new plural marriage. One of the new Apostles who was appointed after April 1904, the time of the second Manifesto, assured post-1890 polygamists that the second Manifesto was meaningless. Another of these new Apostles appointed in the years after the second Manifesto, courted polygamously before and after his appointment in 1906. A third of the Apostles appointed after 1906, had performed 43 plural marriages after the Manifesto himself. And a fourth Apostle appointed after the second Manifesto himself entered into a polygamous marriage in 1925. Now, looking at the men individually. Wilford Woodruff, who was senior Apostle and President from 1887 until his death in 1898. On the day the Manifesto was accepted in October of 1890. He personally approved 7 new plural marriages, to be performed in Mexico. He also approved polygamous ceremonies for a couple of Mexican residents as early as 1891. He delegated George Q. Cannon, his first counselor, to give approval for plural marriages from 1892 to 1898. That approval was in the form of written letters. In this way, President Woodruff himself could avoid personal knowledge. He could claim he had no personal knowledge of these authorized plural marriages. President Woodruff told a Temple meeting of the First Presidency and the Apostles in 1894 that due to the Manifesto, men "will be justified in concubinage by sacred vows," even without a polygamous ceremony in order to raise a righteous posterity." In 1894, President Woodruff gave his approval for Apostle Abraham H. Cannon to marry a new plural wife as a proxy for Apostle Cannon's deceased brother. And Apostle Cannon actually did this in 1896 while President Woodruff was still alive. President Woodruff himself married a new Plural Wife in 1897, Lydia Mountford, who was a Jew, born in Palestine and had lectured widely throughout the United States on Palestine. He married her in September of 1897 on a steamship on the Pacific Ocean, between San Francisco and Portland; and he arranged for an Apostle to perform plural marriages on steamships a month later, and also four months later. Concerning this marriage which occurred outside the Temple and therefore had no record inside the Temple, on November 23, 1920, this ceremony of Madam Mountford and Wilford Woodruff, which occurred in 1897, was repeated by proxy in the Salt Lake Temple. President Woodruff's proxy was his son, and Madam Mountford's proxy was Susan Young Gates, who was a sister of another of President Woodruff's lesser known plural wives. President Lorenzo Snow, President of the L.D.S. Church from 1898 to 1901, but also an Apostle from 1890 to his Presidency, was generally opposed both to new plural marriages and to polygamous cohabitation after 1890. For example, as soon as he became Church President in 1898, President Snow stopped sending authorizations for new plural marriages, to Mexico. But there were exceptions. He cohabited with his youngest plural wife who went to Canada briefly, in 1896, to bear his last child. And in so doing, he violated the testimony that he had given publicly in 1891, that the Manifesto prohibited cohabitation with plural wives. He was 82 Years old at the birth of his last polygamous child. He told Matthias F. Cowley in 1898 that he did not want to know about or interfere with Cowley's commission from George Q. Cannon to perform new plural marriages. So he essentially was willing to turn a blind eye to the new plural marriages that Apostle Matthias F. Cowley asked if he could continue to perform. And Lorenzo Snow said, "I won't interfere with President Cannon's work." In 1900, Lorenzo Snow told the Presidency secretary that he "admired the grit of a post-Manifesto plural wife who risked excommunication by her local ward Bishop because she refused to identify her plural husband." President Snow instructed the Bishop to accept her confession and to forgive "her transgression without any further requirement." In 1901, Lorenzo Snow authorized Heber J. Grant, who was an Apostle, to marry a plural wife. But then two months later, he changed his mind apparently because he felt there was too much jeopardy for the Church for him to authorize an Apostle to marry so long after the Manifesto. Then Joseph F. Smith. He was a counselor in the First Presidency from the Manifesto until 1901, when he became President and served until his death in 1918. ln 1896 as a counselor, he performed in the Salt Lake Temple a "proxy plural marriage" for Abraham Cannon, which had been approved earlier by the First Presidency. This is the only marriage that I know of and have any evidence of that he performed after the Manifesto. Because Lorenzo Snow refused to allow Anthony W. Ivins to perform new plural marriages for residents of Mexico, Joseph F. Smith decided privately to actually go against the instructions of the President of the Church. In 1900, second counselor Joseph F. Smith instructed Seymour B. Young of the First council of seventy, to perform two plural marriages in Mexico. And later that same year, second counselor Smith authorized Patriarch Alexander F. MacDonald to perform new plural marriages in Mexico for any Mexican residents who requested them. He gave both authorizations without the knowledge of the Church President and in spite of Lorenzo Snow's specific refusal to allow such marriages. Because Lorezo Snow did not know that Alexander F. MacDonald was authorized, he threatened to excommunicate MacDonald in 1901 for performing those marriages. MacDonald stopped performing those ceremonies for 4 months, and then Apostle Cowley visited Mexico, performed two plural marriages and apparently reassured him that Joseph F. Smith would protect him from Church discipline. Patriarch MacDonald immediately resumed the priesthood work. When he became President, Joseph F. Smith renewed permission for Anthony W. Ivins to perform plural marriages for Mexican residents. And Ivins did this from 1902 to 1904. And then he extended that to include permission for Ivins to perform marriages for non-residents. This was more dangerous, because this required written permission from Salt Lake. These written letters for Anthony W. Ivins to perform marriages for non-residents of Juarez Stake, occurred from 1903 to 1904. But President Smith never told Ivins about MacDonald, so President Ivins down in Mexico had no idea that Patriarch MacDonald was performing marriages with authorization. On 17 April 1902, I have the only contemporary account of Joseph F. Smith as Church President giving authorization for a man to marry polygamously. And he did it in this way: "As President of the Church I cannot authorize you to marry this plural wife. However, I will not oppose your doing it." And that's the kind of authorization he gave. As Church President, Joseph F. Smith did not want to know the specifics of new ceremonies, but he increased financial support for post-Manifesto plural wives and children of Apostles and mission presidents, and he gave advice for the hiding of plural wives so that they would not be subject to arrest. Joseph F. Smith probably authorized Apostles Clawson and Cowley to marry their plural wives after the second Manifesto of 1904, since he did authorize a close friend to perform one plural marriage as late as 1906, and o.k.'d another one that occurred in 1907. When the man President Smith authorized to perform the 1906 plural marriage was investigate; by the Apostles for probable excommunication, this man obtained the Church President's permission to tell the details. And those details obviously disturbed the Apostles. Their formal decision after hearing his testimony was that they didn't believe a word of what he had said, that Joseph F. Smith had authorized him. And they wouldn't offend the Church President by asking for verification of whether in fact he had given that authorization. And then they exonerated the man from any punishment, even though he admitted all the details of performing a plural marriage in 1906. Joseph F. Smith's shield also was obvious when the Apostles tried to excommunicate a mission president who married a plural wife in 1907. After discussing the matter with Joseph F. Smith for years. The Quorum of Twelve said they exonerated the mission president because there was no witness to the marriage. It was performed by a now-deceased secretary to the First Presidency's office. There is no evidence that I've seen that Joseph F. Smith commissioned. Patriarch Judson Tolman to perform plural marriages from 1906 to 1910. But President Smith did protect a few men who ware married by Tolman. Even though this Patriarch and several of the others he married were excommunicated by the Apostles, the Church President, Joseph F. Smith, intervened. He not only prevented the excommunication but he even continued in prominent Church offices men who had been married by Judson Tolman as late as 1907 and 1908. They, in some cases, continued cohabiting with their plural wives. These protected men were stake officials with the kind of General Authority family connections that would have most likely made them, or encouraged them, to consult with Joseph F. Smith in advance of Judson Tolman's performing the ceremony. Now, Joseph F. Smith's post-Manifesto relationship with John W. Woolley is the most complicated and the most contested, argued against. they were friends, that's undeniable. John W. Woolley was a friend of most of the General Authorities of the Church. He was one of the pioneer members of the Church who lived as late as he lived into the twentieth century. And the Church President. Joseph F. Smith, performed John W. Woolley's civil marriage in the Salt Lake Temple in 1910, indicating again the closeness of their friendship. Woolley had been serving as a stake high councilman since 1877, and a Salt Lake Temple worker since 1894. About the time John W. Woolley began performing plural marriages in 1912, his son wrote the first account of the circumstances for the 1886 revelation to John Taylor at Woolley's home. John W. Woolley performed plural marriages even before he was ordained a Patriarch in 1913, so patriarchal authority by ordination was not the basis on which he was performing those marriages. He was tried for those marriages in 1914. But in a bid to prevent excommunication, John W. Woolley told the Quorum of Twelve the names of those he married. He violated his promise to those persons he had married. Patriarch Woolley claimed that ex-Apostle Cowley was responsible for John Woolley feeling that he could perform new plural marriages. Cowley denied this vehemently. And John W. Woolley's explanation to the Apostles may have been protecting somebody else by re-sacrificing the already punished Cowley. The fundamentalist claim is that John W. Woolley was protecting Joseph F. Smith, who allowed Apostles like Francis H. Lyman to punish new polygamy to protect the Church. I haven't seen any evidence conclusively to support or refute the claim that Joseph F. Smith secretly endorsed plural marriages from 1910 to his death in 1918. But known evidence does show that his actions certainly were ambiguous regarding new plural marriage after his second Manifesto for 6 years after it. So it would not be inconsistent for him to have given encouragement to Judson Tolman or John W. Woolley. But I have no evidence that that was in fact the case. And historians are always bound by our evidence; we can't go, really, beyond that. George Q. Cannon was Presidency counselor and next in line to be Church President from 1899 to 1901. He personally authorized new plural marriages performed in Mexico, Canada, and the United States, from 1892 until his death in 1901. This included plural marriages performed for 3 of his sons and 3 of his nephews. In a Temple meeting of the First Presidency and the Apostles in 1894 George Q. Cannon said, "I believe in concubinage," by mutual vow as a way for men and women to bypass the Manifesto's prohibition of new plural ceremonies. George Q. Cannon wanted to marry a new plural wife after his wives were no longer able to bear children, and in a Temple meeting of the Apostles and Presidency in August 1900, he openly opposed Lorenzo Snow's ban on new plural marriages. He threatened President Snow directly in front of all the others, that he, President Cannon, might choose just simply to cohabit with a woman, without a ceremony of marriage if that was necessary to father any more children. He died a months later, apparently without having entered into such a polygamous relationship by solemn covenant with a woman of child-bearing age. But after 1890, George Q. Cannon did make polygamous vows with a woman who was 62 years old when the Manifesto was issued. Anthon H. Lund, who was an Apostle from the Manifesto, although he