THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE Volume 4 SUMMARY Table of Contents GEMS COPYRIGHT 1975 GEMS Publishing Company "I have not revoked this Law nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so, Amen." 1886 Revelation to Pres. John Taylor PREFACE This volume represents a summation of the information presented inVolumes 1, 2 and 3. It does not remain wholly objective but assumes theposition that there is a difference between light and dark, truth anderror, and endeavors herein to present the truth of the subject matter ofthese volumes in its historical and contemporary setting. This volumeconsiders the significant matters pertaining to the subject insofar as itis possible within so small a space. It is certain that other information will arise which we will wishhad been incorporated into this work. Such a compilation is much likecompiling a genealogy. In the process, additional personages andprinciples are constantly emerging because history is forever unfoldingitself. We feel it our duty at this time to present information that is athand. Italics used throughout this volume are those of the author andrepresent specific emphasis. Unless otherwise specified, the volumes andpage numbers referred to within the body of this work are those of TheMost Holy Principle. * * * * *

* * * * TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 4 Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I SECTION ONE: "CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY" . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lorenzo Snow Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Joseph F. Smith Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SECTION TWO: JOSEPH SMITH AS WITNESS . . . . . . . . . . 15 SECTION THREE: "LET NO MAN BREAK THE LAW OF THE LAND". . 9 SECTION FOUR: FOUR REVELATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1880 to Wilford Woodruff . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1882 to John Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1886 to John Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1889 to Wilford Woodruff . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Revelation and Voting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 SECTION FIVE: THE MANIFESTO IN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . 51 Manifesto of 1890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Petition for Amnesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 "That Manifesto" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 SECTION SIX: "CAST OUT OF OUR SYNAGOGUES" . . . . . . . 77 SECTION SEVEN: CONTEMPORARY WITNESSES . . . . . . . . . 83 Joseph White Musser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 SECTION EIGHT: A CONTRADICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 SECTION NINE: FOLLOW THE LIVING PRINCIPLES . . . . . . 115 SECTION TEN: "ONE ON EARTH AT A TIME" . . . . . . . . . 135 SECTION ELEVEN: POLICY OF RETICENCE . . . . . . . . . . 163 SECTION TWELVE: A "RAM IN THE THICKET" . . . . . . . . . 169

SECTION THIRTEEN: "LABOR TO OBTAIN THE SPIRIT" . . . . . 187 B. H. ROBERTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 ADDENDUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211a APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 CHRONOLOGY AND DIGEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 [I] INTRODUCTION There is an old song that goes like this: Give me that old time religion, Give me that old time religion, Give me that old time religion, It's good enough for me. It was good for my mother, It was good for my father, It was good for my neighbors, And it's good enough for me. It will do when I'm dying, It will do when I'm dying, It will do when I'm dying, It's good enough for me! Latter-day Saints know that as affecting as these sentimental wordsmay be to many, they are not the truth. The writer and the singers ofmodern Christendom do not have "That Old Time Religion." God proclaimed every denomination as an "abomination in His sight."Moreover, their religion has no saving power when one is dying, or whenone is dead. Such a religion could not take anyone into the celestialglory. Those professing religions might get their adherents into theterrestrial glory, where "honorable men of the earth who had been deceivedby the craftiness of men" will be found. But where God and our Savior are,they cannot come, worlds without end. We Mormons have that "Old Time Religion." However, unless we conform

to its laws and ordinances, we are in no better circumstances than thesectarian world. In fact, we are in a far more precarious situation thanthey are, if we are to apply scripture: "And this is the condemnation,that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather thanlight, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)[II] Those who are inclined to fear to investigate the truth because theyhave once again become children "who walk in darkness at noonday," anddelight to justify themselves in straying from the fulness of the restoredgospel, ought, for their own sakes, to cease seeking after light and truthas revealed within the pages of these books. Surely those who can beswayed to fear searching after truth will not have courage enough to obeyits mandates. Rejection of the Book of Mormon is often followed by, "It is poison!So I did not read it." Those who reject a study of the holy principle ofcelestial plural marriage are often found making a similar statement. Itis unfortunate. With the assumption of such a position, the followingfamiliar phrase is brought to mind: "There is a mental attitude which is abar against all information, which is a bar against all argument, andwhich cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That mentalattitude is condemnation before investigation." Those who take the sameattitude will never know the "truth of all things." Latter-day Saints know that God has restored His Priesthood and the"fulness of His everlasting gospel (or covenant) to the earth in this, thedispensation of the fulness of times, never to be taken from the earthagain." This is fulfillment of the words of Christ and His prophets.Consequently, if the Latter-day Saints are to be saved in the fulness ofcelestial glory, it must be because they have received and obeyed thefulness of the restored gospel. The scriptures are explicit upon this verypoint: "For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the lawwhich was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as wereinstituted from before the foundation of the world. And as pertaining tothe new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of myglory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide thelaw, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God." (D.&C. 132:5-6) It is of no small value to notice that when the Lord says somethingonce, we pay attention. When He says something twice, we pay very strictattention. Of such importance is the "law" of celestial plural marriage,that the Lord mentioned it not once or twice, but thirty-two times insection 132. To reason very briefly, the Lord said in verse 12: "I am the Lord thyGod; and I give unto you this commandment--that no man shall come unto theFather but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord." We comeunto the Father through the [III] Lord or His law. God is explicit on thatpoint. The "law" referred to thirty-two times is defined in verse 34: "Godcommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did

she do it? Because this was the law." (Italics ours unless otherwisenoted.) Through Joseph Smith we have the same law, the same command. Our position in relation to that law and all of God's laws asrestored is this: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my lawye cannot attain to this glory. For strait is the gate, and narrow the waythat leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and fewthere be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither doye know me. But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, andshall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also. This iseternal lives--to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whomhe hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law." (D.&C. 132:21-24)That is our position and the position of all men who would "attain to thisglory." We must receive the Lord and the law of Sarah "in the world." "In the world" is extremely significant. In a discussion of theprinciple of plural marriage specifically, Andrew Jenson, Assistant ChurchHistorian and publisher of the Historical Record, quotes Joseph Smith: "Islightly touched upon the subject of the everlasting covenant, showingthat a man and his wife must enter into that covenant in the world, or hewill have no claim on her in the next world. But on account of theunbelief of people, I cannot reveal the fulness of these things atpresent." (Hist. Rec., 7:529) With these observations in mind, Volume Four is drawn together tocall attention to those points set forth in the preceding three Volumes,culminating in a single witness: Plural marriage as restored through theProphet Joseph Smith was to remain, was to be perpetuated, "never again tobe taken from the earth," despite all combined effort to "sink it out ofexistence." When all of the threads are gathered, the burden of proof ofposition tends to fall upon the shoulders of the opponents of pluralmarriage and its present-day practice. The intent of this work is to define the latter-day position ofcelestial plural marriage and its uninterrupted perpetuation within theconfines of the holy Priesthood of God upon the earth. [1] SECTION ONE "CHOOSE, YOU THIS DAY..." Satan has no light. In him is the absence of love. He despises God'speople and desires that they be as he is--miserable. His method inachieving that end is slow and careful, attractive and deceptive. He usesthose things unique to an individual or a people to destroy them. Hesucceeds as we fail. He uses slogans and causes and religions ofhigh-sounding facade to lure and, finally, to destroy. One of his favorite tricks is to anesthetize the people intobelieving, when the winds rage against us, that it would be "better to

wait." Wait until things quiet down. Wait until the Lord provides a betterway. Wait a little while. It is as true as the "temporary" income tax.George Q. Cannon had little patience for such a viewpoint: "There are men who say: `Yield this practice for the present; perhapspublic opinion may soften and then this principle may be taught andpracticed.' I look upon such a suggestion as from the devil. It would bequite as proper to propose apostasy for a short season until publicopinion would become more favorable to us. If there are any in the Churchwho cannot stand the pressure, instead of talking compromise, let themwithdraw quietly from the Church. If they can see nothing in the principleof celestial marriage worth contending for, leave those who do see andappreciate its value to fight the battle alone. The latter will then beneither weakened nor betrayed by the association of those who, in theirhearts, stand ready to yield ...." (Juv. Inst., 20:156, 1885) Many saints are still waiting to live all of the gospel laws,provided the time is right. Satan's deception has been partly successful.But only partly. That the Lord provides a way for His people is abundantly indicatedin all scripture. "I will go and do the things which the Lord hathcommanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto thechildren of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they mayaccomplish the thing which he commandeth them." (1 Ne. 3:7) Following aresimilar words from a latter-day prophet: [2] Discourse by Elder Lorenzo Snow. April 21, 1878 "... It is argued by some that when the principle of tithing came in,it superceded the principles of the United Order. The law of Moses wasgiven to be a schoolmaster, to bring the people to a knowledge of the Sonof God, and induce them to obey the principles of the fulness of theGospel. The higher law was given to the children of Israel when they werefirst delivered from Egyptian bondage, but in consequence of theirdisobedience, the Gospel in its fulness was withdrawn, and the law ofcarnal commandments was added. Now, do you imagine that there would havebeen any wrong if the people wanted to find the principles of the higherlaw and obey them as near as circumstances would admit? Do you suppose itwould have been wrong to search out the fulness of the Gospel while livingunder the Mosaic law? But, in the Book of Mormon we find this point morefully illustrated. We find that the inhabitants of this continent had aknowledge of the fulness of the everlasting Gospel and were baptized forthe remission of sins, many generations before Jesus came into the world.We find that Alma was baptized in the waters of Mormon, and some fourhundred and fifty other individuals. Alma, by his energy and perseverance,had discovered the fulness of the Gospel and obtained revelations from theLord, and the privilege of observing the Gospel in all its fulness and

