theMormonMind

???????? ????? ????????

[The following is a transcript of a presentation I gave at my church on May 21, 2008.] 

 

 

 

Introduction

 Thanks to Pastor ______ for inviting me to speak once again on the subject of Mormonism.

 You might be surprised to learn that our tape ministry is alive and well.  I was certainly surprised when I found out that a taped copy of my last presentation had found its way into the hands of the local Mormon bishop.  A good friend of mine who is still a Latter-day Saint told me about a recent encounter she had with a fellow Saint from the local unit here in town.  My friend was warned that she should not listen to me, and that she should “not let him get to you.”  This type of conditioned, fear-based response was predictable, but even I was surprised by her next comment: “He’s the devil,” she told my friend.  I find it remarkable that those who claim to belong to God’s only true Church, and claim to possess his true Priesthood, could possibly have anything to fear from me.  It is also disconcerting (but expected) to observe a community of believers who immediately label something “evil” just because it disagrees with or is not explained by their belief system. 

 Religious narrow-mindedness can be a dangerous thing indeed.  I am reminded of William Tyndale who was burned at the stake in 1536 by “good Christians” just because he was attempting to produce a more accurate, English translation of the Bible.  Tyndale’s translation was the inspiration for several subsequent important translations, including the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, the Douay-Rheims Bible of 1582–1609, and – last but not least — the King James Version of 1611.   I wonder how many versions of the Bible are in this room at the moment.  Thank goodness we’ve at least gotten past burning people at the stake for using a different version of the Bible.

 Due to the intense research I’ve been doing on Mormonism for the past several years, I am acutely aware that, were I living in Utah in the mid-nineteenth-century, I would have been killed for my actions.  As a case in point, I present Jesse T. Hartly, a lawyer in Utah, who was executed by Danites for writing about his opposing beliefs on the Church, its doctrines and practices.  Brigham Young ordered the murder after some of Hartly’s letters were intercepted by Church leaders.  Hartly left behind a widow and a young child.   Mormons today would never think of doing such things.  But in Utah in the 1850s, I would be as good as dead.  So, when I hear someone in my own community refer to me as “the devil,” and I realize that, were it another time and place, I would certainly been executed, and my body left to rot in some lonely canyon – as was Hartly’s — it sort of gives me the willies.

 With this in mind, I would like to make a few things clear before I begin.  My purpose here is not driven by any sense of malice or vindictiveness.  I’m not here to foster divisiveness or hate.  Rather, my intent is education.  It has been my observation over the past quarter-century that most Mormons, while they may have a passing familiarity with the subject matter I’ll be covering this evening, nevertheless are very much in the dark about this material.  And this bothers me on a deep level.  No matter what some of my Mormon “brothers and sisters” may think of me now, I still care deeply for them – even if they think I work for the Devil. I certainly do not mind if they have their own beliefs, for we all must serve the dictates of our own conscience.  But I do mind if important facts are being systematically withheld from them in order to keep them controlled, close-minded and obedient.

To my way of thinking, historical accuracy is of paramount importance to the claims of the Mormon Church.  In other words, its claims are inseparably connected with historical events.  Where historical events are inaccurately reported, or are altogether false, the claims which depend on them are highly suspect.  Mormon doctrine and history are replete with physical events which are claimed to have actually taken place.  If these events never really happened, then the claims based upon them cannot reasonably be substantiated. 

That being said, let me introduce the topic for this evening.  Pastor ______ stopped me after services one Sunday and asked if I would present a talk on a recent news item.  Most of you are probably familiar with the events which have been transpiring near Eldorado, Texas, and involve a group of Mormon fundamentalists.  I was asked to explain what this group is all about, what their connection is with the Mormon Church, and why they practice polygamy in the first place.  Among other sources, I have relied heavily on the following:

• In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, by Todd Compton
• Mormon Polygamy: A History, by Richard S. Van Wagoner
• Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, by Richard and Joan Ostling

Warren Jeffs and the FLDS

 The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or FLDS, is a Mormon fundamentalist group, and is not associated with the official Mormon Church.  Its current leader is Warren Jeffs, who took over the position of prophet and president in 2002 from his father, Rulon Jeffs.  The FLDS organization consists of about 10,000 members, and openly practices polygamy in the towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona — two towns which straddle the Arizona-Utah state line.