was an Apostle before, but he was an Apostle after the Manifesto until 1901, when he became a counselor in the First Presidency. He served in that position until his death in 1921. He performed a civil plural marriage in 1892, in the Manti Temple, for a stake high councilman. By "civil plural marriage" I mean that he knowingly performed a legal. civil ceremony for a man whose legal wife had died, but who had plural wives also still living; so in the eyes of the law, this was a civil monogamous marriage. But in terms of the family relationships of the new husband, he was adding a new plural wife to his family. And Anthon H. Lund performed such a Temple ceremony in the Manti Temple in 1892. One could say, well those were ambiguous. Well, these were not ambiguous. He performed two plural marriages, Anthon H. Lund, aboard steamships, one in 1887 on the Pacific Ocean and one in 1898 on the Great Lakes. And while instructing Lund to perform the second of these shipboard marriages, Wilford Woodruff confided to Lund Woodruff's own plural marriage to Lydia Mountford on a steamship a month before. Apostle Lund, and now counselor Lund's, sister-in-law married polygamously in Salt Lake City in 1901, and the marriage was performed by Lund's next-door neighbor, Matthias F. Cowley. counselor Lund was probably the unidentified member of the First Presidency who Anthony W. Ivins sent letters of authorization to for new plural marriages for non-residents of Mexico from 1903 to 1904. Contrary to Apostle-Senator Reed Smoot's wish, Apostles Taylor and Cowley were sustained in the April 1905 Conference. Counselor Lund's son told Smoot's secretary, "John W. Taylor has done right, whatever he has done, in reference to the subject of polygamy." John R. Winder, who was counselor to the Presiding Bishopric and then became Presidency counselor from 1901 to 1910. Generally he was opposed to new plural marriages, but he was in favor of de facto plural marriages performed civilly for men who were already cohabiting with previous plural wives. And the most publicized example of this occurred when John R. Winder performed such a de facto plural marriage in 1901 in the Salt Lake Temple for Lorin Farr, former Mayor of Ogden. Farr virtually threw this in the face of Teddy Roosevelt two years later by introducing the U.S. President to Farr's pre-Manifesto plural wives. It's unclear whether John R. Winder as counselor knew that his daughter gave her husband a new plural wife in 1903, which ceremony was performed by Apostle Matthias F. Cowley. George F. Gibbs, secretary to the Church President during this whole period. He was aware of the authorizations given for the post-Manifesto plural marriages, and he intervened with Lorenzo Snow in 1900 to protect the post Manifesto plural wife from being excommunicated by a local Bishop and I referred to her case earlier. George F. Gibbs as secretary to the First Presidency also advised Apostle Heber J. Grant in 1903, to marry a plural wife and to take her on Grant's mission to England, where she would not be recognized or known by the English. During that same period in 1903, the Presidency's secretary proposed plural marriage to a woman, but she declined that offer. In 1921, while still secretary to the First Presidency, George F. Gibbs spoke at the funeral of the mother of the young woman who had declined his proposal to enter plural marriage. And he "commended those who were keeping it alive and were continuing in the faith of their fathers." George Reynolds was a secretary in the First Presidency's office, and he was also a member of The Council of Seventy. As a secretary, he helped draft the final version of the 1890 Manifesto, and he later testified of his role in the Manifesto before the U.S. Senate in 1903. He also recorded the few 18 post Manifesto plural marriages that were actually entered into in a record at the First Presidency's office as they occurred. This included the shipboard plural marriage that Anthon H. Lund performed in 1897. It also included several plural marriage performed by John W. Taylor in Mexico. George Reynolds knew and approved of his daughter's plural marriage performed in Mexico during 1900, by the authority of Counselor Joseph F. Smith, despite Reynolds clearly knowing that the Church President opposed this marriage, because in Reynolds' presence Lorenzo Snow told the husband, "There cannot be any new plural marriages performed anywhere in the world." And then just a few months after that meeting, by permission and authorization of his counselor, that marriage occurred. George Reynolds also performed a plural marriage in 1907. And another daughter of his became a plural wife in 1908, in Salt Lake City, very likely with his approval. Franklin D. Richards was an Apostle and President of the Quorum of Twelve, and next in line to be Church President from 1898 to 1899. In December of 1890, he unsuccessfully tried to obtain permission from the First Presidency for a man to be married polygamously in Mexico. That was 4 months after the Manifesto. He was uninvolved in post-Manifesto plural marriages from 1891 until 1898. In that year, he performed one plural marriage in the United State. Apostle Richards may have known of Abraham Owen Woodruff's recent Patriarchal Blessing that promised the Apostle plural wives. In any event, shortly after the Apostle received that Patriarchal Blessing, Franklin D. Richards promised him in a Temple meeting of January 1899 that all of God's promises to Abraham O. Woodruff would be fulfilled. Brigham Young, Jr., son of the pioneer President of the Church. He was President of the Quorum of Twelve and next in line to be Church President from 1901 to 1903. He performed seven plural marriages during visits to Mexico from 1894 to 1895. He also married a new plural wife in 1901 in Salt Lake City. That marriage was performed by Apostle Matthias F. Cowley. In August 1902, just weeks before the surgery and his final illness, Apostle Young counseled a local Church leader to marry a plural wife. Moses Thatcher was an Apostle until he was released in 1896 because of a conflict over Church-State politics with the Quorum of Twelve and The First Presidency. In November 1890, he unsuccessfully tried to obtain the First Presidency's authorization for a man to marry polygamously. In February of 1891, he apparently was the one who verbally transmitted authorization from the First Presidency for a plural marriage in Mexico. But his views about post-Manifesto plural marriage hardened after Utah's statehood in 1896. Then he was dropped from the Quorum of Twelve later that year. He hardened so much that he disinherited his daughter for becoming a plural wife in 1901 without his knowledge and permission. But by that time he was no longer a member of the Quorum of Twelve. Francis M. Lyman was an Apostle until his death in 1916. He performed a plural marriage a day before the Quorum of Twelve voted to sustain the recently published Manifesto as binding. In his legalistic mind, this was not a violation of the Manifesto because it had not been ratified by the Quorum of Twelve. From 1891 onward, he was opposed to new plural marriages. But he was not entirely consistent. He favored allowing men with plural wives to marry a new plural wife civilly after the death of the legal wife, even though in actuality this was a new plural marriage. Lyman performed one such de facto plural marriage in the Salt Lake Temple for a stake president in 1894. He publicly preached as late as that same year, "No man can obtain exaltation without living plural marriage in this life." And as late as 1909, Apostle Lyman would not allow men to become members of local prayer circles unless they believed in plural marriage. There is an obvious inconsistency, because at the same time he was hunting down men who were entering into plural marriage after the Manifesto and having to excommunicate them. I'm not sure how he could reconcile in his own mind, saying no one could be exalted without polygamy, and at the same time he was excommunicating man who were doing the only thing he said was necessary for them to obtain exaltation. Otherwise, Lyman was adamantly opposed to new plural marriages. As early as 1899, he arranged for the excommunication of a post-Manifesto polygamist. And from 1906 until his death, he did his best to get pre-1904 polygamists released from Church office. And he did his best to excommunicate every post-1904 polygamists he could locate. John Henry Smith was an Apostle and then became Presidency counselor from 1910 to 1911. He performed no plural marriages after the Manifesto of 1890. But he virtually forced Apostle Heber J. Grant to perform two plural marriages in Mexico in 1897. Apostle Smith instructed John W. Taylor to performed six more plural marriages in Mexico in 1898. These were the first post-Manifesto plural marriages which either of these junior Apostles performed, and they did it under the orders of John Henry Smith. Apostle Smith was also instrumental in obtaining the First Presidency approval in 1898 for Anthon W. Ivins to perform plural marriages for Mexican residents, without any individual authorizations for Salt Lake City. And in 1903, John Henry Smith urged a legal wife not to create any difficulty about her husband's marriage to a new wife. And during that same year, Apostle Smith urged the Apostles who were promoting plural marriage to be cautious. George Teasdale was an Apostle until his death in 1907. He performed at least fifteen plural marriages in Mexico, from 1891 to 1896. He himself married a plural wife on the Pacific Ocean in 1897, that marriage being performed by his fellow Apostle, Anthon H. Lund. She died in childbirth in 1898. Because this post-Manifesto plural marriage was exposed in the newspapers only a year after her death, Apostle Teasdale filed for divorce that year from his remaining wife, who was 57 years old, so that he could marry a 23 year-old bride to care for his orphan children and possibly bear him more children. However, she never did. Apostle Teasdale encouraged men in Utah to marry plural wives until 1904, when the Presidency sent him back to Mexico to avoid a subpoena to testify before the U.S. Senate about post-Manifesto polygamy. Apostle Teasdale may have been the one to perform some plural marriages in Mexico in the 1905-1906 period. There were several, and I have no idea at this point who performed those marriages. I have ideas, but I have not verified this information. Heber J. Grant was an Apostle until he became Church President in 1918 and served in that position until his death in 1945. He is the prime example of how confused a conscientious L.D.S. Church leader was in the contradictory messages about post-Manifesto plural marriage. After the Presidency publicly stated in 1901 that men should stop cohabiting with their plural wives, Heber J. Grant was the only Apostle who did so. He resumed polygamous cohabitation after about 4 years, when it gradually dawned on him that Joseph F. Smith and other General Authorities were violating their public pledges regarding cohabitation with plural wives. So he resumed polygamous cohabitation. Apostle Grant was apparently unaware of new polygamous marriages being authorized until 1897, when his superior in the Quorum, John Henry Smith, ordered him to perform two plural marriages in Mexico, which Apostle Grant did under protest and very reluctantly. In 1898, his cousin Anthony W. Ivins informed him that new plural marriages were occurring in Mexico. Ivins indicated he was also willing to marry a plural wife if that was required of him. And hearing this from his cousin, Heber J. Grant expressed approval and gratitude in fact. By 1901, Heber J. Grant wanted, to marry a plural wife to give him the sons he knew he would not otherwise have. His only surviving son had already died, and he wanted sons to carry on his name. President Snow agreed to this in 1901, but he then changed his mind two months later. Grant's shyness had always been a problem for him and had made him very shy in polygamous courtship. So he left for a mission to Japan in 1901 before he completed the arrangements to marry a new plural wife, but he had been courting one in 1901. While he was there, he wrote a close friend in Arizona, who had eligible daughters, that Apostle Grant, "wanted to marry a wife or two so that my name will not be wiped off the face of the earth." President Grant was devastated to learn that while in Japan his intended plural wife of 1901 had become the plural wife of a stake president the following year. Grant returned in 1902, therefore, having to start all over in terms of a polygamous courtship. Between his return from Japan, in 1903 and a mission to England a few months