blessings. Do you think the Lord was angry with them? They were under theMosaic law, and yet considered it a blessing to observe the higher law. "Now I will say in regard to the matter of tithing, I think that lawwas given to the Latter-day Saints, one object being to prepare them for,and conduct them to, the United Order, that they might not fall into thesame error as the people who were driven from the State of Missouri, butgradually be inducted into these higher principles. There is nothing moreelevating to ourselves and pleasing to God than those things that pertainto the accomplishment of a brotherhood. Wise men, for centuries, havesought to bring this about, but without success. They had not the ability,the wisdom, the intelligence, nor the authority, to bring the people up tothat standard, that they could become a united brotherhood. All theirefforts were ineffectual. But the Lord will be successful; and he willprepare the Latter-day Saints that these principles will be in theirhearts when they go back to Jackson County. Remember, while the Gospel inits fulness was [3] observed by Alma and his brethren, and by manythousands in different ages of the world, they lived under the Mosaic Law,and cannot the Latter-day Saints under the law of tithing, observe thefulness of the gospel? If we allow that we are under the principle of thelaw of tithing, is there any harm in our complying with the principles ofthe United Order?" (J.D. 19:345) It becomes clear that President Snow was not teaching a "wait"concept. Rather, his counsel was filled with the kind of invitation bornof the Prophet's great love and concern for the children of God. Satanextends his invitation. The Lord extends His. Israel must choose, for wellmight the same words given by President Snow in 1878 be re-emphasized inour present day. From a contemporary voice, President Joseph Fielding Smith said in1971: "Now what does the Lord expect of us when he says, `searchdiligently'? ... I think He wants us to come to a knowledge of Him and Hislaws, to search the scriptures, to learn the doctrines of salvation. Hewants us to gain wisdom out of the best books, to seek learning even bystudy and also by faith, to come to a knowledge of countries and kingdoms. "He wants us to learn the mysteries of His kingdom, to have thespirit of revelation, until eventually we know all things. ... It is notour province to select and obey those gospel principles which appeal to usand to forget the rest. It is not our prerogative to decide that someprinciples no longer apply to our social and cultural circumstances. "The Lord's laws are eternal, and we have the fulness of Hiseverlasting gospel and are obligated to believe all of its laws and truthsand then to walk in conformity to them. "There is nothing more important to any individual than keeping theLord's commandments. He expects us to cleave unto every true principle, toput first in our lives the things of His kingdom, to press forward with asteadfastness in Christ, and to serve Him with all our might, mind and

strength." (Des. News, June 28, 1971) The knowledge of God and His ways is possible for us, not because wediscover Him for ourselves, but because He makes Himself known to us. Hereveals and invites. When President Smith stated in modern times that "wehave the fulness of His everlasting gospel," and President Snow counselledus to search out the fulness and live it, we have companion statementsthat must excite Israel to choice. Why not put it to the test? We stand[4] to gain everything and lose nothing. To embrace the pessimistic viewthat the "fulness" is not exactly full, is to accept the certainty thatour chance for eternal exaltation is not exactly brilliant. One isreminded of John's words: "If any man will do his will, he shall know ofthe doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John7:17) There never was a time for the Latter-day Saints when John ought tobe taken more seriously. For, as President Smith stated, "It is not ourprerogative to decide that some principles no longer apply to our socialand cultural circumstances." The admonition echoes throughout eternity and is the same:"Therefore, ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened untoyou; for he that asketh, receiveth; and unto him that knocketh, it shallbe opened." (3 Ne. 27:29) In order to re-establish firmly in our minds that principle which weseek to sustain upon the earth under the direction of the Lord, thatprinciple which "savors of life unto life," we reproduce here a talk byPresident Joseph F. Smith in its entirety: Discourse by Elder Joseph F. Smith July 7, 1878 "I naturally shrink from the task of addressing a congregation inthis house, feeling as I do my inability to make myself heard. "I have been interested this morning in listening to the remarks ofBrother Cannon. We cannot but be delighted with the testimony that hasbeen given in our hearing, and that we are continually receiving from manysources, which go to prove that the world can do nothing against, but forus. Even their attempts to slander and misrepresent us, and theirunrighteous attacks on the principles of our religion have ever tended toexcite inquiry and investigation into the facts, which cannot but resultbeneficially to us as a people. I say, the efforts of our enemies againstus have ever had a tendency to cause people who desire to arrive at thetruth, to inquire into the real condition of things. The more peopleinterest themselves in this direction, the more truth they will learn, andwe court such investigation, for there is certainly nothing connected withus, as a religious community, in consonance with the gospel we preach,that we should be ashamed of, or that should not be known by all men. Itmakes no difference with the truth how much we are wrongfully accused; norwill it [5] permanently injure us. If we sustain injury or suffer loss by

the misrepresentations and evils maliciously promulgated about us by ourenemies, it can only be such injury and loss as will be temporary, forwhen the facts do come out, and people learn the truth, so much the moregood will be accomplished in our favor, and so much greater injury tothose who are the authors of the falsehoods concerning us. We want nothinghidden or covered up, neither can we respect any principle or individualthat will not bear the daylight and the most careful investigation. "Since 1830 the Elders of this church have been faithfullyendeavoring to promulgate the gospel which we have received to everynation and people, without distinction as to race or color that wouldreceive them; in other words they have diligently sought to "expose`Mormonism'" to the world. "We are not ashamed of our domestic relations, so far, at least asthey exist in accordance with the principle of the Gospel, nor does anyright-minded man or woman feel in his or her heart to shrink in any mannerfrom the most rigid exposition of correct views in relation thereto. It istrue that in common with mankind generally, we do not like our faults madepublic, we shrink from that, and it is natural that we should. It is veryproper that we should feel a reluctance to have our weaknesses andimperfections exposed to the world, or even to our neighbors. This feelingis a very proper incentive to us to continue in the work ofself-improvement, until we shall overcome the weaknesses we haveinherited, living nearer to the principles of life and salvation which wehave received. But the errors of man affect not in the least theprinciples of the Gospel of the Son of God. You show me a man who hasembraced the Gospel in its entirety, in faith and practice, and I can thenpoint to a man who has overcome the follies and weaknesses of the flesh;or show me a man who is trying to live according to these principles, andI will show you a man who is trying to overcome his weaknesses. "Hence there can be no blame attached to the doctrines of our faith,because of the infirmities and shortcomings of mankind; but we shouldrather attribute such weaknesses to their proper source--the defectivenessof man, or to his failure, at least, to comply with those principles whichare calculated to correct every evil, and to establish man inrighteousness. It is perhaps a difficult thing for us, under thecircumstances in which we are placed, the traditions of the fathersclinging to us, the practices of the world before us, and the temptationsto evil so [6] continually surrounding us, at all times to live thereligion of Jesus Christ as perfectly as we should or otherwise might. Itis no doubt difficult for us to overcome our follies, to forsake thetraditions of the fathers, to eschew the practice of sin, to be patient insuffering, to endure privations and trials of our feelings, while wepossess so little, as we do, of the Spirit of the Lord, and the knowledgeof the truth. "But we need not be discouraged because of this, nor because we seefaults in each other, for no man is perfect; all men have, more or less,

the shortcomings incident to humanity. We need not falter or bediscouraged because of this, for perhaps it would not be possible for onewho was perfect in all good to remain in the midst of this corrupt andperverse generation. Still it would seem good if we had a few among us whowere really perfect, whose example we could see, whose precept we couldlearn, and whose footsteps we might follow. We might then be the betterable to perfect ourselves. Still we do well to emulate the good that arein our midst, and to observe those great truths we have already receivedin part, which in their fulness are able to save us unto the uttermost. Weshall not be cast off, my brethren and sisters, for those sins which weignorantly commit, which are the results of misunderstanding in allhonesty before the Lord. "The difficulty does not lie here; the danger lies in our failing tolive up to that which we do know to be right and proper. For this we willbe held responsible before the Lord; for this we will be judged andcondemned unless we repent and forsake our follies, and our unwillingnessto obey the light and the knowledge which we have received. There are someplain, simple truths which we do know, but which we do not observe. Hereinlies our great sin. The condemnation of the world, when the Saviorcommenced his mission among men, was that light had come into the world,but they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.This principle applies with equal force to us in this dispensation. If wehad remained without the Gospel, we would not be under condemnation. Butnow that light has come into the world; now that truth and the authorityof God have been restored, we cannot longer remain without sin, unless weobey this Gospel so revealed, and practice our profession. "There is a great deal said about our plural marriage by the outsideworld, and sometimes it is referred to by the Latter-day Saints at home. Ifancy sometimes that not only is the world [7] without knowledge inrelation to this principle, but many of those who profess to be Latter-daySaints are far from possessing a correct understanding of it. "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 embracedthe Gospel to obtain a knowledge in relation to this matter. It is aprinciple that pertains to eternal life, in other words, to endless lives,or eternal increase. It is a law of the Gospel pertaining to the celestialkingdom, applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and nototherwise, and neither acceptable to God or binding on man unless given bycommandment, not only so given in this dispensation, but particularlyadapted to the conditions and necessities thereof, and to thecircumstances, responsibilities, and personal as well as vicarious dutiesof the people of God in this age of the world. God has revealed it as aprinciple particularly suited to the nature of the work we are called toperform, that it might be hastened to its consummation. "It is a righteous principle not an unrighteous one. It is a pure andholy principle; and, therefore, persons either male or female who have not

the desire in their hearts to become pure and righteous, have no businessto practice it, for it cannot be practiced acceptably before God on anyother principle than that of purity and righteousness, therefore no wickedunjust or impure person can enter into the law of celestial or pluralmarriage without incurring the displeasure of the Almighty and his owncondemnation before the Lord, unless he speedily repent of all his impuremotives and designs. A man that is not honest in his heart, who does notdesire to be just and impartial, even as God is just and impartial, has nobusiness in plural marriage; and before he enters into the practice ofthat principle he needs to repent, to learn wisdom, to get the Spirit ofGod, to get understanding in relation to the purpose God has in view inregard to this principle; that he may go into the practice of itunderstandingly, that his heart and mind may be set upon practicing it inrighteousness. It is a difficult matter, I am aware, to distinguishbetween the actions of a man and the principles in which he professes tobelieve. A corrupt ungodly hypocrite can do more injury in the midst of apeople, in a given length of time, correspondingly, than a host of uprightmen can do good. Send an Elder to preach the Gospel among the nations, andlet him degrade himself, dishonor his priesthood and calling, and he will[8] bring more reproach upon the cause misrepresented by him, than twentygood men could remove. Because people generally look at the man. To judgehim by his acts would be righteous judgment; but to condemn the Gospel orthe Saints because of his acts would be unjust; yet the cause hemisrepresents suffers wrong because of his connection with it. A man'sacts may justly be considered as resulting from his principles. We judge atree by its fruits. The fruits of the Gospel are good; he that hasactually embraced the Gospel will do good, only so far as he may err, ordepart therefrom. Hence, it is difficult to separate a man's actions fromhis principles. "There is no difficulty, however, in this matter to those who alwaysbear in mind, that evil and corrupt practices are not the results ofobedience to the Gospel, but of disobedience, and of the perversion of thetruth. If we would keep this in our minds we would not cast blame upon theprinciples themselves when we see or hear of men who should representthem, do wrong; but we would rather say, the man has departed from hisprinciples and gone into error. It is he that is defective, through notpractising what he professes; the principles are good and holy, and hehimself would become so too, if he would but practice them. "It is precisely so in relation to our domestic relations. We seetrouble in families occasionally, not any more so in plural than in singlefamilies. There is no reason why there should be any difference betweenthe husband and wife, or husband and wives, in the midst of this people,if all are disposed to obey the principles and doctrines of the Gospel. Itis only by the practise of these principles that we can avoid thedisturbances that occur in families, or among mankind. We must learn andobey correct principle, or we will ever be in turmoil and confusion, and