 The FLDS also operate a 1,900-acre ranch near Eldorado, Texas, on land purchased about four years ago.  They call it the YFZ, or “Yearning for Zion” Ranch, and its more than four hundred occupants are reportedly among Jeffs’ most obedient and faithful followers, chosen from the compounds at Hildale and Colorado City.  The ranch includes a massive temple, several three-story housing units where Jeffs’ chosen followers live, a water tower, a school and community center, a dairy and cheese factory and a massive concrete mill.

 The fifty-two-year-old Jeffs was arrested in August 2006 in Nevada and was convicted in 2007 in Utah of being an accomplice to rape in the arranged marriage of a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin. At the time of his arrest, he was on the FBI’s Most Wanted list.  Jeffs is serving two five-year terms as a result of his conviction.  He still faces trial in Arizona on eight charges of sexual conduct with a minor, incest and conspiracy. 

 Recently, the FLDS and their YFZ ranch have been spotlighted in the news.  Critics have accused members of arranging marriages for girls as young as thirteen to adult men.  As soon as they reach puberty, these young girls, it is claimed, are forced to enter into polygamous “spiritual” marriages, have sex, and bear children.  It is also claimed that young boys are “groomed” to perpetuate the cycle, but that they are sometimes excommunicated from the group in order to reduce competition for young brides.  Reportedly, if married men are excommunicated for whatever reason, their wives and children are liable to being “reassigned” to another male member.

 Texas law enforcement officials have recently raided the ranch and removed at least 416 children (mostly girls), placing them in state custody.  At least 139 women – most of them mothers — have also been removed from the ranch, and are being housed in a state shelter.  Authorities say that they are investigating “the safety of children” at the ranch.  According to an affidavit, child welfare workers and law enforcement officers searching the ranch saw a number of apparently pregnant teen girls who appeared to be minors, and others who already had children.  Their search revealed that the white limestone temple at the ranch contains a bed where officials believe underage girls were required to consummate their spiritual marriages to much older men.  A child protection supervisor testified that she encountered several pregnant teen girls at the ranch who called each other “sister wives” and who believed it was acceptable to be “spiritually united” with a man at any age.  It has been reported that girls as young as thirteen had conceived children at the ranch.

 It is important to recognize that the FLDS organization is not affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, as we have come to know them.  Mormons, in fact, avidly disclaim any relationship with schismatic groups such as this – for obvious reasons.  What they don’t realize – and what I hope to highlight in my presentation this evening – is that they share a common heritage and belief structure, much more so than most people might understand.  And, even more importantly, I hope to demonstrate that these fundamentalist beliefs and practices regarding polygamy are much closer to those of original Mormonism than are those of today’s Mormon Church.  This is a key point.  For Mormons today to reject the beliefs and practices of these fundamentalists is, in effect, to reject their own doctrinal foundations. 

 I believe that one of the best ways to understand the priorities and motivations behind the FLDS organization is to examine the history of polygamy in the Mormon Church.  By examining the doctrines, practices, and actions of the early Church leaders, we can better understand the fundamentalist point of view.

Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Polygamy

 Mormon polygamy – or “plural marriage” as it was often called – originated with Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism.  Exactly when he started and why is not clear, partly due to the fact that the concept expanded in scope and complexity throughout his adult life, and that he attempted to practice it secretly.  Smith was married legally to his first wife Emma Hale in 1827, after having eloped with her against her father’s wishes.  A few years later, he published his Book of Mormon, amassed a good number of followers, and organized a church.
 
Though the “official” revelation on plural marriage was not written down until July 1843, Smith was heavily involved in the practice well before that time.  In fact, there is evidence that he began being unfaithful to Emma as early as 1830. The couple had to hurriedly leave Harmony, Pennsylvania after Smith was accused of “improper conduct with women.”  Not long afterwards, in 1831, he told a twelve-year-old Mary Elizabeth Rollins about a “vision” he had in which she was the first woman whom God had commanded for him to take as a plural wife.  Years later, after she had married another man, Mary did in fact become one of Smith’s plural wives.