later, Apostle Grant tried to propose to a young woman from Arizona. But this fell through, because she was already being courted by another member of the Quorum of Twelve. He went to England still looking for another wife. While still in England, he learned in January 1906 of the intent of the Quorum and First Presidency to drop Apostles Taylor and Cowley in order to save Reed Smoot. Grant was outraged and wrote the Church President not to allow this, because he, Grant, felt that he was equally involved in post-Manifesto polygamy. He said, "If you drop them, you should drop me, because the only thing that has kept me from being in their situation is that the circumstances just did not workout." Heber J. Grant adopted the official line and he publicly and privately said Apostles Taylor and Cowley should be dropped from office. There was a kind of-well, George Orwell in a very interesting book called "1984", called it double-think. That's the ability to hold contradictory ideas that are clashing, in your head and in your belief system at the same time. That double-think has been a frequent characteristic of L.D.S. Church History. John W. Taylor was an Apostle until he was released from the Quorum of Twelve in 1906, after which he continued to be an Apostle outside the Quorum, until his excommunication in 1911. On 30 September 1890, during the first discussion of the Manifesto by the full Quorum of Twelve and after its publication, he referred and told the Apostles about the 1886 revelation to his father, that plural marriages should never be discontinued. The next day, John W. Taylor married a new plural wife. This was the day before the Quorum of Twelve voted to sustain the Manifesto. He later told the Quorum that this occurred by permission of President Woodruff. During a discussion of the Manifesto at a regular meeting of the Quorum of Twelve, in April of 1892, John W. Taylor again referred to the 1886 revelation to his father. This was about the time that he unsuccessfully proposed marriage to a sister of his most recent wife. Then in a meeting of the Apostles in 1896, John W. Taylor expressed apparently sincere disbelief of the rumors about Apostle Abraham H. Cannon's plural marriage only a month before. So even those very closely involved in plural marriage after the Manifesto didn't know what others were doing about plural marriage after the Manifesto. ln 1898 in Mexico, John W. Taylor performed the first of post-Manifesto plural marriages he ever officiated in. He did that under the instructions of Apostle John Henry Smith, as I indicated. One couple also claimed that John W. Taylor performed their plural marriage in Denver, while he presided over the mission there in 1898. That couple named their first child after him. But John W. later claimed to have performed only two other plural marriages since the ones in Mexico. These were two plural marriages for a resident of Canada. Now, I don't know whether he was lying to the Quorum of Twelve or whether the couple was lying about John W. Taylor. However, they did name their child after him, which was perpetuating a lie in a strange way. At Farmington, Utah, in 1901, John W. Taylor married two plural wives in a ceremony that was performed by Apostle Matthias F. Cowley. He claimed that permission was through a cryptic conversation with Joseph F. Smith. And as I indicated earlier, I don't have a reference, a diary reference, to that conversation with John W. Taylor. But I do have a similar one where he said, "As President of the Church I can't advise you to do this, but I will not advise you not to do it." That's undoubtedly that same kind of permission that Joseph F. Smith gave to John W. Taylor and several other Apostles. A month later, Apostle Taylor preached in a Salt Lake City ward that women would soon be able to marry polygamously. So he was saying this publicly. Even though it was within the confines of a ward, it was still very public. Nonmembers could have been there for all he knew. Many in that ward already had married plural wives after the Manifesto, including the stake president and his counselor. During a public meeting in Mexico in February of 1903, Apostle Taylor pointedly suggested that Anthony W. Ivins marry a plural wife. This was about the same time that Apostle Taylor unsuccessfully proposed to Ivin's daughter. Curiously, John W. Taylor, again showing these many different currents after the Manifesto, he didn't know that Joseph F. Smith had authorized patriarch MacDonald to perform plural marriages in Mexico. So in a public meeting, John W. Taylor condemned patriarch MacDonald in March of 1903, for doing this. That broke MacDonald's heart, and he died two weeks later. In September 1903, after consulting with President Joseph F. Smith, John W. Taylor authorized Patriarch John A. Wolfe to perform plural marriages in Canada. Those plural marriages continued to 1905. Still, John W. Taylor, despite all I've described, was not anxious to perform new plural marriages and he admitted this to the Apostles as early as 1904, in January. Immediately after that meeting, Apostle Cowley and two other Apostles met to perform a plural marriage in Salt Lake City, and John W. Taylor warned them about being so active in promoting plural marriages. In Mexico in 1904, John W. Taylor, however, still defended the necessity of a second Manifesto, which prohibited plural marriages, and he said. "It should apply even here in Mexico." So there were many contrary messages publicly and privately. From 1904 to 1906, John W. Taylor was absent from General Conferences and from the United States in order to avoid a subpoena to testify before the U.S. Senate. His absence was advised by President Joseph F. Smith to whom he wrote periodic reports of what he was doing. Despite his earlier support for the second Manifesto in Mexico, John W. Taylor performed plural marriages in Canada in August of 1904, where it was even more dangerous because in Canada they enforced laws against polygamy. In Mexico, they did not. And yet, later he lied to the Quorum of Twelve and assured the Apostles that he had not performed any plural marriages since the second Manifesto of 1904. Contrary to what he later told them, John W. Taylor apparently also performed two other plural marriages in Canada in September 1904. In January 1905, Francis M. Lyman went to Canada to persuade John W. Taylor to testify before the U.S. Senate, and Apostle Taylor reluctantly agreed to do that, even though he said, "I will tell the truth. I warn you, I'm going to tell the truth. That night, Apostle Lyman had a dream of a disaster that would result from John W. Taylor truthfully testifying in Washington, D.C. The next morning as John W. Taylor was in route to the railroad, Lyman flipped the horse and buggy quickly through the snow and intercepted him and told him not to go to Washington, and that's why John W. Taylor did not. In August 1906, a Canadian friend married a plural wife at the urging of John W. Taylor. ln October 1906, after days of secret meetings with the other Apostles, in which he protested that everything he did after the Manifesto had the approval of higher authority, John W. Taylor signed a resignation. He promised that that resignation would be used only as a last resort to save the Senatorship of Reed Smoot, because that would humiliate the Church and also create possible problems of citizenship, because there were proposals to pass a Constitutional Amendment against plural marriage. When the resignation was announced in April 1906 Conference, John W. told one of his wives, "I was sacrificed for Reed Smoot's personal ambition." As early as 1906, John W. Taylor gave out copies of his father's 1886 revelation against suspending the practice of plural marriage. In Canada, about 1907, he tried to persuade a returned missionary to marry two wives at once instead of only one. That returned missionary was Hugh B. Brown, who later became a member of the First Presidency, and who also was the one who wrote the 1935 law which made polygamous cohabitation a felony in Utah. Even the Federal government hadn't done that. About 1908, John W. Taylor gave permission for his daughter to marry polygamously if the man got permission of President Smith. The marriage didn't occur because the man could never get President Smith's permission. In June 1909, John W. Taylor married a plural wife in Salt Lake City. Apparently that was performed by patriarch Judson Tolman, who had performed a plural marriage earlier that month for Taylor's sister-in-law. This was the first plural marriage that John W. Taylor did not ask the permission of the Church President to enter into. By October 1910, John W. Taylor was prophesying that the Church would one day be divided into two factions--one monogamous and the other polygamous. In March 28, 1911, he was excommunicated. And he certainly was excommunicated. If You've heard stories that he was not, those stories are false. He was definitely excommunicated from the Church in 1911. According to others, John W. Taylor later referred men to his wife's uncle, John W. Woolley. I don't know if I mentioned that before, but John W. Woolley was the uncle of John W. Taylor, through his wife. In August 1916, John W. Taylor was baptized and reinstated into the L.D.S. Church by two stake presidents. One was his monogamous brother, and the other was a post-1890 polygamist. Two months later, he died. His widow claimed that Joseph F. Smith came to the house at midnight to deliver Temple clothes for John W. Taylor's funeral. He was buried in a closed casket. The First Presidency in 1917 officially stated that the reinstatement that had occurred in 1916 was null and void. John W. Taylor was not officially reinstated and baptized into the L.D.S. Church until 1965. Marriner W. Merrill was an Apostle until his death in 1906. With a signed recommend by George Q. Cannon, Merrill performed a polygamous marriage in 1904 in the Logan Temple for his daughter. This was the first post-Manifesto plural marriage performed in the United States after the Manifesto was ratified by the General Conference. Then in 1895, he performed one for his son in the Logan Temple. In April 1899 and August 1897, he told the Apostles in their meetings that polygamy was going to be restored whether they liked it or not. ln July 1899, he told the Apostles that the Manifesto was not a revelation and that there would always be polygamous children born into the Church. A week later, Apostle Merrill performed a plural marriage for Apostle Matthias F. Cowley in the Logan Temple. In January 1900, he reminded the Apostles again that plural marriage "had come to stay in one form or another." Then in 1901, he demonstrated that personally by marrying a plural wife in Salt Lake City, and that marriage was also performed by Apostle Cowley. In 1903, he performed a plural marriage for his son in Salt Lake City. In October 1903, at the end of a Temple meeting, Apostle Merrill openly advised Apostles Woodruff, Rudger Clawson and Hyrum M. Smith to marry new plural wives. And then he privately advised Heber J. Grant to do so. He was subpoenaed to testify before the U.S. Senate from 1904 to 1906, but he declined to do so, due to what he called ill health. He executed a perjured denial in 1904, which said that he had never married any woman after the Manifesto of 1890. That was clear perjury. Despite the second Manifesto, Marriner W. Merrill performed a plural marriage in 1905 in the Logan Temple for one of his sons. Abraham H. Cannon was an Apostle and died in 1896. I'm giving these in order of their seniority within the Quorum of Twelve. From 1891 to 1894, young women regarded him as eligible for plural marriage and kept proposing to him. He kept repeatedly declining these proposals. Then in October 1894, George Q. Cannon, his father and counselor in the Presidency, told-Apostle Cannon that Presidents Woodruff and Smith authorized Abraham to marry a young woman in a proxy ceremony for his brother, who had died on a mission two years earlier. And during the next year and a half, Abraham courted several women as possible candidates for marriage. In June 1896, he married a plural wife through the proxy ceremony which Joseph F. Smith performed in the Salt Lake Temple. Then he went on a honeymoon to California. During that honeymoon he became ill and contracted an infection in the ear through surfing (I can relate to that because I had ear trouble surfing in California, too, when I was a teenager. Unlike me where this only resulted in dozens of ruptured ear drums after every surfing season or during every surfing season,) his resulted in a massive mastoid infection. And it resulted in his death six weeks after his marriage. But he had fathered