in antagonism one towards another. Where differences exist in families,they are traceable directly to some cause. I want to impress upon theminds of my hearers that the cause of such evils is not traceable to thepractice of any principle which God has revealed touching these matters,but to the non-observance of them; and this is true in relation to everyprinciple of the Gospel. Sometimes it is the fault of the man, sometimesof the woman, and oftener of both, but never the fault of the principle.The principle is correct, great, ennobling and calculated to bring joy,satisfaction and peace, if we would but observe and practice it as weshould. "But in order to do this we should get wisdom and under-[9]standing.These, by many, are acquired only through long experience. We begin aschildren, we have to learn precept by precept, line after line, here alittle and there a little, which is good, provided we profit by that whichwe learn. Men must be just, so also must women, in relation to thesematters. All must be just one towards another; also forbearing andpatient, cultivating largely that Christian attribute called Charity, inorder to get along peaceably with our neighbors, our brethren and sisters,as well as with our wives, husbands and children. We are all imperfect, wehave to learn by littles as we pass along, profiting ofttimes by thatwhich we suffer, yet often repeating the same errors. When we findourselves overcome in a fault, that should be set down as an example forfuture time, if possible, never allowing ourselves to be caught in thesame predicament again. Thus profiting by the experience we gain. "Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was asort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation ofmankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that aman with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood fortime and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if heis faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to entermy solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is noblessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtainedby mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, uponwhich the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for timeand eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is afulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so faras it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, hewill receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he couldnot 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 fulness of theblessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only aportion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. Whenthat principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturallyshrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed uponhim; forseeing, as he did in part, the apparently insurmountable

difficulties in the way of establishing it, in the face of popularopinion, the traditions and customs of many generations, the frowns,ridicule, slander, [10] opposition and persecution of the world. Yes, thisman of God, who dared to meet the opposition of the whole world with boldand fearless front, who dared to dispute the religious authority andaccumulated learning and wisdom of the age--who dared everything for thetruth, and shrank not even from the sacrifice of his own life in testimonyof his divine mission, shrank in his feelings from the weight of theresponsibility of inaugurating and establishing this new innovation uponthe established customs of the world. But he did not falter, although itwas not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him andcommanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or heshould be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to revealand establish that doctrine. "To put this matter more correctly before you, I here declare thatthe principle of plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day ofJuly, 1843. It was written for the first time on that date, but it hadbeen revealed to the Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as1832. About this time or subsequently, Joseph the Prophet intrusted thisfact to Oliver Cowdery; he abused the confidence imposed in him, andbrought reproach upon himself, and thereby upon the church by "runningbefore he was sent," and "taking liberties without license," so to speak,hence the publication by O. Cowdery about this time of an article onmarriage, which was carefully worded and afterwards found its way into theDoctrine and Covenants without authority. This article explains itself tothose who understand the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of theearly existence of the knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriageby the Prophet Joseph, and also by Oliver Cowdery. "When the revelation was written, in 1843, it was for a specialpurpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not thendesigned to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probablethat had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrineof the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form.There are personalities contained in a part of it which are not relevantto the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances whichnecessitated its being written at that time. "Joseph Smith, on the day it was written, expressly declared thatthere was a great deal more connected with the doctrine which would berevealed in due time, but this was sufficient for the occasion, and wasmade to suffice for the time. And indeed I [11] think it much more thanmany are prepared to live up to even now. "When the time came to introduce this doctrine to those who wereworthy in the church, God commanded the Prophet and he obeyed. He taughtit 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 thekeys 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 morewilling 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, andreceived the witness of the Holy Spirit that it was of God; but noneexcelled or even matched the courage of the Prophet himself. "If, then, this principle was of such great importance that theProphet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in theChurch with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did notenter into and establish the practice of it upon the earth, it is uselessto tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, orthat a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory orkingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful. "Patriarchalmarriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations which donot exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the faithfulobservance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles, which mustso far exceed those of monogamy as the conditions, responsibilities andpower of increase are greater. This is my view and testimony in relationto this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that should be taught andunderstood. "The benefits derived from the righteous observance of this order ofmarriage do not accrue solely to the husband, but are shared equally bythe wives; not only is this true upon the grounds of obedience to a divinelaw, but upon physiological and scientific principles. In the latter view,the wives are even more benefitted, if possible, than the husbandphysically. But, indeed, the benefits naturally accruing to both sexes,and particularly to their offspring, in time, say nothing of eternity, areimmensely greater in the righteous practice of patriarchal marriage thanin monogamy, even admitting the eternity of the monogamic marriagecovenant. "Man may receive great reward, exaltation and glory by [12] enteringinto the bond of the new and everlasting covenant if he continue faithfulaccording to his knowledge, but he cannot receive the fulness of theblessings unless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the giftof the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands bythe proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism, though hemay repent in sack-cloth and ashes. "`But,' says one, `how will it be with good men who believe thedoctrine, but are prevented, or cannot enter into the practice of it?' Ireply that every man and woman will receive all that they are worthy of,and something thrown in perhaps, on the score of the boundless charity ofGod. But who can justly expect to obtain more than they merit? All thejudgments of God are not given unto man. What we do not learn relative tothe salvation of our souls which are our bodies and spirits, in thisprobation we will have to learn in the eternity which lies before us, forwe cannot be saved without knowledge. `But what if we never getknowledge?' Then we never will be saved.

"Suppose we live and die without knowledge? Then, if we ever obtainsalvation, we will have to get it in the next world, as the Antediluviansdid, who rejected the Gospel as preached unto them by Noah and weredestroyed by the flood, sent to the prison-house to be punished for theirdisobedience and other wickedness, and in the meridian of time receivedknowledge by the proclamation of the Gospel, as preached unto them by theSavior while his body slept in the tomb, without which they would foreverhave remained ignorant of God, his government and laws, in a lostcondition. All men must obtain salvation upon their own merits, for by ourworks shall we be judged, and by them justified or condemned. "It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple ofGod to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time andall eternity by the Authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the powerof God, for they who are thus joined together no man can put asunder," forGod hath joined them. It is an additional privilege for that same man andwife to re-enter the Temple of God to receive another wife in like mannerif 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 theeternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but thebenefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithfuland fuller observance of the law, he never will [13] receive, for hecannot. As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by theobservance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does,nor can he secure to himself the fulness of any blessing without hefulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive thebenefit of the law he obeys. This is just and righteous. If this is notcorrect doctrine then I am in error, and if I am in error I want to becorrected. "I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man inthis Church who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousnessand will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this andnothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. "But what will become of him that cannot abide it? Says the Lord,`Whoso having knowledge have I not commanded to repent, and he that hathnot understanding it remaineth with me to do according as it is written.'In other words, he that is without understanding is not under the law, andit remains for God to deal with him according to his own wisdom. If a manacknowledges that he is incapable, or disqualified by a lack of knowledge,wisdom or understanding to obey this law, then it remains with God to dealwith him according to those principles of justice which are written, orare yet to be revealed. It is not likely, however, that he will take hisseat with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or share in their promised blessings. "This law is in force upon the inhabitants of Zion, and he that isqualified to obey it cannot neglect or disregard it with impunity. But itmust be observed in righteousness. The commandment is `be ye righteous asyour Father in heaven is righteous; be holy as he is holy.'

"Why did the Son of God make this requirement of his disciples,seeing that it is so universally believed by the world, that man cannot berighteous at all? Did Jesus require anything inconsistent or impossible?No, he did nothing of that kind. All that he commanded us to do, we canaccomplish by the help of the Holy Spirit; but we cannot do it ourselves.Therefore if we will seek for the Holy Spirit, the gift of wisdom andunderstanding from God, we may practice these principles of righteousness,and they will make us righteous even as `God is righteous, in the spherein which we are called to act. We will fulfill the law, and receive theblessing, exaltation and reward which will follow; if we do not, we willfail of the reward. "This is very simple reasoning, I admit. Critics would say, [14]these are axioms that need not to be told. If we do wickedly, we will bepunished; if we do righteously, we than receive blessings at the hands ofGod. "May God bless you, and keep us all in the path of righteousness, andenable us to live the religion we have received from Him, is my prayer, inthe name of Jesus. Amen." (1:203-214) As stated above, President Smith said that "This law is in force uponthe inhabitants of Zion." It is in force and binding upon the Priesthoodnot only because it was restored and the commandment given to obey, butbecause the blood of an especial witness was shed as a seal and testimonybefore all men that the fulness of all principles and ordinances necessaryfor the glory and exaltation of man was restored in the last dispensationof the world. We will deal with that matter in the next Section. [15] SECTION TWO JOSEPH SMITH AS WITNESS Joseph Smith the Prophet was many things to many people. Because nosingle facet of his personality and character remained undeveloped, someamong his followers were captured by his energy and creativity, others byhis political thought, others by his linguistic achievements, and stillothers by his profound spiritual vision or by his devotion as husband andfather. He was a whole man. There was no pretence in Joseph Smith. Hecould look any man in the eye, and this gave him power and humility, forJoseph gave all credit to the Lord in all his ways. Joseph was first andforemost a servant of God. We take space to note the Prophet's position here, since it directlyrelates to the position occupied by those who have been commissioned tokeep plural marriage alive since its restoration as part of the wholegospel. Joseph is numbered among the several men who have been called by ourFather in Heaven to head a dispensation and seal his testimony with his