As he began to claim revelations directly from God, Smith was “commanded” to move the Church body to Kirtland, Ohio.  There is conflicting evidence which suggests that, while in Ohio in 1832, Smith made improper advances to sixteen-year-old Nancy Marinda Johnson.  Smith, Emma, and their two small adopted children were living with the Johnson family at the time.  One evening, after putting the children to bed, Smith was violently attacked by a mob, tarred and feathered, and threatened with castration.  Nancy’s older brothers were part of the mob, and were reportedly furious at Smith for his advances towards their younger sister.  They brought along a doctor to perform the castration, but he backed out at the last moment.  Years later, Nancy, too, became one of Smith’s plural wives.

It was here in Ohio in 1833 that some scholars believe Smith took his first plural wife – the sixteen-year-old Fanny Alger, a live-in girl whom he had hired to assist Emma with keeping house.  To the objective observer, Smith and Fanny’s relationship appears more as a lurid affair than a holy matrimonial union.  Unable to find her husband one evening, Emma happened to spy upon them together in the barn by peeping through the cracks in the wall.  Emma was predictably furious and kicked the young girl out of the house that same evening.  There is no evidence to suggest that Smith fought to keep his “plural wife.” In fact, Fanny soon left town, left the Church, married a non-Mormon, and bore nine children.

If one were to ask any typical Latter-day Saint, it is unlikely that they would be able to name any of Smith’s plural wives, much less tell you how many wives he had.  Since Smith attempted to practice plural marriage in secret, it is practically impossible to uncover all the facts; but we do know quite a lot, nevertheless.  The popular Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that Smith had “at least” twenty-eight wives.  Another scholar (Brodie) puts the number at forty-eight.  The highly-respected Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn puts the count at forty-six.  In his fascinating book, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Todd Compton carefully documents the lives of thirty-three of Smith’s plural wives, along with eight additional “possible” wives.

 Regardless of the figure you choose, though, it is evident that Smith’s wives numbered in the dozens.  More intriguing than the sheer number, however, are the demographics of the women involved.  No less than eleven of his wives were already married to other men when they entered into plural marriage with Smith.  It appears that most of the other husbands were unaware of the polygamous relationship their wives had entered into.  There were four pairs of sisters, and one mother-daughter pair (yes, Smith actually married a mother and her daughter).   Unlike most Mormon men who would later practice polygamy in Utah, Smith did not provide for his numerous wives.

 Often, Smith would “test” his most loyal followers by demanding their wives.  As a case in point, Smith demanded that Apostle Heber C. Kimball hand over his beloved wife, Vilate.  Kimball agonized over the decision for three days, refusing to eat, and unable to sleep.  Finally, though, he came to Smith and offered Vilate to him.  Evidently satisfied that Kimball had passed his test of loyalty, Smith revealed that it had all been a test, and that Kimball could keep his wife.

Kimball later gave his fifteen-year-old daughter Helen to Smith.  Smith pressured Helen to make her decision, promising her that “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”  Smith gave her only twenty-four hours to respond.  This eternal reward / time limit combination was one of Smith’s typical tactics.  Helen’s father, Heber, supported the union, and her mother, Vilate, basically left the decision up to her. It is not surprising that fifteen-year-old Helen gave in under the pressure and agreed to be illegally united with a thirty-seven-year-old married man.

Compton underscores the fact that Helen experienced depression throughout her life because of polygamy. He writes that “she felt that her life’s happiness had ended completely — and she ‘brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes,’” and that “In moments of discouragement throughout the rest of her life, she would long for death and the departed.” She carried around with her a weight of guilt. Compton writes that “Her central sin, she felt, was a profoundly rebellious opposition to polygamy that she held in her heart of hearts.”

 Again, if you were to ask any typical Latter-day Saint what the justification was for the practice of polygamy, you would probably be answered that it was practiced because there were many older, unmarried women in the Church without means of support, and that polygamy supplied them with a provider.  The facts, however, indicate otherwise.  At least eleven of Smith’s plural wives were fourteen to twenty years old (Smith, by the way, took all but one of these teenage girls as wives between 1842 and 1843, when he was 36-37 years old).  This is exactly one-third if one accepts Compton’s count.  The youngest were Nancy M. Winchester and Helen Mar Kimball, who were fourteen to fifteen years old at the time.  But we really should not stop the teenager count there.  There were at least two other girls – Martha Brotherton (aged eighteen) and Nancy Rigdon (aged nineteen) – whom Smith approached, but were repulsed by the idea and refused his proposals.  In all, we know of at least five women turned him down.