a child during that six weeks of marriage. His post-Manifesto widow bore his child and named the child Marba, which is "Abram" spelled backwards. Then in 1901, his widow became a plural wife of his cousin in another Salt Lake City polygamous marriage. Matthias F. Cowley was an Apostle from 1897 and released in 1906. He was the first person advanced to the Quorum of Twelve after the Manifesto of 1890. For that reason, he became the most prominent one involved in plural marriage. The Manifesto denied that any plural marriages were solemnized in Utah from June 1889 to September 1890. Yet, Cowley was married to a plural wife during that period by President Daniel H. Wells in the Endowment House. Therefore, Cowley had the distinction that with full Church authorization, he had violated the Manifesto even before it was written and published. He was the first Apostle appointed after the Manifesto and the first whose name was not on the 1892 Petition to the U.S. President for general amnesty. Thus, George Q. Cannon chose Apostle Cowley as the moat appropriate Apostle to perform plural marriages. On 11 April 1898, Cowley received his second anointing from President Lorenzo Snow. Two days later, Apostle Cowley performed the first of nearly 80 plural marriages. He performed more plural marriages than any other officiator from 1890 to 1905. Cowley performed most of these plural marriages in the United States, the Church's elite 6 Apostles, plus General Board members, Mission Presidents, Stake presidents and Bishops, who were therefore spared the trip to Mexico which was required of the rank and file who wanted to enter into plural marriage, and who did not live in Mexico. Matthias Cowley married a plural wife himself in 1905, the ceremony being performed by a Patriarch in Canada, John Wolfe. In October 1905, he submitted a resignation similar to John W. Taylor's, and it also was not supposed to be used unless it was absolutely necessary. Cowley may have been the one who performed plural marriages in 1906. After that he only encouraged men who were interested and he performed no new plural marriages himself. He also referred some men to Patriarchs Tolman and Woolley for plural marriage ceremonies. Cowley felt that he wasn't technically violating the second Manifesto, which said nothing about providing information for plural marriage. So he felt that there was no problem for him to say, "I know a man who knows the sealing ceremony;" when somebody asked him to perform a plural marriage and he chose not to himself. To protect his Church membership, he denied these things when he was called before the Quorum of Twelve. ln 1911, Cowley was "deprived of the right to exercise the priesthood" after three fourths of the Quorum of Twelve refused to disfellowship him as Francis M. Lyman wanted to. Cowley was never disfellowshipped. That's the thing that three fourths of the Quorum of Twelve voted against doing. And they only agreed to end the two-day deadlock over the issue by saying, "We'll have him deprived of the right to exercise the priesthood, but we won't agree to having him disfellowshipped." So therefore he could partake of the Sacrament, which he did, and he could enter the Temple, which he did, and he could have other blessings of the Church that were typically denied to those who had been disfellowshipped. Apostle Lyman was unrelenting and tried unsuccessfully to have Cowley excommunicated in 1914, not on the basis of anything new but for what they had proved he had done before his resignation in 1906. Cowley did not affiliate with the fundamentalists after the 1920s. He did up until the mid-1920s. He was closely associated with them in a number of ways. And I say "them" in the sense of the distinction the Church made between those who were continuing plural marriage at that time. The First Presidency fully restored him in April 3, 1936. I have a fairly long discussion about Abraham O. Woodruff at this point, who is interesting for a number of reasons, so why don't we take a break at this time, and you can stand and stretch a couple of minutes, and when you feel rested, then we'll sit down and resume. Abraham O. Woodruff died in 1904 in Mexico with his first wife. A year after his ordination as an Apostle in 1897, Owen Woodruff, as he was called by his friends, prayed that God would tell him through a stake Patriarch if he should marry a plural wife. The Patriarchal Blessing in 1898 said that Apostle Woodruff would "be blessed with wives and a great posterity." He and his first wife were still childless at that point. In January 1899, Apostle Franklin D. Richards promised Owen that God would fulfill all the promises made to the Apostle. Nine months later, Owen's wife bore his first child. A month after this birth fulfilled the first part of the promises by the Patriarch and Apostle Richards, Owen Woodruff performed two plural marriages in Mexico in November of 1899. Then in July 1900, Apostle Woodruff met his future plural wife, and 3 days later he asked her father for permission to marry her. Within 2 months, Apostle Woodruff obtained permission of First counselor, George Q. Cannon and Second counselor. Joseph F. Smith, to marry her in plural marriage. He knew better than to ask President Snow, and he never did. After consultation with Joseph F. Smith for their first visit to the Latter-day Saints in Juarez Stake in November 1900, Apostle Woodruff arrived first and while there, before Counselor Smith arrived, he performed a plural marriage there. And then Apostle Woodruff witnessed the first plural marriage which Alexander F. MacDonald performed in Mexico, which had been authorized by Joseph F. Smith. At Juarez Stake Conference a few days later, Apostle Woodruff prophesied that polygamous children would always be born in the Church until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Counselor Smith sat on the stand next to him and made no effort to correct him. The President of the Seventy, Seymour B. Young. Stood in the conference and endorsed Woodruff's remarks. ln January 1901, Apostle Woodruff married his new plural wife in Preston, Idaho, the ceremony again performed by Apostle Cowley. Owen met beforehand with President Snow, who may not have known of this plural marriage, but certainly his counselor, Joseph F. Smith, did, and so did George Q. Cannon. In 1902, Church President Joseph F. Smith authorized him to marry another plural wife. And in December 1902, Apostle Woodruff wrote Heber J. Grant that, "The regulation denials of new plural marriage are being called for." Woodruff's Salt Lake City home and that of his mother, who was Wilford Woodruff's wife, became hiding places for pregnant post-Manifesto plural wives; And Apostle Woodruff gave polygamous newborn children names and blessings, since this could not be done safely in Church meetings. And I understand you people are familiar with this necessity, at least regarding the L.D.S. Church. In November 1903, Apostle Woodruff performed four plural marriages in Mexico. Woodruff may have been the one who performed a plural marriage for his own father-in-law in December of 1903, in Salt Lake City, I don't know who the officiator was of that. He was surely one of the two Apostles who witnessed a plural marriage by Apostle Cowley in Salt Lake City in January 1904, right after in an Apostles' meeting they agreed to be cautious. And these three men refused to be cautious about plural marriage. Owen's first wife wrote in February 1904 that they had decided for him to marry again. He was subpoenaed to testify in Washington, and President Smith told him to leave Conference early and to prepare for a foreign mission in order to avoid the subpoena. He said, "you wouldn't be a good witness." In a pre-Conference meeting, Apostle Woodruff opposed the second Manifesto, but he voted for it. He then explained his vote by saying that, "The responsibility does not lie upon me, I am only following what the Presidency has requested." And then he proposed to show what his real feelings were right after this he proposed to a relative of his cousin, Reed Smoot. Woodruff left Utah to be with his plural wife at the delivery of her first child in Mexico. And shortly after, he and his first wife died, in June 1904. Rudger Clawson became an Apostle in October 1898. He was President of the Quorum of Twelve and next in line to be Church President from 1901 to 1943. In November 1901, Clawson preached on plural marriage in a Salt Lake City ward. He was the one who converted Joseph W. Musser and his wife to have a new wife enter their family. In January 1902, Clawson told the Apostles that they should be sure all men and women believe in plural marriage before serving in any Church position. By early 1903, Rudger Clawson was aware of the plural marriage of Apostle Owen Woodruff. In the first part of August 1903, his brother-in-law entered a plural marriage. At the end of that month, in Arizona, Rudger Clawson met his future plural wife. Then he went to Mexico where he performed a plural marriage and gave Ivins an ultimatum to marry a plural wife himself. For the balance of 1903, Rudger Clawson courted his own intended plural wife by mail. And then in October 1903, at the end of an Apostles meeting, Marriner w. Merrill advised him and three other Apostles to marry in plural marriage. Rudger Clawson performed a plural marriage in Salt Lake City in December of 1903, indicating the increasing extent of his commitment to The Principle. He was surely one of the two Apostles at the plural marriage Apostle Cowley performed in Salt Lake City in January of 1904. In a meeting before the 1904 statement, or the second Manifesto, was presented to the conference, Rudger Clawson expressed his opposition to it. "He thought it would be a second Manifesto, and we had Manifestos enough." Clawson was the only polygamy advocate in Salt Lake City when a plural marriage occurred there in 1904. And undoubtedly he was the one who performed it, but I don't have direct evidence of that. Rudger Clawson himself married a plural wife, and the ceremony was performed by Apostle Cowley in August 1904. This occurred in Colorado. She cohabited with Apostle Clawson from August 1904 until their return from England in 1913. From 1909 thereafter, Rudger Clawson was understandably quiet when the Quorum of Twelve tried those who were entering plural marriage after the second Manifesto of 1904. He must have felt special anxiety in 1911 and 1914, when the Quorum of Twelve tried repeatedly to get Cowley to list all the plural marriages he had ever performed. There, sitting in front of Cowley, who was fighting to keep his membership in the Church, was one of the Apostles he had performed a marriage for, after the second Manifesto. Reed Smoot became an Apostle in 1900. Despite his testimony before the U.S. Senate that he had never heard a discussion of plural marriage in meetings of the Apostles, Reed Smoot was present at 16 meetings before 1904, where plural marriage was discussed by the Apostles, including a January 1902 meeting, when Smoot told his fellow Apostles, "This order of marriage if universally practiced would save the world much sorrow and distress, and he looked forward to its restoration. In October 1903, he heard Marriner W. Merrill advise three Apostles to marry plural wives, and yet in 1904 he testified under oath before the U.S. Senate that he had never heard a discussion of plural marriage in the Temple. He committed perjury as well. In 1904, Apostle Smoot advised the First Presidency to have post-Manifesto plural wives hide, in order to avoid being arrested. Then from 1905 onward, Reed Smoot pressured President Joseph F. Smith to excommunicate all post-Manifesto polygamists, no matter who performed or authorized their marriages. He failed at this but succeeded in getting John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley released, by threatening himself to resign from the Apostleship, if they were not released. Smoot also successfully urged the release of many prominent post-1890 polygamists from Church Offices where they would need to be sustained by Conferences. At the last minute, Smoot also prevented the appointment of a post 1890 Manifesto polygamist, Ben E. Rich, to the First council of Seventy in 1909. The First Presidency had approved this, even though Rich had publicly been recognized and identified as a man who married plural wives after the Manifesto. Reed Smoot was able to cancel that appointment. Hyrum M. Smith became an Apostle in 1901. Included in his charge as a new Apostle was the admonition, "that you accept the principle of plural marriage." He visited the Canadian Mormons in March 1902 with Apostles John W. Taylor and Owen Woodruff. Later, Hugh B. Brown remembered