blood. In his case, as we know, his office was to head the "lastdispensation," in which "all things are gathered together in one." This isthe dispensation in which all of the gospel was restored for the last timeprior to the Lord's second advent. Joseph Smith was given the keys of the last dispensation and of theChurch and Kingdom of God. The keys of power and authority were committedto him by heavenly messengers. He will hold those keys eternally, and allothers subsequently holding keys upon the earth do so under hisjurisdiction. All in this dispensation are subject to the Prophet Joseph.We will one day more fully understand his position and calling and willrejoice because of Joseph Smith. Though his mission upon the earth wassignificantly great, it was but preparatory to his greater expandedmission in eternity. It is crucial to our understanding at this point to recognize thatJoseph Smith is the ordained witness to and for our dispensation. He is aspecial witness of the Father and the Son. He is also called to be aspecial witness to the fulness of the gospel having been restored upon theearth and made available [16] to man to prepare and qualify him forexaltation in the eternal world. This must not be lightly esteemed norminimally appreciated. The word of the Lord has been given to us throughJoseph the Prophet, and "whosoever receiveth my word, receiveth me," saiththe Lord. Therefore, any intent to restructure any principle or todissolve any ordinance restored by the Lord through His servant Joseph, isto imply rejection of God. Therefore, is any principle or ordinance of the gospel expendable? Itis recorded in the Millennial Star (5:27): "Mormonism is that kind ofreligion the entire divinity of which is invalidated and its truth utterlyrejected, the moment that any one of its leading principles isacknowledged to be false .... Polygamy was revealed by God, or the entirefabric of their faith is false. To ask them to give up such an item ofbelief, is to ask them to relinquish the whole, to acknowledge theirPriesthood a lie, their ordinances a deception, and all that they havetoiled for, lived for, bled for, prayed for, or hoped for, a miserablefailure and a waste of life." This is not a day to relinquish a singleprinciple. The Lord said, "And there are none that doeth good except thosewho are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forthunto this generation." (D.&C. 35:12) This generation, then, cannot takeits responsibility lightly. For Joseph the Prophet to witness that thefull gospel has been restored is also for Joseph to witness of the Christ.And that is where he stands. Through the Prophet Joseph Smith the Lord said, "For I deign toreveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before thefoundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of thefulness of times." (D.&C. 124:41) Since celestial plural marriage was oneof those revelations, since baptism was one of those revelationsaccompanied by bestowal of authority, since conferring Priesthood was one

of those revelations, which is the safest to give up without incurring thedispleasure of Almighty God? For which restored ordinance does JosephSmith not stand as witness? The Lord has placed Joseph Smith in that position. "I, the Lord, amGod, and have given these things unto you, my servant Joseph, Jun., andhave commanded you that you should stand as a witness of these things ....Behold, verily I say unto you, I have reserved those things which I haveentrusted unto you, my servant Joseph, for a wise purpose in me, and itshall be made known unto future generations; But this generation shallhave [17] my word through you." (D.&C. 5:2,9-10) This generation has the word of the Lord through Joseph. It is at theperil of our eternal lives to reject any part or portion of the fulness ofthe gospel entrusted to us. All of the law is here to accept. Further,"For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who areappointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power ofthis priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in thewhich is the dispensation of the fulness of times." (D.&C. 112:30) The full gospel was restored. The full gospel remains. We mustreceive all ordinances in order to fulfill the admonition of Joseph Smith,"Oh! I beseech you to go forward, go forward and make your calling andyour election sure ...." (D.H.C. 6:365) It is a hollow admonition if anypart of the process for so doing has been removed or voted away. Those whoinsist plural marriage was "suspended" had better be very certain thatthey arecorrect. Our relationship to the Prophet Joseph is singular. It is awesome."If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him; if we enter intoour glory it will be through the authority that he has received. We cannotget around him . . . ." (GQC, J.D. 23:361) Brigham Young said, "No man or woman in this dispensation will everenter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of JosephSmith." JD. 7:289) How can we approach Joseph the Prophet and admit tohaving given up one of the holiest of laws for which he stands as witnessand for which he shed his blood: But men by their votes sought to bury aholy principle, and men by their speeches proclaim a holy principlefulfilled or unnecessary or suspended. That is not the gospel Joseph Smithpreached. Joseph as witness said, "Oh! I beseech you to go forward, go forwardand make your calling and your election sure; and if any man preach anyother gospel than that which I have preached, he shall be cursed." (D.H.C.6:365) The one thing that the Latter-day Saints must get into their mindsand hearts is that no one can preach any other gospel than Joseph Smithpreached, not in any form. They must get the understanding before they diethat it is imperative to be in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christand Joseph Smith, or they have lost their exaltation as surely as Godlives. If Joseph Smith, the best blood of this dispensation, could not be

exalted without living celestial plural marriage in [18] this life, whatin the world makes us think we can? [19] SECTION THREE "LET NO MAN BREAK THE LAWS OF THE LAND" It is not our intent to deal with every objection proposed againstplural marriage and its practice. However, one or two seem constantly tocapture the imagination of the negative group. Common to their view is theplatform framed around the concept of obedience to the law of the land. This is a view with which we entirely agree--unless man's lawconflicts with God's law, when God's law remains in force. The settling ofthe "law of the land" problem as it relates to living plural marriageseems so self-apparent as to hardly merit space. Students of history willfeel justifiably prone to skip this Section. We will be as brief aspossible. One of the two commonly cited scriptures from the negative forces is:"Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws ofGod hath no need to break the laws of the land." (D.&C. 58:21) Verse 21 has more significance if those who quote it will read verse19 along with it: "For verily I say unto you, my law shall be kept on thisland." The Saints were in Jackson County, Missouri, when the revelation wasgiven. It was not the law of God upon the land that sanctioned theplunderings and drivings of the Saints. Nor is it the law of God topresently destroy our Constitutional rights as they undeniably have been.Where is the line drawn as to which laws we submit to, and who is to drawthem? If it becomes the law of the land to require abortions for anyonealready having two children and a boat and a canary, what shall the Saintsdo? Following always the laws of God seems the safer course. What we aresaying here is that the law of the land is not necessarily God's law. Theygravely conflict occasionally, and the Saints must choose to keep God'slaws and trust in Him to fight their battles. It is conceded that we arejustified in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. But we mustfirst of all render unto God that which is His. Perhaps the clearest answer to D.&C. 58:21, is to turn to D.&C.98:4-7. This was given in Kirtland, Ohio, two years later. "And now,verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, [20] it is my willthat my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.And the law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principleof freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind,and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, andyour brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is theconstitutional law of the land. And as pertaining to law of man,

whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." Let us now refer to Joseph Smith the Prophet. Joseph and all of hisfellows broke the law of the land wherever they went in their living ofplural marriage. He was born in Vermont in 1805. The statute againstpolygamy was on the books in 1797. He was in New York from 1815-1830 withan anti statute on the books since 1788. He was in Ohio in 1831, with anegative statute dated 1824. He was in Missouri in 1831, with a statuteagainst polygamy dated 1825. He was in Illinois in 1839, whose law againstpolygamy was dated 1833. The principle since its restoration has always been against the lawof the land. But the Saints were disposed to obey God's law. They did notestablish a precedent. The three Hebrews refused King Nebuchadnezzar's lawof the land and wound up in the fiery furnace. Daniel refused to cease hisprayers according to the decree of King Darius, and wound up with thelions. Abraham refused to worship as he was admonished apostate peers. Laws against plural marriage were no less a thorn to the early Saintsthan they are now. President Wilford Woodruff said in 1879: "God ...commanded Joseph Smith the Prophet and all Latter-day Saints to obey thislaw, `or you shall be damned,' saith the Lord. Now, having obeyed the lawfor many years, the Congress of the United States and the supreme judgesof the nation, stand forth and say, `You shall be damned if you DO obeyit.' Now, Latter-day Saints, what are we going to do under thecircumstances? ... Our enemies have pursued the same course. And made it alaw of offense to obey the laws of God. Now who shall we obey, God or man?My voice is that we obey God. ...." (Mill. Star 41:241-246; 1:225-226) It is well known that many of the Saints have gone to prison overthis principle, many were in hiding, many defied the law of the land andrule of the Church after the Manifesto. President John Taylor said in1880: "When they enact tyrannical laws, forbidding us the free exercise ofour religion, we cannot submit, [21] God is greater than the United States... I defy the United States. I will obey God." (S.L. Trib. Jan. 6,1880) Finally, Apostle Rudger Clawson before going to the penitentiarydeclared: "Your honor, since the jury that recently sat on my case haveseen proper to find a verdict of guilty, I have only this to say whyjudgment should not be passed upon me: I very much regret that the laws ofmy country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever theydo, I shall invariably choose to obey the latter. If I did not so expressmyself I should feel unworthy of the cause I represent. The Constitutionof the U.S. expressly provides that Congress shall make no law respectingan establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Itcannot be denied, I think, that marriage, when attended and sanctioned byreligious rites and ceremonies, is an establishment of religion. Theanti-polygamy law of 1862 and the Edmunds law of 1882 were expresslydesigned to operate against marriage as believed in and practiced by theLatter-day Saints. They are therefore unconstitutional and, of course,cannot command the respect that constitutional laws would. That is all I

have to say, your honor." (1:345-346) We see that these brethren, and many others, were never found sayingthey could not live plural marriage because it was against the law. Josephthe Prophet led the way. Have we a prerogative where they had not? Samuel W. Taylor, son of Apostle John W. Taylor and author of thebook, Family Kingdom, published in 1951, summarizes the posture assumed byPresident John Taylor with regard to the anti-polygamy laws: "John Taylor,President of the Church, counseled defiance to this man-made law [Edmunds]that conflicted with the law of God. It was unconstitutional on twocounts, one in being retroactive, two in being directly counter to ArticleI of the Bill of Rights, which said, `Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercisethereof.' But nobody outside of Utah cared much about the legal aspects.What politician could defend polygamy on any grounds?" (Page 16) When holylaws were at issue, the prophets and those initiated in the ways of theLord, chose to obey God regardless of penalties imposed by man. The second commonly cited scripture used against practicing pluralmarriage we insert here parenthetically, since it is not a law of the landissue. In the 1890 Conference when the Manifesto was presented to theChurch, President George Q. Cannon pre-[22]sented an explanation. He said,"It is on this basis that President Woodruff has felt himself justified inissuing this manifesto." He read from D.&C. 124:49: "... When I give acommandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and thosesons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform thatwork, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them andhinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to requirethat work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept oftheir offerings." (2:481) This explanation satisfied some of the people. Without laboring theissue, let us dismiss it with the comment of Apostle Charles W. Penrose,who put the intent of the scripture into true perspective. He said, "Butwe are not yet through with treating upon the quotations sometimesreferred to by the weak-backed who need a ramrod fastened parallel withtheir spinal column, and occasionally manifest a desire to see thestiffening taken out of others. A favorite passage used by such ...." Andhe quotes D.&C. 124:49). The Penrose explanation follows: "It is a little singular that somepeople will persistently refuse to see the difference between a certainspecial work and a principle or law. The consistency of the Lord relievinga people from any such obligation as the building of a house whenprevented by enemies from accomplishing it is self-evident. When it comesto the abrogation of a law, a principle, a truth, the matter is entirelydifferent. The revelation does not apply even remotely to the presentsituation." (1:386) The subject of his editorial was that plural marriagewould not be suspended. Joseph Smith's teaching in his Lectures on Faith comes to mind here.