Continuing with the breakdown:  Nine of Smith’s wives, or twenty-seven percent, were from twenty-one to thirty years old; eight, or twenty-four percent, were about the same age as Smith; and only five wives were older (aged forty-one to sixty).  Compton points out that “these data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy.”  

 There is still more evidence to show that polygamy was not just for the purpose of taking care of older women.  A study conducted in 1987 at the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at Brigham Young University showed that, of the 224 plural wives included in the study, sixty percent were under the age of twenty.  When a man took his first plural wife, he was generally in his 30’s, and the new wife was generally between seventeen and nineteen years old.  Men took their third wife sometime in their late 30’s, and her average age was nineteen.  The fourth wife’s average age was also nineteen, and the man was usually between thirty-six and forty-five.

 The Book of Mormon expressly states that polygamy is only to be allowed when God desires to “raise up seed” (see Jacob 2:27-30).  Clearly, then, to be justified, polygamy had to include sexual relations.  Compton points out that “Joseph’s marriages undoubtedly had a sexual dimension.”   Based on the teaching of the Book of Mormon, one could argue that, in order to be justifiable, polygamy also had to produce children.  Yet, if you would ask the typical Latter-day Saint if they could name any children that resulted from Smith’s plural marriages, chances are they would not be able to name a single child.  In fact, we only know of one child – Josephine, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon – though there are rumored to be a few others.

 Later, in Nauvoo, Smith began to practice plural marriage in earnest, taking on several additional wives.  Since Smith was God’s prophet and mouthpiece on the earth, it was a simple matter for him to dispense with obstacles in his way.  For example, in order to secure the graces of Lucy Walker, another 17-year-old live-in girl, Smith sent her father away on a mission, leaving her completely unguarded.  Another girl, 17-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney, was attained by sending her brother, Horace, away on a mission.  In order to keep other potential suitors from his prize, Smith arranged a fake marriage between Sarah and Joseph C. Kingsbury.  That way, she would appear to be already married and, therefore, unavailable.

 Smith later managed to acquire two sets of young sisters – Sarah and Maria Lawrence, and Emily and Eliza Partridge.  Smith made himself the legal guardian of the Lawrence sisters, since their father had left them with a sizable estate.  The Partridge sisters were daughters of the deceased Bishop Edward Partridge.  Unfortunately, there just isn’t enough time to cover their stories this evening.

 Though Church apologists attempt to justify Smith and his actions, I have found their efforts unacceptable, for the following reasons:

• Joseph entered into these relationships without his first wife’s consent, contrary to his own “revelation” on the subject of plural marriage (D&C 132).
• Joseph placed intense pressure on these young, immature girls by:
o Promising exaltation for them and their entire family.
o Demanding a quick decision on his “marriage” proposal (usually within 24 hours).
• Since Joseph intentionally kept these relationships a secret from his wife, it is impossible to imagine that he did not invent and perpetuate an extended and elaborate web of lies.
• In his attempts to add these young girls to his ever-growing list of “spiritual wives,” Joseph clearly used his position and power as a “prophet, seer, and revelator” to his advantage.

 Throughout his life, Smith and his followers publicly denied that they were engaged in the practice of polygamy. 

 During the early days of the Church, the term “celestial marriage” referred to plural marriage.  Smith linked the concept of plural marriage with the concept of salvation.  In Smith’s theology, a man’s degree of exaltation in the celestial world depended on the size of his family.  This meant that the more wives and children that a man had, the greater his glory in the eternities.  A man could not attain the highest celestial reward unless he was a polygamist.  And a woman could only reach it if she was married to such a man.

 As outlandish as it may sound in the ears of mainstream Christianity, Church leaders actually taught that both God the Father and Jesus were polygamists.  Church leaders taught that monogamists could not attain complete salvation in the highest kingdom of the celestial world.  In fact, some of them even went so far as to teach that monogamy was evil, that it failed to control man’s natural passions and urges, and that it encouraged prostitution.