that all three indicated "they did not approve of the suspension of polygamy." I have no other evidence that Hyrum M. Smith advocated even verbally new plural marriages. But certainly by October 1903 he was expressing in the Temple his opposition to continuing new plural marriages. And after the Presidency withdrew from the meeting, Marriner W. Merrill told Apostle Smith to marry a new plural wife as soon as possible. In January 1904, Hyrum M. Smith denied before the Quorum of Twelve that he ever encouraged or performed any plural marriages anywhere in the world. Either he failed to remember his anti-Manifesto statements during his 1902 Canada visit, or Hugh B. Brown was mistaken in remembering this 70 years later. George Albert Smith became an Apostle in 1903 and then President of the Church from 1945 to 1951. His father, Apostle John Henry Smith, told mission presidents that he could not sustain his son as an Apostle if George Albert Smith did not accept plural marriage, and then he told his son the same thing in the Apostle's Charge. In October 1904, George Albert Smith expressed opposition to the performance of new plural marriages. But this may have reflected the caution of his pro-polygamist father, rather than total rejection of new polygamy. In February 1905, George Albert told Reed Smoot's secretary that no action would be taken against Apostles Taylor and Cowley. He also told of the revelation to Lyman for John W. Taylor not to testify. After Reed Smoot wrote the Presidency in December 1905 to have Owen Woodruff's post-Manifesto plural wife hide, Apostle George Albert Smith was the one who visited her in Salt Lake City to warn her to leave Utah. So certainly, even if he wasn't advocating new plural marriages, he had a good knowledge of those that had already occurred. Then George Albert Smith condemned John W. Taylor's 1909 plural marriage. George Albert apparently suggested that this was adultery. For this, John W. Taylor threatened to kill him, but instead cursed him by the Priesthood. And John W. Taylor said that George Albert Smith's nervous breakdown from 1909 to 1911 was the result of that curse. In January 1928. he confirmed Joseph W. Musser's polygamist son "he" being George Albert Smith who was an Apostle at this time into the L.D.S. Church. Charles W. Penrose, an Apostle in 1904 and then Presidency Counselor from 1911 to 1925. He helped draft the final version of the 1890 Manifesto. In September 1898 as editor of the Deseret News, he told a meeting of the first President and Apostles that he had evidence some of them had performed at least one or two plural marriages. Then a month later, Penrose wrote an editorial that not a single plural marriage had occurred "in the Mormon Church." Then he also helped draft the 1904 second Manifesto. Then six months later, in October 1904, newly appointed Apostle Penrose told a mission president, who was also a known post-1890 polygamist, that the second Manifesto of 1904, "doesn't mean anything more than the other, and that doesn't mean Mexico or any place where there is no law against polygamy." In November 1904, he traveled with Apostle Cowley to Mexico. Penrose told him that the 1890 Manifesto was phrased ambiguously so that it wouldn't mean "anything at all." After Taylor and Cowley were released in April 1906, Penrose's public and private position was against post-Manifesto polygamy, consistently. And he did not in any way advocate in any manner plural marriage after the release of these two Apostles. Orson F. Whitney is one of the most interesting. He became an Apostle in 1906 as the replacement for John W. Taylor in the Quorum of Twelve. As a Salt Lake City Bishop, he was courting a young woman in his ward from 1893 to 1895, when the Apostles sent Heber J. Grant to warn him to stop his attentions because they were attracting gossip. Bishop Whitney expressed interest in another local young woman from 1898 to 1900, when he finally proposed to her after George Teasdale, an Apostle, encouraged him to do so. Bishop Whitney was stunned to learn that she had become somebody else's plural wife that very same month, just before he proposed to her. Foiled again ! In 1903, Bishop Whitney again proposed plural marriage, but this time it isn't clear whether he actually married the young woman. Whether it was courtship or marriage, this relationship continued through 1905. But apparently it ended after his appointment as an Apostle in 1906. In March 1909, his son-in-law's sister became a plural wife, the ceremony performed by Patriarch Judson Tolman. Tolman also performed a plural marriage that same year Orson F. Whitney, now an Apostle for his brother-in-law. In July 1909 when the Apostles investigated Joseph W. Musser's post-1890 plural marriage, Musser noted that Whitney was "very generous and considerate." Apostle Whitney told his fellow-Apostles that most Mormons felt Apostles Taylor and Cowley had not been out of harmony in 1906, but were sacrificed for the Church. This put Francis M. Lyman into a fit of anger. Later in 1909, that same year, Apostle Whitney began courting another woman. She was the sister of a post-1890 polygamist in Provo. By February 1910, one of the Apostles was convinced that Whitney was trying to obstruct their investigation of recent polygamous marriages, and he was certainly of the mind to do so because he was currently polygamously courting. ln December 1910, Orson F. Whitney entered into a covenant of marriage with a Young woman, but their relationship ended within a year. In January 1915. Whitney may have had some role in the plural marriage of the brother of this same young woman that he had courted in 1909 to 1910. This couple was excommunicated by the Apostles in April 1918. By May 1918, Whitney had given up promoting plural marriage, according to the publication here I depend upon the fundamentalist publication by Lynn Bishop and his brother, The Keys of the Priesthood Illustrated. They base that on interviews that they had done, which I have not seen. But they indicated that he was favorable to plural marriage until 1918. In Anthony W. Ivins we have another interesting case. He became an Apostle in 1907 and a Counselor in the First Presidency from 1921 to 1934. He performed about 45 plural marriages in Mexico, from 1897 to 1904. And when the First Presidency authorized him to perform them for worthy residents of the Juarez Stake, Ivins did so on the request of residents. But he refused to do so during all but a few months of the period of 1897 to 1902, because the First Presidency did not give him blanket authority during that period to do it. Then he resumed performing these marriages for residents from 1902 to 1904. From 1897 to 1898, and again from 1903 to 1904, Ivins performed plural marriages from non-residents of Mexico after he received a written letter of authorization from the Presidency's office, of which the non-residents carried a duplicate which they then gave to him upon their arrival. This was their way of his knowing that they in fact were the ones referred to in the letter. Although Ivins courted a young woman he declined to marry her after the Manifesto, even though the Apostles were pressuring him to do so. And the woman died unmarried after his own death. They were both true to their covenant, remained true to each other, but they never entered into a plural marriage. Still, Ivins was not opposed to plural marriage per se, even though he was in his own life, because he performed a polygamous ceremony for his daughter in 1903. Anthony W. Ivins consistently opposed new plural marriages after the April 1904 second Manifesto. He saw that there could be, in his view, no exceptions to that. Richard R. Lyman became an Apostle in 1918; he was excommunicated in 1943. In 1925, Apostle Lyman entered into a mutual covenant of plural marriage with a woman who had been disfellowshipped in 1921 for her earlier plural marriage to a man from whom she had now separated. Ironically, his father, Francis M. Lyman, had investigated this woman's post-Manifesto marriage. Richard R. Lyman became acquainted with her when he arranged for her restoration to full Church membership in 1922. Their marriage was a marriage of love. They saw themselves as soul-mates. He saw himself as unhappily married to his first wife who had no knowledge of this relationship. At their marriage in 1925, he was 55 Years old, and she was 53. And his first wife did not know. Apostle Lyman and his plural wife ware in their 70s when they were discovered and excommunicated, 18 years later. They did not finally end their nearly 30 year association until 2 years before Lyman was again baptized into the L.D.S. Church, on October 27, 1954. I've focused primarily on the men. But let me speak to you briefly and give you a list of the prominent women who entered into plural marriages after the Manifesto. (Guessing at these names and spellings.) Julie Ann Goodbrioksen was the young ladies YLMIA Board member from 1898 to 1926. She became a plural wife in 1903 of a General Board member, Louis A. Kelsch, Sr., father of Louis Kelsch who became a martyr of the fundamentalist movement with his many imprisonments, beginning with the raid in 1945. Agness S. Campbell was a member of the YLMIA General Board from 1898 to 1929. She married stake counselor Edwin T. Bennion in 1904, after the second Manifesto. Amelia B. Carlin, one of the earliest lady missionaries in 1901 to 1902, became a plural wife in 1902 of mission president James G. Duffin. Hannah Grover became a plural wife in 1904 of Victor C. Beckstead. I don't know who performed this ordinance, but it was performed in Salt Lake City in May 1904. She became Stake Primary President before 1919. Lillian Hamlin was a BYU faculty member from 1898 to 1902, and she became plural wife of Apostle Abraham H. Cannon in 1896 in a Salt Lake Temple ceremony. And then in 1901 she became a plural wife of Bishop Louis M. Cannon. Harriet Bennion Harker was a plural wife in 1899 of Apostle Matthias F. Cowley, the ceremony performed in the Logan Temple. She was a member of the Relief Society General Board from 1906 to 1910. She was one of those, incidentally, who was released from General Boards under the pressure from Apostle Francis M. Lyman and Reed Smoot. Nancy Murphy Humphrey was a plural wife in 1901 of a Seventy, Jabez E. Durphy, and she was counselor in a stake YLMIA presidency from 1904 to 1912. Martha Jane LeFevre was president of a stake YLMIA. She became a plural wife in 1902. Mary Lucretia Lyerla, if any of the descendants of Louis Kelsch are here, she became a plural wife in 1899 of mission president Louis A. Kelsch. She was one of the early lady missionaries in 1899. Alice Caroline McLaughlin, Salt Lake Tabernacle Choir from 1891 to 1893, became a plural wife in 1899 of mission president Ben E. Rich. And then she became a lady missionary in 1900. Margaret P. Cardell became a plural wife in 1900 of stake counselor John M. Cannon. She was the Matron of the Logan Temple from 1916 until 1943. Vilate Pearson became a plural wife in 1900 of General Board member Hugh J. Cannon, and she served on the Primary General Board from 1906 to 1909, during which time she had two children and died in childbirth with a polygamous child. Margaret Curtis Shipp was a physician and became a plural wife in 1891 of The President of Seventy, B. H. Roberts. Catherine Sorenson was stake Primary President from 1898 to 1904. She became a plural wife in 1903 of a stake counselor. Bertha Christine Wilkins Stewart was an instructor at Brigham Young college in Logan from 1892 to 1895, and in L.D.S. Business college from 1896 to 1898. She became a plural wife in 1898 of stake counselor, Helaman Pratt. And then she was Counselor in a Stake Relief Society from 1909 to 1912. Clarisse Thatcher, Apostle Thatcher's daughter, was a guide at Salt Lake Temple Square. She became a plural wife in 1901 of General Board member, Henry S. Tanner, although without her father's knowledge. Pearl Udall became a plural wife after the second Manifesto of 1904, to Apostle Rudger Clawson. She became a member of the YLMIA General Board in 1917. But as soon as President Grant became President in 1918, he released her. Fanny Woolley, early lady missionary, from 1900 to 1902, became a plural wife in 1902 of stake President George C. Parkinson. She became a member of the Primary General Board in 1903. and in alphabetical order last, Margareta Zundel became a wife in 1901 of Stake President Oliver C. Hoskins, and she became a Stake Primary President from 1904 to 1909. In what I've presented to you today, I present it for your interest in showing that the messages of the official Church were very ambiguous from the 1890 Manifesto onward, and that prominent men