It applies to living the law of plural marriage even under the most tryingcircumstances: "That religion that does not require the sacrifice of allthings never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto lifeand salvation." (Sec. 6th) The following Section contains four important revelations. Thehistory of the acceptance of these revelations by the church leadersfollows each revelation. Notice that the Lord apparently has no concernfor the law of the land. May we point out that the 1882 revelation callingHeber J. Grant, Seymour B. Young and George Teasdale to offices in theChurch, came from the Lord 20 years after the anti-polygamy law was passedby Congress (1862). It came three years after the law was declaredconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court (1879). It came seven [23]months after the Edmunds Law (1882) was enacted, which was to givestrength to the 1862 Law. (This is reminiscent of the Nicene andAthanasian Creeds--one to explain and support the other.) Notice also thatthe 1886 revelation came from the Lord 18 months after the Edmunds Law.The 1889 revelation instructs the brethren to make no concessions to thegovernment and not to deny His law. The 1886 revelation says the law ofplural marriage never will be revoked. To those who are quick to agreethat the "law" will never be revoked but the practice was, we direct theirattention to the fact that President John Taylor did not seek answer fromthe Lord concerning the principle as a law, but specifically as to itspresent practice. The Deseret News encouraged the Saints in strong terms: "Any man whosays that he really and firmly believes a certain law of God binding onhim, and who will not obey it in preference to a conflicting law of man ora decision of a court, has either an unsound mind or a cowardly soul, oris a most contemptible hypocrite." (Des. News, July 7,1886) George Q. Cannon's comments in 1899 were a little more forthrightthan were his necessary comments in 1890: "I admit that those raisingchildren by plural wives are not complying with man-made laws, but in thesight of God they are not sinning, as there is no sin in it." (3:300-301;Sanpete St. Conf., Sept. 1899; Smoot Inv., 1:9) Even after the example of early scriptural history as well as that ofour prophets since the restoration of the gospel, there are those whourgently protest the practice of plural marriage because of the law of theland issue. We wonder if they will be caught off-balance by the trend ofmodern society. The law with respect to polygamy in a few of our stateshas become quite liberal, allowing for its practice. The issue may wellbecome one of state's rights. However, legalizing the practice of pluralmarriage under any but theocratic or Priesthood direction, would tendtoward misapplication of God's holy law, which was designed to besafeguarded under the guidance of the servants of God. Anyone can livepolygamy. But not everyone can live celestial plural marriage. It is adistinction with a great deal of difference. The principle of celestialplural marriage is a holy order governed by holy law and given to the

Saints as a commandment. It was not given to the world. The choice between obeying a law of man or a law of God is stillavailable to every Latter-day Saint. That choice has not been [24] madefor us. With either decision, there is a price to pay. But Joseph Smiththe Prophet makes the issue clear, leaving very little room for evasion orconjecture: "That religion that does not require the sacrifice of allthings never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto lifeand salvation." (Lec. 6th) [25] SECTION FOUR FOUR REVELATIONS 1880 Revelation to Wilford Woodruff "Thus saith the Lord unto my servant, Wilford Woodruff, I have heardthy prayer and will answer thy petition. I will make known unto thee mywill concerning the nations who encumber the land of promise and alsoconcerning Zion and her inhabitants. "I have already revealed my will concerning this nation through themouth of my servant Joseph, who sealed his testimony with his own blood,which testimony has been in force upon all the world from the hour of hisdeath. "What I the Lord have revealed in that testament and decreed uponthis nation and upon all the nations of the earth, shall be fulfilled,saith the Lord of hosts. I the Lord have spoken and will be obeyed. Mypurposes shall be fulfilled upon this nation and no power shall stay myhand. The hour is at the door when my wrath and indignation will be pouredout upon the wicked of the nations. "Their murders, blasphemies, lying, whoredoms and abominations havecome up before my face and before the heavens, and the wrath of myindignation is full. "I have decreed plagues to go forth and waste my enemies, and notmany years hence they shall not be left to pollute my heritage. "The devil is ruling over his kingdom and my spirit has no place inthe hearts of the rulers of this nation, and the devil stirs them up todefy my power and to make war upon my Saints. Therefore let mine Apostlesand mine Elders who are faithful obey my commandments which are alreadywritten for their profit and guidance. "Thus saith the Lord unto my servant, John Taylor, and my servantWilford Woodruff, and my servant Orson Pratt, and to all the residue ofmine Apostles; Have you not gone forth in my name without purse or scripand declared the gospel of life and salvation unto this nation and thenations of the earth and warned them of the judgments which are to come as

you have [26] been moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost and theinspiration of the Lord. "You have done this year by year for a whole generation, as men counttime. Therefore your garments are clean of the blood of this generationand especially of this nation. "Therefore, as I have said in a former commandment, so the Lord sayagain unto my Apostles: Go ye alone by yourselves, whether in heat or incold and cleanse your feet in water, pure water, it matters not whether itbe by the running streams, or in your closets; but leave these testimoniesbefore the Lord and the heavenly hosts; and when you have all done this,then gather yourselves together in your holy places and clothe yourselveswith the robes of the Holy Priesthood and there offer up your prayersaccording to my holy law. "Let him who presides be mouth and kneel at the holy altar, and therelet mine Apostles bring all these testimonies before my face and beforethe heavenly hosts and before the justified spirits made perfect. And thussaith the Lord unto you, mine apostles, when you bring these testimoniesbefore me, let them be presented by name as far as the Spirit shallpresent them unto you: The presidents of the United States, the SupremeCourt, the Cabinet, the Senate and the Houses of Congress of the UnitedStates, the governors of the states and territories, the judges and otherssent unto you, and all men and persons who have taken any part inpersecuting you or bringing distress upon you or your families, or whohave sought your lives, or sought to hinder you from keeping mycommandments or from enjoying the rights which the constitutional laws ofthe land guarantee unto you. "And what I the Lord say unto you, mine Apostles, I also say unto myservants--the Seventies, the High Priests, the Elders, the Priests and allmy servants who are pure in heart and who have borne testimony unto thenations. Let them go forth and cleanse their feet in pure water and beartestimony of it unto their Father who is in Heaven. "And then, saith the Lord unto mine Apostles and mine Elders, when yedo these things with purity of heart, I the Lord will hear your prayersand am bound by oath and covenant to defend you and fight your battles. "As I have said in a former commandment, it is not my will that mineElders should fight the battles of Zion, for I will fight your battles. "Nevertheless, let no man be afraid to lay down his life for [27] mysake, for he that layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again andhave eternal life. "The nation is ripened in iniquity and the cup of the wrath of mineindignation is full and I will not stay my hand in judgments upon thisnation or the nations of the earth. I have decreed wars and judgments upon the wicked and my wrath andindignation are about to be poured out upon them and the wicked andrebellious shall know that I am God. "As I the Lord have spoken so will I fulfill. I will spare none who

remain in Babylon, but I will burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts. As Ithe Lord have suffered, so will I put all enemies under my feet. For I theLord utter my word and it shall be obeyed. And the day of wrath andindignation shall come upon the wicked. "And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek tohinder my people from obeying the patriarchal law of Abraham, whichleadeth to celestial glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints throughthe mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall bedamned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted awayfrom under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and whichshall not return unto me void. "And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed, and with famine andplagues and earthquakes and the thunder of heaven and the vivid lightningsshall this nation and the nations of the earth be made to feel thechastening hand of an Almighty God until they are broken up and destroyedand wasted away from under heaven, and no power can stay my hand.Therefore, let the wicked tremble; let them that blaspheme my name holdtheir lips, for destruction will swiftly overtake them. "All that I the Lord have spoken through the mouths of my Prophetsand Apostles since the world began, concerning the last dispensation andfulness of times, concerning my Church, which has been called out of thewilderness of darkness and error, concerning the Zion and Kingdom of Godand concerning, Babylon the great, and what I have spoken through themouth of my servant Joseph shall all be fulfilled. "And though the heaven and earth pass away, my word shall not passaway, but shall be fulfilled, saith the Lord. "These revelations and testimonies are before you. Let my Saintssearch the word of the Lord and treasure up wisdom and be prepared forthat which is to come. As I have decreed, so shall [28] my judgments beginat the House of God. "There are those in my Church who have a name among you, who areadulterers and adulteresses, and those who blaspheme my name and those wholove and make a lie, and those who revel and drink with the drunken. Ifthey do not speedily repent of this wickedness and abomination, theyshould be severed from the ordinances of my House, saith the Lord. "There are many who have need to repent, whose hearts are set uponthe things of this world, who aspire to the honors of men, and do nothonor the Priesthood, nor seek to build up the Kingdom of God as theyshould. Neither do they learn and comprehend: "That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with thepowers of heaven and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled norhandled only upon the principles of righteousness. Such should repent andturn unto the Lord, and seek for the Holy Spirit to guide them. "Judgments will begin upon my House, and from thence will they goforth unto the world and the wicked cannot escape. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for my blessings await them in this

life and eternal life in the world to come. "Thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant and Apostles who dwell inthe flesh. Fear ye not your enemies. Let not your hearts be troubled. I amin your midst. I am your advocate with the Father. I have given mineangels charge concerning you. Mine eyes are upon you and the eyes of yourHeavenly Father and the heavenly hosts and all justified spirits madeperfect are watching over you. Your works are manifest before the face ofmy servants who have sealed their testimony with their blood, and beforeall my servants of the Apostles whom I have taken unto myself. "The veil is taken from off their faces and they know your works.They await your coming when you have finished your testimony in the flesh.Therefore, be ye faithful until I come. My coming is at the door. Callupon the Lord in mighty prayer, ask and you shall receive. Whenever youagree as touching anything and ask the Father in my name, it shall begiven unto you. Seek diligently to build up Zion and to magnify your highcalling and your enemies shall not prevail over you. Zion shall not bemoved out of her place. Zion shall prevail against her enemies. My peopleshall not be hindered in the building of my temples unto my holy name, ifthey will hearken unto my voice and do as I command them.[29] The blood of my servants Joseph and Hyrum and of mine Apostles andElders which has been shed for the word of God and the testimony of JesusChrist, cries from the ground for vengeance upon the nation which has shedtheir blood. But their blood shall speedily be avenged and shall cease tocry unto me, for the hour of God's judgment is fully come and shall bepoured out without measure upon the wicked. "But hearken and hear, O ye Apostles, Elders and people of my Church,to the word of the Lord concerning you, that for all the blessings that Iwill pour out upon you and the inhabitants of Zion and the judgments anddestruction upon the wicked, I will be inquired of by you to ask theFather in my name to do and to perform these things for you as I told allthe House of Israel by my servant Moses, that they should ask at my handfor all those blessings which I the Lord have promised unto Israel in thelatter days. "And as I the Lord ordained mine Apostles who were with me in myministry and promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones,judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel, so I say unto you mine Apostles, whoI have raised up in these last days that I have ordained you to bearrecord of my name, and of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentilesfirst, and then to the House of Israel. I have also ordained you to situpon thrones and judge the Gentiles and all the inhabitants of the earthunto whom you have borne testimony of my name in the day and generation inwhich you live. Therefore, how great is your calling and responsibilitybefore me. Therefore, gird up the loins of your minds and magnify yourcalling in the fear of God, and prepare ye for the coming of the Son ofMan, which is nigh at the doors. "No man knoweth the day nor the hour, but the signs of both heaven