Polygamy in Utah

 After Smith was murdered by a mob in 1844, Brigham Young took charge of the Church and led them to the Great Salt Lake Valley.  There, in relative isolation, polygamy was allowed to flourish.

 Despite what Latter-day Saints may say about the virtues of polygamy, and its requirements for self-sacrifice, a study of the day-to-day lives of women who lived in polygamy does not paint so rosy a picture.  The women who lived under polygamy in Utah during the second half of the 19th century lived lives of loneliness.  Compton writes that polygamous living

…for many women, was less than monogamous marriage – it was a social system that simply did not work in nineteenth-century America.  Polygamous wives often experienced what was essentially acute neglect….

Often plural wives who experienced loneliness also reported feelings of depression, despair, anxiety, helplessness, abandonment, anger, psychosomatic symptoms, and low self-esteem.

Pioneer men with just one wife had a hard enough time providing for their family.  Those with several wives often were simply unable to provide adequately for the daily needs of so many women and children.  The more women he took on, the more thinly stretched were his resources.  Church leaders, especially, were even less available to their wives, since the Church placed such demands on their time.

 At this point, I’d like to present some revealing statements from some early leaders of the Church.

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.

…

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 you 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.

Heber C. Kimball

You might as well deny “Mormonism,” and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned.

…

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself.

…

Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake. 

…

You are sent out as shepherds to gather the sheep together; and remember that they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You understand that. Amen.

…

I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow.
Joseph F. Smith

…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.

It is clear that Church leaders sometimes abused their positions of authority – particularly when it came to acquiring a desirable, young bride.  John D. Lee, a former Danite, and the only person held responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, related the following gruesome incident which, despite its length, deserves inclusion here:

In Utah it has been the custom with the Priesthood to make eunuchs of such men as were obnoxious to the leaders. This was done for a double purpose: first, it gave a perfect revenge, and next, it left the poor victim a living example to others of the dangers of disobeying counsel and not living as ordered by the Priesthood.

In Nauvoo it was the orders from Joseph Smith and his apostles to beat, wound and castrate all Gentiles that the police could take in the act of entering or leaving a Mormon household under circumstances that led to the belief that they had been there for immoral purposes…. In Utah it was the favorite revenge of old, worn-out members of the Priesthood, who wanted young women sealed to them, and found that the girl preferred some handsome young man. The old priests generally got the girls, and many a young man was unsexed for refusing to give up his sweetheart at the request of an old and failing, but still sensual apostle or member of the Priesthood. As an illustration… Warren Snow was Bishop of the Church at Manti, San Pete County, Utah. He had several wives, but there was a fair, buxom young woman in the town that Snow wanted for a wife…. She thanked him for the honor offered, but told him she was then engaged to a young man, a member of the Church, and consequently could not marry the old priest…. He told her it was the will of God that she should marry him, and she must do so; that the young man could be got rid of, sent on a mission or dealt with in some way… that, in fact, a promise made to the young man was not binding, when she was informed that it was contrary to the wishes of the authorities.

The girl continued obstinate…. the authorities called on the young man and directed him to give up the young woman. This he steadfastly refused to do…. He remained true to his intended, and said he would die before he would surrender his intended wife to the embraces of another…. The young man was ordered to go on a mission to some distant locality… But the mission was refused…

It was then determined that the rebellious young man must be forced by harsh treatment to respect the advice and orders of the Priesthood. His fate was left to Bishop Snow for his decision. He decided that the young man should be castrated; Snow saying, ‘When that is done, he will not be liable to want the girl badly, and she will listen to reason when she knows that her lover is no longer a man.’

It was then decided to call a meeting of the people who lived true to counsel, which was held in the school-house in Manti… The young man was there, and was again requested, ordered and threatened, to get him to surrender the young woman to Snow, but true to his plighted troth, he refused to consent to give up the girl. The lights were then put out. An attack was made on the young man. He was severely beaten, and then tied with his back down on a bench, when Bishop Snow took a bowie-knife, and performed the operation in a most brutal manner, and then took the portion severed from his victim and hung it up in the school-house on a nail, so that it could be seen by all who visited the house afterwards.