and women in leadership positions at the general Church level, as well as the local level, by their conscience, by their faith and in many cases by instruction of General Authorities, entered into plural marriages. As you well know, that principle has not ceased. So with that, I'll turn the time over to you for whatever questions or comments you may want to make. I know your patience has been long, and I don't want to draw that out. And when the questions end, whenever they do, whether it's 5 minutes or 25, then we'll call an end and, as far as I'm concerned, you'll be free. I don't know if there will be any other things that your presiding officers will want to present before we finally close. Question: Do you get questions from L.D.S. Church members about plural marriage after the Manifesto, and do you get into trouble for answering them? Yes, to the first part of that question, I find that many L.D.S. Church members are interested. In fact, this is particularly true among the probably 50,000 or more active Church members living today who are descended from these plural marriages performed after the 1890 Manifesto. And that's a conservative estimate. And after I published the article in Dialogue magazine about the First Presidency's involvement in this continuation of plural marriage, I heard from a number of these descendants who in some cases in a very emotional way said that for years they had been taught and had quietly had to accept the judgment of Church leaders and local leaders that they were bastards, that they had been born to adulterous relationships after the 1890 Manifesto. And they expressed to me their gratitude for knowing that although secret, that these marriages had been entered into with authorization of the Church Presidency. Concerning the question of my own getting into trouble, after I published the 1985 Dialogue article, the members of the Quorum of Twelve gave orders to my stake president to withdraw my Temple recommend, and if that didn't stop me from publishing controversial Mormon history, to hold a court on me. The stake president didn't roll over and die, he said this was wrong and he was a "Dialogue" subscriber and had read the article and found nothing objectionable in it. His counselors likewise had done so: in fact, I had them read the article before they came into print. But he felt it necessary to comply with the letter of the law in withdrawing my Temple recommend, so he asked me to give it to him. I told him I would, but I told him to tell them "them", (we know who they are) that I would not be intimidated by anybody. Nobody can intimidate me. And that I was going to go ahead and do what I wanted to do, and they had to know that, that this was not going to stop me, but that I would not speak of it to others. and I did not. I kept silent about that. My stake president, on his part, left me in a stake presiding position I was in, because they hadn't mentioned that to him. So I was being sustained in stake conferences, some of which were held in the assembly hall on Temple Square. I was also ward gospel Doctrine class teacher and remained in that position till I resigned from B.Y.U. He also felt that this was a back door effort to get me fired at B.Y.U., so my stake president said that if anyone at B.Y.U. asks if I have a Temple recommend, tell them yes and don't volunteer that it's in my desk drawer. So there are some wonderful, good-hearted people even in the Church structure. Question: Where was Lady Mountford ? Well, I don't have any evidence of her whereabouts on the days that he was on the ship, and if he has evidence from San Francisco where she was living that he was not on the ship, then that's evidence I don't have. And that certainly alters the perspective of my conclusions. However, I find it curious that he was writing letters to San Francisco prior to the trip and told his secretary as they were going on the trip that anything he asked him to do was what God's will was for him to do, even if it didn't square with what the secretary thought should be done. and I find it especially curious that the marriage that didn't occur was ratified by proxy in the Salt Lake Temple 23 Years later. But beyond that, I have no knowledge of independent references to her whereabouts during the dates that President Woodruff was with his secretary aboard ship. Question: Do you have any evidence of any modern Apostles after Richard R. Lyman, such as Joseph Fielding Smith or Harold B. Lee J. Reuben Clark is another one who has been identified as one who had entered into plural marriage, whether in fact do you have any evidence that they did so? My answer is no, I don't have any evidence that they did. The evidence that I do have indicates that they were privately extremely opposed to anyone entering into plural marriage, and that any rumors that they did, I think, are unfounded. But the absence of evidence doesn't prove anything, it just proves that you don't have evidence of this. But I don't have evidence that there were any other Apostles after Richard R. Lyman, who did enter into plural marriage. This, of course, is setting aside eternal plural marriage, because many of them, Joseph Fielding Smith among them, have entered into eternal plural marriages where, after the death of one wife, they have been sealed for time and eternity to another wife. In Joseph Fielding's case, to three such wives. So in terms of sealing, a number of the Apostles have been sealed to wives where there would be a polygamous relationship following this life. But that's the only sense which I am aware of their having any participation in plural marriage. Question: why was it necessary to ratify a marriage that had occurred outside the Temple, in the Temple by proxy. There was a difference of opinion in the period after the Manifesto about whether any sealing performed outside the Temple should be ratified at a later time in the Temple. Most of these sealing were monogamous sealing. They were performed for couples in Arizona primarily, but also in Canada, in Oregon, in the settlements of Mormons in Colorado and New Mexico and also in Mexico, where young couples were sealed, where one or both of them had never been to the Temple for an endowment. The question is often raised, these have been authorized but should these people be re-sealed? The position went back and forth. Sometimes the First Presidency would decide no, they don't need to be re-sealed in the Temple. Then other times they would say, well if it's convenient at some future time for those to be re-sealed over the altar in the Temple, that that should be done. So the fulfillment of that was haphazard. A number of the couples who were sealed outside the Temple, whether they were monogamous sealings or plural marriage sealings, went to the Temples, whether it was Manti or St. George or Salt Lake or Logan, and had those marriages re-sealed within the Temple so that those marriages would be of record within the Temples of the Church. And that was the whole idea, to have them of record in the Temples of the Church, in the records of the Church. That was always a family question, and I can only think that it was not something that was ever imposed by the Church Leaders saying, "you should go back." or, "I require you to go back into the Temple and have this done." It was left to the decision of the families. Madam Mountford's marriage I can only assume was within the Woodruff family there was a desire for this marriage to be ratified for the records of the Temple by proxy. It couldn't have come from Madam Mountford's family, because she was the only member of her family who had joined the Church. Question: What were the circumstances that resulted in John W. Taylor being reinstated in 1965? This was at the repeated request of Samuel W. Taylor and Raymond W. Taylor who were two sons of John W. Taylor. They had jointly collaborated in writing such books as, "I Had Six Wives." Which was a somewhat fictionalized biography of Rulon Allred. Taylor changed the names but based this on research they had done with President Allred and a number of others within the group. They had also published a family memoir about John W. Taylor called, Family Kingdom. They had made repeated requests and finally succeeded in obtaining the permission of David O. McKay for the ceremony to be performed. And Joseph Fielding Smith was the one who performed the ceremony of reinstatement. I don't know who performed the baptism, but Joseph Fielding Smith reinstated all John W. Taylor's former blessings and sealings upon him. Question: How did you get interested in plural marriage and plural marriage after the Manifesto? Actually, it was that book I just referred to, Family Kingdom. When I was 17, a girlfriend of mine said, "you know, there's this book my mother just read. It's about early Mormonism. I think you'd be interested in it." So she gave me the book and I read Family Kingdom and felt very disturbed that John W. Taylor had been dropped from the Quorum of Twelve and was later excommunicated. I felt that he, as the book presents him and as I believe he was, that he was a sacrificial lamb for the defense of the Church. I felt very concerned about that. Well, in our ward, my Bishop was a son-in-law of Apostle LeGrand Richards who frequently came to my ward to see his daughter and son-in-law and speak our ward meetings. The New years Eve after I read the book, New years Eve fell on Sunday, so we couldn't have our traditional Sunday dances and celebrations on new years Eve, so our youth group met in the Bishop's home. With us at that time was LeGrand Richards. The Bishop said that LeGrand Richards was going to give us a talk about whatever he chose to speak about, and after that time 'we were free to ask him any questions we wanted to. So I'd been reading the Journal of Discourses, the first volume that summer, too, so I asked him about plural marriage after the Manifesto and the Adam-God doctrine. Of course this was in front of these other friends of mine who had never heard of either one of these things. I thought Brother Richards was very blunt, and I thought he was very honest in what he said. about Adam-God, he didn't deny it in any respect. He said Brigham Young taught a lot of things that he (Richards) didn't understand. He said that, "The Adam-God doctrine is one of those things that I just put on the shelf. And I don't claim any ability to understand it now. I will one day take it off the shelf when I can meet with our Lord and ask him personally about it. But until that time. I don't make any statement about it." Which I felt was a very honest thing to say. That was the position I took thereafter. About plural marriage after the Manifesto, he only knew of it through what his father had told him, George F. Richards, who was one of the replacements he was the replacement for Matthias F. Cowley when he was released in 1906. And Apostle Richards told me that his father regarded John W. Taylor as a very proud man, and that John W. Taylor felt that because his father had this revelation, this gave him the right to do anything regarding plural marriage no matter what the President of the Church felt. Apostle LeGrand Richards told me that he felt that John W. Taylor's downfall came because he was arrogant, and that, to me, sounded reasonable. So I accepted that argument and felt that they had acted contrary to the First Presidency's proposals, and I didn't really explore plural marriage after the Manifesto until I was a returned missionary. One of my young men I had responsibility for at B.Y.U. came up to me furious, saying he was going to leave B.Y.U., he was definitely going to leave his Book of Mormon class and was probably going to leave B.Y.U. that term, and might leave the Church. I tried to calm him down and said, "what's the matter?" he said, "well, I've been used to being given misinformation by my seminary teachers about plural marriage after the Manifesto, and I Knew that they didn't understand a lot, and I figured that this was just honest misinformation on their part. But a religion professor at B.Y.U. told me that anyone who entered into plural marriage after the Manifesto was an adulterer. My grandfather was a mission president who married two plural wives in Salt Lake City in 1901, and stayed mission president for 19 years. My family has a letter of recommend for one of those plural wives, signed by Joseph F. Smith." Well, I tried to explain to him that the religion professor probably didn't understand any more about this than his seminary teachers did, and I was sure he wasn't lying. But this really disturbed me, because it went so much against what I had felt was a reasonable explanation that LeGrand Richards gave to me. So I went up