and earth indicate His coming, as promised by the mouths of my disciples;the fig tree is leafing and the hour is nigh. Therefore, prepareyourselves, O ye Saints of the Most High God, with oil in your lamps, forblessed is he that watcheth for the coming of the Son of Man. "Again, hear ye the Word of the Lord, O ye mine Apostles whom I havechosen in these last days to bear record of my name and lead my peopleIsrael until the coming of the Son of Man. "I the Lord have raised up unto you my servant John Taylor to presideover you and to be a lawgiver unto my church. He has mingled his bloodwith that of the martyred prophets. Nevertheless, while I have taken myservants Joseph and Hyrum unto [30] myself, I have preserved my servantJohn Taylor for a wise purpose in me. "I have also taken many others of the Apostles unto myself, for Itake whom I will take, and preserve in life whom I will preserve,according to the counsel of mine own will. "And while my servant John Taylor is your president, I wish to askthe rest of my servants of the Apostles the question, Although you haveone to preside over your Quorum, which is the order of God in allgenerations, do you not, all of you, hold the Apostleship, which is thehighest authority ever given to men on earth? You do. Therefore, you holdin common the keys of the Kingdom of God in all the world. You, each ofyou, have the power to unlock the veil of eternity and hold converse withGod the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ and to have the ministrations ofangels. It is your right, privilege and duty to inquire of the Lord as toHis mind and will concerning yourselves and the inhabitants of Zion andtheir interests. "And whenever any one of you receives the word of the Lord, let it bewritten and presented in your Councils, and whatever by united consent youdeem wisdom to be presented unto the people, let it be presented by thepresident, my servant John Taylor, as the word of the Lord. In this wayyou will uphold him and strengthen his hands, as all the burden should notlie upon one man. "For thus saith the Lord, all mine Apostles should be full of theHoly Ghost, of inspiration and revelation to know the mind and will of Godand be prepared for that which is to come. Therefore let mine Apostleskeep my commandments and obey my voice and the gates of hell shall notprevail against you. "Fear not, for lo, I am with you until I come, and I come quickly.Even so, Amen." (1:253) The foregoing revelation to Wilford Woodruff was copied from hisjournal, about 1908, by Joseph W. Musser, at the request of his father, A.Milton Musser, than Assistant Church Historian. Elder Musser, at thesuggestion of his father, copied the revelation in duplicate, retaining acopy for himself. The Journal of Wilford Woodruff, from which therevelation was copied, reads as follows: "During the month of January, 1880, I was at Sunset, Arizona, with

Brother Lot Smith and the brethren with him who were trying to establish aBranch of the United Order at that place. At this time the government,through its officers, were [31] using every means in its power to enforcethe Edmunds-Tucker and anti-polygamy law with the evident intent on thepart of the officers to break us up as an organized community .... Onretiring to bed on the night of the 25th of January, 1880, I found myselfwrapt in vision, and the next morning the following revelation was givento me of the Lord which I wrote at the time." The 1880 revelation was accepted by the Church leaders. ElderFranklin D. Richards, Church Historian and a member of the Quorum ofTwelve, in writing the life of Wilford Woodruff, states: "During the period of the extreme and unrelenting prosecutions underthe anti-polygamy acts of Congress, President Woodruff spent much of thetime among the Churches in Arizona and southern Utah. On January 26, 1880,having retired for some days in the mountains fasting and praying, heobtained important revelations from the Lord concerning the work of theTwelve Apostles and events which would happen affecting both the Churchand the nation. These were submitted to President John Taylor and theCouncil of the Apostles and were accepted by them as profitable fordoctrine, for comfort, for light as to the future and for encouragement inthe work of the ministry." (Imp. Era, 1:874) 1882 Revelation to John Taylor "Let my servants GEORGE TEASDALE and HEBER J. GRANT be appointed tofill the vacancies in the Twelve, that you may be fully organized andprepared for the labors devolving upon you, for you have a great work toperform, and then proceed to fill up the presiding Quorum of Seventies,and assist in organizing that body of my Priesthood who are yourco-laborers in the ministry. "You may appoint SEYMOUR B. YOUNG to fill up the vacancy in thePresiding Quorum of Seventies, if he will conform to my law; for it is notmeet 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 youmay require from among the Seventies to assist you in your labors inintroducing and maintaining the gospel among the Lamanites throughout theland. And then let High Priests be selected, under the direction [32] ofthe First Presidency, to preside over the various organizations that shallexist among this people; that those who receive the gospel may be taughtin the doctrines of my church and in the ordinances and laws thereof, andalso in the things pertaining to my Zion and my Kingdom, saith the Lord,that they may be one with you in my Church and my Kingdom. "Let the Presidency of my Church be one in all things; and let theTwelve also be one in all things; and let them all be one with me as I amone with the Father. And let the High Priests organize themselves and

purify themselves, and prepare themselves for this labor, and for allother labors that they may be called upon to fulfill. "And let the presidents of stakes also purify themselves, and thePriesthood and people of the stakes over which they preside, and organizethe Priesthood in their various stakes according to my law, in all thevarious 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 accordingto the order of my Church; and, then let them inquire into the standingand fellowship of all that hold my Holy Priesthood in their severalstakes; and if they find those that are unworthy, let them remove them,except they repent; for my Priesthood, whom I have called and whom I havesustained and honored, shall honor me and obey my laws, and the laws of myHoly Priesthood, or they shall not be considered worthy to holy myPriesthood, saith the Lord. "And let my Priesthood humble themselves before me, and seek nottheir own will but my will; for if my Priesthood whom I have chosen andcalled and endowed with the spirit and gifts of their several callings,and with the powers thereof, do not acknowledge me, I will not acknowledgethem, 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, torepent of all their sins and shortcomings, of their covetousness and prideand 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, mySaints and my people; and I call upon the heads of families to put theirhouses in order according to the law of God, and attend to the variousduties and responsibilities associated therewith, and to purify themselvesbefore me, and to purge out iniquity from their households. "And I will bless and be with you, saith the Lord, and ye [33] shallgather 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 yourprayers and my Spirit and power shall be with you and my blessings shallrest upon you, upon your families, your dwellings and your households,upon your flocks and herds and fields, your orchards and vineyards, andupon all that pertains to you; and you shall be my people and I will beyour God; and your enemies shall not have dominion over you; for my wordsshall go forth, and my work shall be accomplished, and my Zion shall beestablished, and my rule and my power and my dominion shall prevail amongmy people, and all nations shall yet acknowledge me. Even so, Amen."(1:309) The revelation was published in some of the early European editionsof the Doctrine and Covenants, also found mentioned by B. H. Roberts inwriting of The Life of John Taylor. The following items pertain to thereception and consideration of the above revelation, copied from theWilford Woodruff Journal. "October 13, 1882. We met in council at Pres. Taylor's office. We

heard the revelation read in which George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant werecalled to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, andSeymour B. Young to fill the vacancy in the First Presidency of Seventies. "October 14, 1882, we held a meeting with the Presidency, TwelveApostles and the Presidents of Stakes. Remarks were made by Pres. Taylor.Then the revelation was read. George Q. Cannon spoke to us and said, `Howcan we teach the people any law or principle that we do not keepourselves?' "Joseph F. Smith spoke upon several subjects upon the PatriarchalOrder of Marriage. "President Taylor told what Joseph Smith said to him upon the subject.... "W. Woodruff said he was glad the Quorum of the Twelve and Seventieswere now to be filled, and said that the reason why the Church and Kingdomof God could not progress if we did not receive the Patriarchal Law ofMarriage is that it belonged to this dispensation as well as baptism forthe dead, and any law or ordinance that belongs to this dispensation mustbe received by the members of the Church, or it cannot progress. Theleading men of Israel who are presiding over Stakes will have to obey thelaw of Abraham, or they will have to stop. "E. Snow said that Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesusspoke of that the man who had one talent and hid it in the [34] earth wasthe man who had but one wife and would not take another, would have hertaken from him and given to one who had more." This revelation was referred to in public address by John Taylor inOctober, 1884, (1:336) as well as by Joseph F. Smith in 1904. (3:355) From the Millennial Star, 44:732: "The revelation was submitted tothe Twelve and by them accepted and was afterwards read to the Presidentsof Stakes, First Presidents of Seventy and a few others. It has been actedupon and the brethren mentioned have been ordained; the two first to theApostleship of the Twelve, and the last named (Seymour B. Young) to thePresiding Quorum of Seventies." The revelation of 1882 is also referred to by Apostle Matthias F.Cowley. (3:325) It is interesting to note that this revelation from the Lord wasgiven three years after the United States Supreme Court upheld theconstitutionality of the anti-polygamy laws. 1886 Revelation to John Taylor "My Son John: You have asked me concerning the New and EverlastingCovenant and how far it is binding upon my people; thus saith the Lord: "All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those callingthemselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority,and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; for I the Lord am

everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated, nor doneaway with, but they stand forever. "Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yethave not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of mylaws and the keeping of my commandments, and yet have I borne with themthese many years; and this because of their weakness, because of theperilous times, and furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men shoulduse their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lorddo not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not. "And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those whowould enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I notcommanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into myglory, they must do the works of [35] Abraham? "I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, andthose who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; Evenso. Amen." (1:442-3, 3:230) President Anthony W. Ivins, on February 10, 1934, stated he had seenthe original copy of the 1886 revelation and said it was written in penciland contained only a few paragraphs, and had no signature. B. H. Roberts, while Assistant Historian of the Church, stated tofriends that he had seen, on more than one occasion, the original copy ofthe 1886 revelation and knew that it was in the Church Archives; and inhis opinion it was genuine. Apostle Melvin J. Ballard stated in a letter dated December 31, 1934,"The pretended revelation of President John Taylor never had his signatureadded to it but was written in the form of a revelation and undoubtedlywas in his handwriting; nevertheless it was never submitted to his ownassociates in the Presidency and the Twelve nor to the Church andconsequently does not bind the Church in any sense." (See Ballard-JensonCorrespondence, p.27) However, the writer has had in his possession and has read the fadedwriting in the Journal of Douglas M. Todd, Sr., a member of the GeneralBoard of the Mutual Improvement Association of the Church, under date ofSeptember 1, 1934: "After reading some expressions in a letter ascribed to President A.W. Ivins, in which the 1886 revelation is referred to as an unsigned scrapof paper, a so-called revelation--the words of a man which were neversubmitted to the people of the Church and are not binding, etc., I went upand talked with my sister Nellie Todd Taylor, plural wife of John W.Taylor, to learn what she knew about it. She says John W. referred to thecircumstances on several occasions and told how his father was in hidingat the home of John Woolley in Centerville the night it was received. "When President Taylor received this revelation at the home of JohnW. Woolley at Centerville, he sent a messenger to Salt Lake asking thoseof the Presidency and Twelve who were there to meet him at Centerville. Asextreme caution had to be observed to keep from betraying the whereabouts