The party then left the young man weltering in his blood, and in a lifeless condition. During the night he succeeded in releasing himself from his confinement, and dragged himself to some hay-stacks, where he lay until the next day, when he was discovered by his friends. The young man regained his health, but has been an idiot or quite lunatic ever since….

After this outrage old Bishop Snow took occasion to get up a meeting… When all had assembled, the old man talked to the people about their duty to the Church, and their duty to obey counsel, and the dangers of refusal, and then publicly called attention to the mangled parts of the young man, that had been severed from his person, and stated that the deed had been done to teach the people that the counsel of the Priesthood must be obeyed. To make a long story short, I will say, the young woman was soon after forced into being sealed to Bishop Snow.

Brigham Young… did nothing against Snow. He left him in charge as Bishop at Manti, and ordered the matter to be hushed up.

Quinn writes:

Brigham Young says, “I feel to sustain him,” when informed that local bishop Warren S. Snow has castrated twenty-four-year-old Welchman for undisclosed sex crime.  “Just let the matter drop, and say no more about it,” Young writes Snow in July about the castration, “and it will soon die away among the people.”  Snow’s counselor confides to his diary that this young man “has now gone crazy.”

In fact, Brigham Young later blessed Snow and allowed him to preach in the Tabernacle.

At this time, Utah was only a territory, not a state.  After decades of denial, Church leaders finally publicly admitted in 1852 that they were practicing polygamy, but not without a backlash from the U. S. Government.  For the next forty years, the Church leadership fought increasing pressure from the United States to stop the practice of polygamy. 

 The first challenge to polygamy came in the form of the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which was signed into law by President Lincoln on July 1, 1862.  This law was designed to “punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and to disapprove and annul certain acts of the territorial legislature of Utah”.  However, since its enforcement was placed in the hands of local judges – and in Utah, these were all Mormons – the law really had no “teeth.”  Many years later, in 1874, President Grant signed the Poland Act into law, hoping it would provide a means for “the ultimate extinguishment of polygamy.”  This law moved jurisdiction to the hands of U. S district courts with federally appointed judges.  As a result, things began to change. 

 Just a few years later, the Edmunds Act was passed in 1882, making provision for the prosecution of persons convicted of “unlawful cohabitation.”  This new law was also intended to disfranchise those who practiced polygamy by making them ineligible to either hold public office or serve on a jury.  John Taylor, third president of the Church, declared his defiance of U. S. Law:

Polygamy is a divine institution. It has been handed down direct from God. The United States cannot abolish it. No nation on earth can prevent it, nor all the nations of the earth combined. I defy the United States. I will obey God.

By this point, most Church leaders were forced to live “underground” – moving to different places, and hiding in other people’s homes.  They did this, of course, to avoid being arrested.  President Taylor actually died while in hiding in 1887.

 Counselor George Q. Cannon made this statement:

To comply with the request of our enemies would be to give up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son….  So intimately interwoven is this precious doctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter that it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory.

The 1890 Manifesto

 The final straw came when Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887.  This bill was intended to basically destroy the Church by declaring plural marriage a felony, requiring wives to testify against their husbands, disinheriting the children of plural marriages, and threatening to dissolve the Church as a corporation and confiscate its property.  It soon became apparent to leaders of the Church that, if they did not discontinue the illegal practice of plural marriage, the Church would be destroyed.

The president of the Church at this time was Wilford Woodruff, and in 1890 he issued what has become known as the “1890 Manifesto.”  This “manifesto” officially announced to the world that the Church would no longer practice or condone polygamy, and was the beginning of the Church’s official break with “the principle.”

Mormons today regard the Manifesto as a revelation from God – a direct commandment that plural marriage was no longer to be practiced.  If you were to approach the typical Mormon about the subject of polygamy, you would simply get a reply like “That’s not an issue, because we don’t practice it anymore.” Church president Gordon B. Hinckley has stated:

More than a century ago, God clearly revealed unto His prophet, Wilford Woodruff, that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued – which means that it is now against the law of God.

 I, for one, find it strangely coincidental that God would command the Latter-day Saints to discontinue the practice of plural marriage at exactly the same time that the U. S. Government was moving decisively to destroy the Church.  After issuing the Manifesto, Woodruff made the following statements in a conference in 1891:

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this 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 it 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.