to The Salt Lake Genealogical Society that next weekend and checked his father's genealogical group sheet, and sure enough there were the dates for the marriages and the children's births, places of the marriages, and I checked Andrew Jenson's list in the "Biographical Encyclopedia" for this man, and sure enough, he was mission president from 1901 to 1919. The answer no longer worked. So from that point forward I wanted to understand, and I felt that not only was it important for me to understand, it was important for these descendants of these marriages to understand too. So that's how I got involved in this. Question: The question relates to the proxy ceremony for Wilford Woodruff and Lydia Mountford. Wilford Woodruff's proxy was one of his sons. The proxy for Lydia Mountford was Susa Young Gates, who was the sister-in-law of Wilford Woodruff. She was the sister of another secret marriage that Wilford Woodruff had entered into, but this one he had entered into in 1877, and had married the sister of Susa Young Gates. The marriage didn't last long, it ended in divorce. Susa Young Gates is also interesting as a proxy, because she was an advocate of plural marriage after the Manifesto and had tried to get her daughter, Leah, to marry Abraham Cannon, in 1896, and she was seriously being courted by Abraham Cannon. But when Abraham Cannon died, in 1896, a year later, Leah Dunford married John A. Widtsoe. So those were the proxys. Question: What is the source of your information for this proxy marriage". The Salt Lake Temple record. Question: How do we get access to those? If you have a Temple recommend, you can get to the Salt Lake Temple record. There is another source, though, for it, too. That is that Anthon H. Lund performed the marriage, and he recorded the ceremony in his diary; and those diaries are going to be published in another year or so. Question: What is your understanding of the circumstances surrounding the 1886 revelation and what is your personal evaluation of whether it was valid and what significance has it? As a historian. I find that there is abundant evidence to demonstrate that the 1886 revelation occurred, that John Taylor was being asked to suspend or end the practice of plural marriage. And in response to a question relating to that, God told him in a revelation, a fairly brief revelation, that that should not occur and that God could not revoke the practice or principle of plural marriage. And because of that, John Taylor did something fairly interesting, and that is that John Taylor had never been in violation of the federal laws concerning plural marriage, because he had entered into his plural marriages in Utah before the 1862 law which made plural marriage a violation of law. Within a month, it was a month after the 1886 revelation, John Taylor married a plural wife, which was his first violation of federal law concerning plural marriage. The 1886 revelation, however, in my view, really added nothing to any of the revelations that had been given on plural marriage. It did respond to that specific circumstance from 1885 to 1886, when many loyal Church members saying, "why should we suffer anymore? Why don't we just agree to suspend the practice of plural marriage and end this crusade?" And the 1886 revelation did respond to that specific situation and request or consideration. But if you read, as I have read the 1886 revelation, I don't find that it says anything different than the original written 1843 revelation. In there, God says that this is a new and everlasting covenant which shall never be abrogated. It is an eternal covenant. The 1889 revelation of Wilford Woodruff, who was an Apostle at that time, says the same thing. The 1889 revelation received on November 24, 1889 by Wilford Woodruff, when there was a similar proposal to him about making a promise to the federal government not only said that, the revelation of marriage being eternal, but also told him to make no promises to the Federal Government at all, of any kind. So I don't think that the 1886 revelation, in terms of the irrevocability of the principle of plural marriage, said anything new. I really find it curious that there has been such a strenuous effort on the part of L.D.S. Church members and leaders to deny the existence of the 1886 revelation, because it makes them vulnerable to denying something that can be demonstrated as having occurred. The reason the 1886 revelation, though, has historical significance beyond its actual content is because through the later testimony of Lorin Woolley, the 1886 revelation is linked with another event. And they are two separate historical circumstances. The 1886 revelation is linked with the ordination or setting apart of men to the office of High Priest Apostle, to have an authority to perform plural marriages, as defined later "no matter what the Church itself might do." I find no historical contemporary evidence to support that ordination of the Council of Friends in 1886. As I said, absence of evidence doesn't prove anything. lt doesn't prove that something did not occur. All absence of evidence does is that you can say. "I don't have evidence of this." And as a historian, I have no evidence that there was a setting apart or an ordination of a Council of Friends in 1886. However, I do have as early as 1906 a reference by local Church members that there had been men who had been set apart to keep plural marriage alive no matter what. And that certainly is a support for the account of 1886, but it doesn't refer in any specific way to the 1886 ordination of the Council of Friends. So the 1886 revelation relates to that event, that alleged event or that claimed event, but the existence of the 1886 revelation as a true document does not prove that there was an ordination of men in 1886. They are really two separate historical items. I would be more than happy to find verification, and if I did find it, I certainly wouldn't conceal evidence of the ordination of men in 1886 as a council of Friends to continue plural marriage. But aside from the one reference I gave to you, in 1906, I find no evidence of that event prior to Lorin Woolley's detailed statements on various occasions in the 1920s concerning the 1886 ordination. Question: Are you writing a book about plural marriage and what you've been talking about today? Yes, I've been working on this for a number of years and eventually it'll be two books. I'm planning to write one book on plural marriage before it was publicly announced in 1852, when it was secret and being denied, and you had the public and then you had the private confusion going on, and then I plan to write a book on the similar event or similar circumstances in Mormonism that occurred after 1890. That book will deal with plural marriage among the Mormons. I'm not sure what the cutoff will be. If I have my preference, I think I'll cover from 1890 to 1990, but we'll see what my energy level is for that. But that's upcoming. I also have, as some of you know here who have been kind enough to allow me to interview you, I have an article coming out on, "Plural Marriage and Mormon Fundamentalism." and the University of Chicago is going to be publishing that next year. It was supposed to come out this year, but they had a delay with a number of other people who were contributing to the volume. That presents not only my historical research, but also interviews with plural wives and plural children and plural husbands within the fundamentalist movement today, helping I hope, readers to understand that it ain't what they think it is in terms of plural marriage today. But that won't be a book, it'll be a long article. lt is 60 pages of typed text and 30 pages of notes. I don't know what the full book is going to be like it's probably going to look like a medical dictionary because there are about 20 other contributors, and they're writing articles that are 40 pages long supposedly. Every time I kept sending something to the authors, they kept asking me to ask more questions, and that kept expanding the length of the article until it ended up being 60 pages of text. O.k., we're out of time for questions. I can just allow one more you have greater patience than I think I would under your circumstances of sitting in meetings for 5 hours at a stretch. Question: you've referred to concubinage, and what does that mean in the L.D.S. Church. You need to remember that if you read section 132, the 1843 revelation, that revelation not only approves plural wives, it also approves concubines. The question is, what does that mean? well, the term "concubine" as I understand it, and I'm not a biblical scholar and haven't researched this carefully, but in the Old Testament you have references to wives and concubines. My understanding is that in the Old Testament when it used that term, whatever the original Hebrew was, it meant that it was a wife who did not have the same social and legal status as other wives. Topically, concubines were slave women or servants in the home who became wives of the master of the home. Several of Abraham's wives, he had four, and two of those wives were concubines. They were his servant women who became his wives. I believe two of them had the higher social and legal status. They were not his servant women. So there was that distinction. lt related not to the legitimacy of the marriage, but to the social standing of the women in the marriage. Then in contemporary use, concubine came to mean basically a woman who was in like a mistress, and that became a conventional British and American understanding of the word concubine. Then you have the revelation of 1843 approving plural wives and concubines, and it doesn't explain what they are. So you are left to wonder what we're talking about there, because there are no slaves. Well, that's not true, there were black slaves in American society, but there were no slaves in Nauvoo society that this would have applied to, so what was it referring to? My only understanding of this, any time the brethren referred to concubines, they never explained what they meant. They just said "concubines." I think that what it came to mean in Mormon practice and in Mormon thought in the 19th century was a woman who was married to a man without benefit of a sealing ceremony performed by a Priesthood holder. So it referred to a woman who became married to a man through an ordinance of what I call a "solemn covenant of marriage." And I don't like referring to those women as concubines because of the very negative connotations that term had and did have, even in the 19th century. But I think that's what George Q. Cannon and others were referring to when they said that concubinage is a true principle of the Lord, and if necessary it's going to occur again. It meant that if necessary, if they for, one reason or another couldn't have a Priesthood holder perform a ceremony of sealing for a couple, that the couple could enter into concubinage under the authorization of God by agreement or vow of love and fidelity between themselves and this goes to what I regard as a principle that the structure of the Church is not necessary to ratify what God approves, and that in terms of relationships, a relationship of love and commitment doesn't need to have an ordinance to perform it, to have the approval of God, that that is between the couple and their relationship and God. Yet, in the 19th century, that was a minority practice. Most of the polygamous relationships that existed began with a formal ceremony in which there was a formal officiator performing it. There were very few of concubinage. But I've traced down a number of them. I focused on them primarily after 1890. and there were very few of those. That will have to be the last question, I'm afraid. I don't want to take the patience of those sitting here wondering, "will he never stop?" So thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you. Ralph Woodward: What do You have on the visit of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith to John Taylor in 1886, and of the 8-hour meeting other than Lorin Woolley's affidavit? O.k., this is the traditional, foundational claim. I think it's fair to say, of Mormon fundamentalism. One is the 1886 revelation. Two, is the miraculous appearances of angels and of Joseph Smith and of Christ himself to John Taylor. And three, the ordination of those men. There is no question that again, the historical evidence in terms of what I am bound by in terms of my training as a historian, there is no question historically to cast any doubt on the 1886 revelation. There can also be no question that John Taylor spoke with God face to face in 1885 and also in 1886. I'll refer you to that. In December 1885, Joseph Smith III, from actually November to December, Joseph Smith III of the Reorganized Church, was going throughout Utah, preaching that plural marriage was not a practice of his father and that it was only a corrupt, evil invention of Brigham Young. During that time, John Taylor received a revelation in December wherein Jesus Christ appeared to him face to face. That revelation and that appearance of Christ to John Taylor face to face was being referred to in people's diaries and in meetings of local wards as early as May 1886. So this is months before the September 1886 events that you have people publicly saying and recording in their diaries that John Taylor had received a revelation concerning plural marriage and had spoken with Christ face to face. During this period from 1885 to May of 1886, John Taylor had not lived in the home of John W. Woolley, so it had nothing to do with the Woolley home. Then in 1897, while Lorin Woolley was on a speaking engagement outside Utah, he spoke to a ward and bore testimony that while in his father's home, the home of John W. Woolley, President John Taylor had spoken with Jesus face to face, as well as a number of other angelic ministers. He didn't at that time associate it with a plural marriage revelation. He just testified that this had occurred. So that's the earliest contemporary account I have of the appearance of Jesus Christ and other messengers, to John Taylor while John Taylor was in John W. Woolley's home in September 1886. Then years later, Lorin Woolley gave more details about those visions appearances that occurred in his father's home, involving John Taylor. But I think it's important to know that people in the early part of 1886, were talking about John Taylor speaking face to face with Jesus Christ in regard to a revelation on polygamy. Items on Polygamy Omitted from the published book. X [_____________ or of first presidency.] 