of President Taylor to the officers who were hunting him, George F. Gibbssecured a sheep wagon and took them up in the evening. The revelation wassubmitted and received.[36] "John W. Taylor was asked to stand guard in the front room and wasnot with them, but understood that the purpose of the meeting was toreceive this revelation. To have presented this revelation in openconference in times like those in 1886 would have been fatal. "A copy in President Taylor's handwriting was taken to the Salt LakeTemple, and when danger of raiding and confiscation increased, it withother sacred records, was turned over to William Salmon to be placedsomewhere to be safe. This revelation was delivered to John W. Taylor andfor a time was n the custody of Rodney Badger in a deposit box at the UtahNational Bank, but was finally returned to John W. Taylor. "Some time before his death, John W. was in business and EllenSanberg was his secretary. He married her as his sixth wife. After hisdeath in 1916, Ellen took possession of the document. She went to work forL. N. Stohl at the Beneficial Life and he got the revelation and madephotographic copies of it. "Soon after this, Nellie Taylor said one night after his death, JohnW. came to her with a troubled look on his face, and it was made known toher that he was concerned about this revelation the one given to JohnTaylor. Nellie went to Mill Creek and Ellen reluctantly surrendered it.Nellie took it to Frank Y. Taylor and asked that he deliver it to theChurch Historian. Frank delayed and some inquiry was made about it. Nellieagain saw him about it, and Frank decided to surrender it, but instead oftaking it to the Historian's office, he took it to President Grant andasked him if it was genuine and in the handwriting of his father.President Grant said it was. Brother Taylor asked how he could get aroundit. `I am not going to try to get around it,' replied President Grant." The opposite page contains a copy of the 1886 revelation in PresidentJohn Taylor's own handwriting. * Douglas Todd further recorded: "This revelation could not bepresented to the Church when it was received, and by the time it could bepresented, we had already acted in a way quite opposite to itsinjunctions, so it was not presented to the members in conference at all,but that does not change the revelation." In the Abraham H. Cannon Journal under date of March 29, 1892: "JohnW. Taylor spoke in relation to the Manifesto: `I do not know that thatthing was right, though I voted to sustain it, and will assist to maintainit; but among my father's papers I found a revelation given him of theLord, and which is now in my [38] possession, in which the Lord told himthat the principle of plural marriage would never be overcome. PresidentTaylor desired to have it suspended, but the Lord would not permit it tobe done.'" [37] Photo-Lithographic reprint of Exact Original Copy in President

Taylor's own Handwriting The revelation remained binding upon the Priesthood. It was submittedand received by those members of the Church leaders who met with PresidentJohn Taylor. George Q. Cannon was numbered among those at the time whowere with President Taylor and who had full knowledge of the revelationand accepted the same. The other associate, Joseph F. Smith, was at thetime in Honolulu, and upon his return home, the revelation was presentedto him by President Taylor, and he accepted it also. Reasons for notpresenting it to the Church are obvious, one of the external reasons beingevidenced on the following page. But the revelation was later presented toand discussed in the Councils of the Twelve, becoming a matter ofPriesthood responsibility. President John Taylor's mission was to sustain and perpetuate truth.That he did so loyally, intelligently, courageously, cannot be denied.Under his direction, steps were taken in response to the 1886 revelationto fulfill the mind and will of the Lord, as witnessed by the following: Lorin C. Woolley related the following in the presence of Daniel R.Bateman, John Y. Barlow, J. Leslie Broadbent and Joseph W. Musser: "While the brethren were at the Carlisle residence (in Murray) in Mayor June of 1886, letters began to come to President John Taylor from suchmen as John Sharp, Horace Eldredge, William Jennings, John T. Cain,Abraham Hatch, President Cluff and many other leading men from all overthe Church, asking the leaders to do something, as the Gentiles weretalking of confiscating their property in connection with the property ofthe Church. "These letters not only came from those who were living in the pluralmarriage relation, but also from prominent men who were presiding invarious offices in the Church who were not living in that relation. Theyall urged that something be done to satisfy the Gentiles so that theirproperty would not be confiscated. "George Q. Cannon, on his own initiative, selected a committeecomprising himself, Hyrum B. Clawson, Franklin S. Richards, John T. Caineand James Jack to get up a statement or manifesto that would meet theobjections urged by the brethren [40] above named. They met from time totime to discuss the situation. From the White home, where President Taylorand companions stopped after leaving the Carlisle home, they came out tofather's. George Q. Cannon would go and consult with the brethren of thecommittee, I taking him back and forth each day. [39] $800 REWARD! JOHN TAYLOR. GEORGE Q. CANNON. To be Paid for the Arrest of John Taylor and George Q. Cannon.

The above Reward will be paid for the delivery to me, or for Information that will lead to the arrest of JOHN TAYLOR, President of the Mormon Church, and George Q. Cannon, His Counselor; or $500 will be paid for Cannon alone, and $300 for Taylor. All Conferences or Letters kept strickly secret. S. H. GILSON, 22 and 23 Wasatch Building, Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City, Jan. 31, 1887. HANDBILL OFFERING REWARD FOR THE CAPTURE OF JOHN TAYLOR AND GEORGE Q.CANNON. "On September 26,1886, George Q. Cannon, Hyrum B. Clawson, FranklinS. Richards and others met with President John Taylor at my father'sresidence at Centerville, Davis County, Utah, and presented a document forPresident Taylor's consideration. I had just got back from a three days' trip, during most of whichtime I had been in the saddle, and being greatly fatigued, I had retiredto rest. "Between one and two o'clock P.M., Brother Bateman came and woke meup and asked me to be at my father's home, where a manifesto was to bediscussed. I went there and found there were congregated Samuel Bateman,Charles H. Wilkins, L. John Nuttall, Charles Birrell, George Q. Cannon,Franklin S. Richards and Hyrum B. Clawson. "We discussed the proposed Manifesto at length, but we were unable tobecome united in the discussion. Finally George Q. Cannon suggested thatPresident Taylor take the matter up with the Lord and decide the same thenext day. Brothers Clawson and Richards were taken back to Salt Lake. Thatevening I was called to act as guard during the first part of the night,notwithstanding the fact that I was greatly fatigued on account of thethree days' trip I had just completed. "The brethren retired to bed soon after nine o'clock. The sleepingrooms were inspected by the guard as was the custom. President Taylor'sroom had no outside door. The windows were heavily screened. "Some time after the brethren retired and while I was reading theDoctrine and Covenants, I was suddenly attracted to a light appearingunder the door leading to President Taylor's room, and was at oncestartled to hear the voices of men talking there. There were threedistinct voices. I was bewildered because it was my duty to keep peopleout of that room and evidently someone had entered without my knowing it.I made a hasty examination and found the door leading to the room bolted

as usual. I then examined the outside of the house and found all thewindow screens intact. While examining the last window, and feelinggreatly agitated, a voice spoke to me, saying, `Can't you [41] feel theSpirit? Why should you worry?" "At this I returned to my post and continued to hear the voices inthat room. They were so audible that although I did not see the parties, Icould place their positions in the room from the sound of their voices.The three voices continued until about midnight, when one of them left,and the other two continued. One of them I recognized as President JohnTaylor's voice. I called Charles Birrell, and we both sat up until eighto'clock the next morning. "When President Taylor came out of his room about eight o'clock ofthe morning of September 27, 1886, we could scarcely took at him onaccount of the brightness of his personage. He stated, `Brethren, I havehad a very pleasant conversation with Brother Joseph [Joseph Smith].' Isaid, `Boss, who is the man that was there until midnight?' He asked,`What do you know about it, Lorin?' I told him all about my experience. Hesaid, `Brother Lorin, that was your Lord.' "We had no breakfast but assembled ourselves in a meeting. I forgetwho opened the meeting. I was called to offer the benediction. I think myfather, John W. Woolley, offered the opening prayer. There were present atthe meeting, in addition to President Taylor, George Q. Cannon, L. JohnNuttall, John W. Woolley, Samuel Bateman, Charles Wilkins, CharlesBirrell, Daniel R. Bateman, Bishop Samuel Sedden, George Earl, my mother,Julia E. Woolley, my sister, Amy Woolley, and myself. The meeting was heldfrom about 9 o'clock in the morning until 5 in the afternoon, withoutintermission, being about eight hours in all. "President Taylor called the meeting to order. He had the Manifesto,that had been prepared under the direction of George Q. Cannon, read overagain. He then put each person under covenant that he or she would defendthe principle of Celestial or plural marriage, and that they wouldconsecrate their lives, liberty and property to this end, and that theypersonally would sustain and uphold that principle. By that time we were all filled with the Holy Ghost. President Taylorand those present occupied about three hours up to this time. Afterplacing us under covenant, be placed his finger on the document, hisperson rising from the floor about a foot or eighteen inches, and withcountenance animated by the Spirit of the Lord, and raising his right handto the square, he said, `Sign that document--never! I would suffer myright hand to be [42] severed from my body first. Sanction it--never! Iwould suffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before Iwould sanction it!' "After that he talked for about an hour and then sat down and wrotethe revelation which was given him by the Lord upon the question of PluralMarriage. Then he talked to us for some time, and said, `Some of you willbe handled and ostracized and cast, out from the Church by your brethren