Now that I am on the outside looking in, it amazes me that Latter-day Saints don’t examine this perspective more carefully.  Woodruff says that God showed him what would happen if they did not stop the practice.  Now wait a minute.  This is God talking – “God” with a capital “G.”  He’s showing Woodruff what’s going to happen if they don’t stop?  But this is God – creator of the universe, Lord of all things, the only being in existence with unlimited power over all things.  This being is telling Woodruff, “Hey, if we don’t stop this, the U. S. Government is going to tear this Church apart.” 

 Since when was God afraid of a nation here on earth?  Since when does he retreat and back down when threatened by the arm of man?  This is, for lack of a better word, ludicrous.  If God had truly raised up His people here on the earth in the latter days, and restored the fulness of His gospel and priesthood authority, and set up his only true Church – would he repeal one of his most important laws just to keep the peace with the U. S. Government?  Keep in mind that Apostle George Q. Cannon said that “it cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope of immortal glory.”  Church President Joseph F. Smith said that polygamy “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….”  And yet, without even so much as a fight, God backs down, repeals the principle, and gives in to the demands of the federal government.

 Some God.

 Most typical Latter-day Saints would probably be surprised to learn that, when the Manifesto was issued, most Church leaders did not accept it as the revealed will of God.  Instead, they saw it pretty much as we do – a tactic to keep the federal government from destroying the Church.  Even the language of the Manifesto makes one suspicious.  It begins with the words, “To Whom It May Concern.”  Shouldn’t it say something like “Thus Saith the Lord” – as it more typical with other Mormon revelations?

 Here are some statements by Church leaders at the time.  Apostle Marriner W. Merrill: “I do not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by His counselors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency.”  Counselor Joseph F. Smith said “he did not believe it to be an emphatic revelation from god abolishing plural marriage.”  George Q. Cannon: “When the Manifesto was issued we did not pledge ourselves to abandon our plural wives, nor even to cease to perform plural marriages outside of the government; and when our people get the idea that we have bound ourselves to the whole world they manifest ignorance. A man may go to some countries and not violate their laws by taking a plural wife and living in plural marriage.”  Woodruff believed that Christ would return in 1891, and that these provisions were only temporary, saying that “the principle of plural marriage will yet be restored to this church, but how or when I cannot say.”

 In fact, after the Manifesto, Church leaders continued to perform plural marriages.  At least 250 Church-approved plural marriages were performed between 1890-1904.  With the exception of Lorenzo Snow, none of the apostles and no member of the First Presidency stopped living with their plural wives.  By the way, Snow chose to live with his youngest wife. 

 In 1904, however, Church leaders renewed their formal opposition to polygamy, and began to curtail its practice in earnest.  And this was when fundamentalist groups began to form.  Mormon fundamentalists believed that plural marriage was an essential, divine principle, and that the Manifesto was not truly a revelation from God.  They believed that the main body of the Church had fallen into apostasy, it was their mission to remain faithful to the original, founding principles of Mormonism.

Conclusion

 After taking a brief look at the history of polygamy among Latter-day Saints, we can see that fundamentalists, such as the FLDS, are actually attempting to follow the doctrines and practices of the early Church.  To them, the practice of plural marriage is essential to their eternal salvation.  Without it they cannot inherit celestial glory.  They believe that the Manifesto was a sham — a false revelation — and that God would never repeal so important a law.

 By practicing the doctrines of early Mormonism, today’s fundamentalists actually provide us with a startling glimpse of what Mormonism was like over 100 years ago.  Men, with their priesthood, hold the ultimate authority.  Women are subservient, and are treated in many ways as property.  Polygamy is a divine mandate.  Young girls – even as young as thirteen – are considered eligible for marriage, most often to much older men.  Fear rules.  Priesthood authority is absolute.

I have spoken with members of the Church today, and I’ve heard them express revulsion and disgust at the actions of Warren Jeffs, leader of the FLDS organization.  And I think to myself, how ironic.  Jeffs has only been following the example of leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young – figures that modern Mormons have practically idolized.  Jeffs is doing many of the same things that Joseph Smith did – except that he’s alive today, and this allows us to get a taste of early Mormonism first-hand.

May we all experience the blessing of seeing ourselves as others see us.