1 Polygamy - an ancient practice; As made known in the revelation concerning the eternity of the marriage covenant, the order of celestial marriage may include a plurality of wives. While the practice of polygenus marriage has been condemned by christian sects in general it was doubtless the system under which < lived> < most of > the patriarchs of old : and in ____________________________________________ x 1 Doc & Cov. CXXXII 2 view of this fact, it is known in the church today as the system of patriarchal marriage. The custom has survived the lapse of time, and is still a traditional and common practice amongst a large proportion of the human family. The jewish scriptures conclusively prove that polygamy was not merely tolerated - by the Lord, but positively approved by the Lord in older times. Abraham was 3 a polygamist, yet the Lord treated him with special favor, established with him a covenant for all time, and moreover bestowed upon his polygamous child a special blessing Jacob, whose God - given name - title Israel is still the honored designation of the chosen people, was the husband of four wives : yet unto him the Lord confirmed the covenant made with his grandfather Abraham, and ______________________________________________ x 1 Gen. XVII : 1-4 x 2 Gen. XVII. 20. x 3 Gen. XXVIII. 13 4 granted special blessings to his polygamous wife Rachel and also to Leah the first wife for having given another woman to her husband. Moses also possessed a plurality of wives , yet he was made the mouth piece of God unto Israel, and through him the laws of the people were established, but in no instance do we find the polygamous relation -- ship denounced: on the contrary ________________________________________ x 1 Gen XXX. 22-23 x 2 Gen. XXX, 17-18 x 3 Exo. II. 21 : Numb. XII. 1. Judges IV, 11 5 special provision was made for the treatment of polygamous children. Through another enactment polygamy was made compulsory < among the Israelites > under certain conditions, and the penalty of lasting disgrace was decreed against him who refused to meet the requirement. The law was to this effect, that if a married man died without children, it should be the duty of the brother of the deceased to take the widow to wife, in order that he might leave a posterity in his brother's name; ___________________________________________________________ x 1 Deut. XXI. 15 -17. 6 no distinction was made as to the single or married state of the surviving brother; and compliance with the law might necessitate a polygamous relationship . Samuel the favored prophet of God was the offspring of plural marriage. David, Israels mighty King, specially chosen of God, had many wives and concubines ; yet of him we read that he " did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not __________________________________________________ x 1 Deut. XXV 5 - 10 x 4 1 Sam XXV. 42 -43; x 2 1 Sam. III. 19 -21 II Sam. V 13. XII x 3 1 Sam. I. 1 -2 : 19 -20 7 - 8 7 aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite " < x 1> The exception here noted in David's righteous life was a grievous sin : for he committed adultery with < Bathsheba > the wife of another, and moreover planned the death of her husband. The child resulting from this sinful association was smitten with death in spite of David's earnest supplications : ____________________________________________ x 1 I Kings. XV. 5. x 2 II Sam XII. 15 -23. 8 yet another child < Solomon > which Bathsheba as David's polygamous wife bore to him, was loved of the Lord, < x 1 > became the recipient of unprecedented blessings, and succeeded his father on the throne of undivided Israel. Moreover, he was honored in being permitted to build a temple to the Lord a privilege denied his father David ; and on the completion of the sacred structure, the Lord made known his acceptance of this work of a polygamous son, by miraculous manifestations. < x 6 > ___________________________________________________________ x 1 II Sam. XII. 24 x 4 I Kings V. 5. x 2 I Kings III 5 - 15 : IV. 29 - 34 x 5 I Chron. XXII. 8 x 3 I kings I. 13 XXVIII. 3. x 6 I Kings VIII. 10 - 11 : IX 1 -3 II Chron. XII. 1 - 3 1 12 9 Solomon also was a polygamist; < x 1 > for this he was not accounted a sinner, but for having married women of adulteress nations, and in sanctioning their god - less practices. < x 2 > The instances cited may suffice to show that the seal of divine approval was set upon the polygamous system which characterized the history of ancient Israel; and while illegitimate children were stigmatized as objects of shame, the issue of polygamous marriage were ___________________________________________________ x 1 I Kings XI. 1-3 x 2 verses 4 -13 x 3 Deut. XXIII. 2. 10 in many instances the recipients of special favors as has been shown. As a crowning example, let it be remembered that according to New Testament authority, Christ himself was born in polygamous lineage; among his < earthly > progenitors there were many polygamists, and children of such, including even Solomon, the son of Bathsheba. < x 1 > _____________________________________________________ x 1 Matt I 11 Plurality of wives in this dispensation. The Latter - day Saints do not base their defense of the doctrine of polygamy as it was taught and practiced for a time within the Church upon the scriptural justification of the system which existed of old; more upon arguments as to the propriety and expediency of the practice, some of which have been urged by those who would make it appear that plural marriage 12 best subserves the interests of society. The sole < and sufficient > reason which led the church to promulgate the doctrine was that the Lord had by revelation taught it and < had > commanded its acceptance in the present dispensation. The revelation here referred to was given to Joseph Smith --July- - in 1831; but for several years after that time it was made known to a few of the leading officials of the Church only; and not until 1841 did the prophet allow its 13 practice or introduce it by his own example. The written revelation was published to the Church under date of July 12, 1843. < x 1 > In this declaration of the divine will, the Lord justified Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, and other holy men of old in their marriage relations, declaring that they had all received their wives by command of God and under the conditions of the celestial covenant, and that in these things they sinned ___________________________________________ x 1 Doc & Cov. CXXXII 14 not, except as some of them, David, and Solomon for example took wives not given of God. The command to re - establish the sacred ordinance of celestial marriage, including plurality of wives was definite and binding on the Church. The people received it as a divine requirement, and entered upon its practice with the sentiment of the christian world and there own traditional conceptions of propriety in full opposition. 15 The story of their fidelity to this principle in the face of < sectarian > persecution of the bitterest kind -and- under the harassment of hostile, < and > -though- as the people truly believed, un - constitutional legislation is now a matter of history. The first anti - polygamy enactment by the Congress of the United States became a law July 1, 1862 : for twenty years however the statute was practically a dead letter; it was held by eminent legal authority to be unconstitutional and therefore void, 16 and little effort was made to enforce its provisions In 1882, and again in 1887, additional laws were framed against the practice of plural marriage, and when the Supreme Court finally decided that the laws were valid the people could but submit. < x 1 > The discontinuance of plural marriages was decreed by the Church, through a manifesto _________________________________________ x 1 See page - 17 issued by the presiding authority and adopted by the people October 6th 1890. Note The Following is an interesting document of Mary B. Smith's. Located in the Archives. Spelling and punctuation altered to modern usage. Mary Bailey Smith Born 1808 Died 1841. Susan Bailey Smith was their 1st daughter 1835-1905. I Mary B. Smith, the wife of Samuel Smith, write something Joseph said. Joseph Came to us today, as I have not been well since Missouri Persecution and the loss of our friends and an homes. Little Samuel looks like his Father. Joseph said that this people are being put to the test, as abraham the Righteous would go to the mountain west. there the prophetic of Isaiah would come to pass, seven woman would have one man for a short season, only! The Lord was going to raise a people to him to stand for truth, to converting the honest. The Church would grow over three million in hundred and thirty years. The Power would be by the twelve to the end of the earth, and the savior comes. Some would depart from the faith, being seducing of the power of satan power changing the right and keys. Only to take man kind to hell. Samuel your seed & Mary shall stand for truth, to the end of time. I can't write 100th part. Mary B. Smith. I Mary B. Smith ask to write some what as Samuel will grant this to me there's no grater love than He has Joseph speaking to told Her she would have a daughter who would write songs and Mother of Zion that Lived Righteous in the Resurrection would see and have part to see their little ones grow to maturity this to be as a testimony that the church is true and God knows all things from beginning to end. I Mary B. Smith the wife of Samuel Smith, the best Father and husband on earth. I wish to write just a small part of Father Smith Blessing to my loving husband. He had been feeling poor, he work so hard he thinks of his Father and Mother Sister, Brother Joseph Hyrum Don Carlos. Ask God to bring mine to truth. Bro. Brigham Young was at Father Smith home he had brought some food goods to Father Smith. Brother Young anointed Samuel Father gave the Blessing Samuel The Lord has called thee a perfect man. Your Calling is to preach this work you shall Live to take care of all your Bro Joseph and Hyrum needs Samuel you do not murmur. The Lord will bless your Seed and if Joseph seed should go a stray. Your seed in the third generation shall the Lord raise up, his name shall be Joseph his wife Emma, to Do a great work, for Joseph seed This Church will go to the mountain west grow to a grate people in the time before the Savior comes shall return and build his Temple. And shall never leave the earth as long as the stars shine and the sun gives it light Amen. Brother Brigham stop to and he and Samuel talked. He said Samuel I have Love for you and your Famely for ever, and as long as I live we must help Joseph Hyrum Your father and Mother I have some food goods for you and them. I am going there now Samuel told him he had and was on his way to his Father His was we would go with him.