because of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some ofyou may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe,unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you.' (Three of us werehandled and ostracized for supporting and sustaining this principle. Thereare only three left who were at the meeting mentioned --Daniel R. Bateman,George Earl, and myself. So far as I know those of them who have passedaway all stood firm to the covenants entered into from that day to the dayof their deaths.) "After the meeting referred to, President Taylor had L. John Nuttallwrite five copies of the revelation. He called five of us together: SamuelBateman, Charles H. Wilkins, George Q. Cannon, John W. Woolley, andmyself. "He then set us apart and placed us under covenant that while welived we would see to it that no year passed by without children beingborn in the principle of plural marriage. We were given authority toordain others if necessary to carry this work on, they in turn to be givenauthority to ordain others when necessary, under the direction of theworthy senior (by ordination), so that there should be no cessation in thework. He then gave each of us a copy of the revelation. "I am the only one of the five now living, and so far as I know allfive of the brethren remained true and faithful to the covenants theyentered into, and to the responsibilities placed upon them at that time. "During the eight hours we were together, and while President Taylorwas talking to us, he frequently arose and stood above the floor, and hiscountenance and being were so enveloped by light and glory that it wasdifficult for us to look upon him. "He stated that the document, referring to the Manifesto, was fromthe lower regions. He stated that many of the things he had told us wewould forget and they would be taken from us, but that they would returnto us in due time as needed, and from this fact we would know that thesame was from the Lord. This has [43] been literally fulfilled. Many ofthe things I forgot, but they are coming to me gradually, and those thingsthat come to me are as clear as on the day on which they were given. "President Taylor said that the time would come when many of theSaints would apostatize because of this principle. He said, `One-half ofthis people would apostatize over the principle for which we are now inhiding; yea, and possibly one-half of the other half,' (rising off thefloor while making the statement). He also said the day will come when adocument similar to that (Manifesto) then under consideration would beadopted by the Church, following which `apostasy and whoredom would berampant in the Church.' "He said that in the time of the seventh President of this Church,the Church would go into bondage both temporally and spiritually and inthat day (the day of bondage) the one Mighty and Strong spoken of in the85th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants would come. "Among other things stated by President Taylor on this occasion was

this, `I would be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold theMelchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel of theLord Jesus Christ, at the time of the seventh president, and that therewould be thousands that think they hold the priesthood at that time, butwould not have it properly conferred upon them.' "John Taylor set the five mentioned apart and gave them authority toperform marriage ceremonies, and also to set others apart to do the samething as long as they remained upon the earth; and while doing so, theProphet Joseph Smith stood by directing the proceedings. Two of us had notmet the Prophet Joseph Smith in his mortal lifetime and we--Charles H.Wilkins and myself--were introduced to him and shook hands with him."(Signed) Lorin C. Woolley, September 22, 1929. (3:225) Lorin Calvin Woolley was born in Salt Lake City, October 23, 1856. Hebecame actively engaged in protecting the General Authorities and manytimes delivered important messages of the brethren. He was a close guardand messenger of President John Taylor. At the age of 13, he was given hisEndowments and ordained an Apostle by President Brigham Young, though notas a member of the Quorum of Twelve in the Church organization. He was aclose confidant of Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, LorenzoSnow and Joseph F. Smith. President Taylor on one occasion interpreted avision Lorin C. Woolley had. [44] Shortly after the 1886 meeting, he wassent on a mission to Indian Territory, from 1887 to 1889 and from 1896 to1897. He died September 19, 1934, at the age of 77. Continual efforts are being made to discredit the Lorin C. Woolleytestimony, though it has been substantiated and attested to by livingwitnesses. That the eight hour meeting described by Lorin C. Woolley isnot found in the diaries on that date offers little support fordisclaimers. It is more to be expected than not, considering theconditions at the time and the confiscation of many records andproperties. Caution and secrecy were as imperative upon them as uponJoseph and his brethren years earlier. Following the revelation of 1886 one would expect to find actiontaken by the Lord, with that action supported by the mouths of witnesses.Daniel R. Bateman, bodyguard to President John Taylor, was one of these,having been present while the foregoing experience was related by Lorin C.Woolley. He testified: "I was privileged to be at the meeting of September 27, 1886 spokenof by Brother Woolley, I myself acting as one of the guards for thebrethren during those exciting times. The proceedings of the meeting asrelated by Brother Woolley are correct in every detail. "I was twenty-nine years of age when the revelation of 1886 was givento John Taylor, and I was permitted to make a copy of it from the originalwhich was written by John Taylor during the meeting held September 27,1886. I still have the Journal with the revelation in it." (Signed) DanielR. Bateman. The best evidence of a revelation is the revelation itself. The Lord

gave His word in power and with clear intent. He provided witnesses forall proceedings, thirteen in this case. As a result of the Lord'spronouncement through His word in 1886 to John Taylor, the organizationoriginating with President Taylor to keep alive and perpetuate the law ofcelestial plural marriage as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, isstill intact and is functioning as the Lord intended it should. 1889 Revelation to Wilford Woodruff "Thus saith the Lord to my servant Wilford, I, the Lord, have heardthy prayers and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of myspirit.[45] "Thus saith the Lord unto my servants the presidency of my Church,who hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. I the Lord hold thedestiny of the courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, andthe destiny of all other nations of the earth, in mine own hands, and allthat I have revealed and promised and decreed concerning the generation inwhich you live shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand. "Let not my servants who are called to the presidency of my Churchdeny my word or my law, which concerns the salvation of the children ofmen. Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guidethem in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies bypromise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of mypeople. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the counsel of myservants, the wicked shall not prevail. "Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courtsmake their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, withoutany further pledges from the Priesthood. "I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of governmentand the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion. "I, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, am in your midst. I amyour advocate with the Father. Fear not, little flock, it is your Father'sgood pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Fear not the wicked and ungodly.Search the scriptures, for they are they which testify of me; also thoserevelations which I have given to my servant Joseph, and to all myservants since the world began, which are recorded in the record of divinetruth. "Those revelations contain the judgments of God which are to bepoured out upon all nations under the heavens, which include GreatBabylon. These judgments are at the door. They will be fulfilled as Godlives. Leave judgment with me, it is mine, saith the Lord. Watch the signsof the times and they will show the fulfillment of the words of the Lord.Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy Ghostas your constant companion and act as you are moved upon by the Spirit,and all will be well with you.

"The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut offby the judgments of God. Great events await you and this generation andare nigh at your doors. Awake! O Israel, and have faith in God and Hispromises and He will not forsake you. I the Lord will deliver my Saintsfrom the dominion of the wicked in [46] mine own due time and way. "I cannot deny my word, neither in blessings nor judgments. Thereforelet mine anointed gird up their loins, watch and be sober, and keep mycommandments. Pray always and faint not. Exercise faith in the Lord and inthe promises of God; be valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ. "The eyes of the Lord and the Heavenly Host are watching over you andyour acts. Therefore be faithful until I come. I come quickly to rewardevery man, according to the deeds done in the body. Even so, Amen."(2:223) This revelation was copied from the Journal of Wilford Woodruff underdate of November 24, 1889. It states: "Attended a meeting with the lawyersat the Guardo (house) in the evening. They wanted me to make someconcession to the court upon polygamy and other points, and I spentseveral hours alone and inquired of the Lord and received the followingrevelation." A photostatic copy of the Daily Journal of Apostle Abraham H. Cannonunder date of December 19, 1889, Vol. II, states: "Thursday, Dec. 19th: ... During our meeting a revelation was readwhich Pres. Woodruff received Sunday evening, Nov. 24th. Propositions hadbeen made for the Church to make some concessions to the courts in regardto its principles. Both of Pres. Woodruff's counselors refused to advisehim as to the course he should pursue, and he therefore laid the matterbefore the Lord. The answer came quick and strong. The word of the Lordwas for us not to yield one particle of that which He had revealed andestablished. He had done and would continue to care for His work and thoseof the Saints who were faithful, and we need have no fear of our enemieswhen we were in the line of our duty. We are promised redemption anddeliverance if we will trust in God and not in the arm of flesh. We wereadmonished to read and study the word of God, and to pray often. The wholerevelation was filled with words of the greatest encouragement andcomfort, and my heart was filled with joy and peace during the entirereading. It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue." Revelation and Voting It is often stated that the preceding four revelations are notbinding upon the Church because its members did not accept them by vote.Informed Saints acknowledge that they were in reality received, for totake any other position would be foolish. [47] The evidence and witnessesare established. However, it is claimed that since the Saints have votingrights, "the four revelations are not binding." The premise is incorrect. But let us assume for a moment that the

argument is valid. Let us use that same argument and apply it to theManifesto of 1890. The accepted procedure for voting to place revelations in a book, aswith the original Book of Commandments, is: 1) The revelation be acceptedunanimously by the First Presidency; 2) that it be accepted unanimously bythe Quorum of Twelve Apostles; and, 3) that it be accepted unanimously bythe Saints in Conference assembled. This is the procedure to place therevelation in a book of scripture. (But not to vote on the validity of therevelation.) Does the Manifesto of 1890 pass the test? No. Even as a directivefrom the Church it assumed an unusual presentation. Usually, alldirectives come to the Saints over the signatures of the First Presidency,indicating their unity. The Manifesto had one signature, with one memberof the First Presidency refusing to sign at all. It would have appearedeven less appropriate with just two signatures, so it appeared with one. How does the Manifesto rate against the "rules?" 1) The Manifesto wasnot officially endorsed by all members of the First Presidency. 2) TheManifesto was not endorsed by all members of the Quorum of Twelve, to wit:"If any were disposed to vote against the measure, they were awed intosilence by an overwhelming support which was recorded as unanimous. Therewas, nevertheless, some dissension which in the ensuing decade and a halfresulted in disfellowshipping of two members of the Apostles' Quorum."(Larsen, The "Americanization" of Utah for Statehood, p. 267) 3)Additionally, the Manifesto was not endorsed by all of the Saints. Fromthe minutes of the conference, Deseret News, October 11, 1890: "The votein support of the motion was nearly unanimous." (Roberts, ComprehensiveHistory of the Church, 6:222) Therefore, if the validity of a revelation from God is decided by theoutcome of votes, the Manifesto is disqualified from every standpoint andhas no place in our books as a revelation. If the four revelations cannotbe accepted, certainly neither can the Manifesto, which had even lessaction in its favor. However, the premise initially is incorrect. The stand many of theSaints have been led to take is that they will not accept [48] revelationsfrom the Lord through His prophets unless that statement is firstsubmitted to the Priesthood and Church in general where a vote can betaken. If the vote sustains what the Prophet has said, then it presumablybecomes binding upon the Church. We are in danger of becoming a littleself-assured in our determinations with regard to the vote privilege. Wilford Woodruff decisively stated: "In some things, it was the lawof the church that all things should be done by the common consent of thepeople; in the matter of presenting temporal business; and in the quorums,it was. But I have no recollection of any revelation given to the effectthat all church affairs pertaining to what should or would be the law ofthe church, that that course was to be pursued, that the matter should besubmitted to the body for its sanction." (Temple Lot Case, 1892; 3:259)

Elder Alvin R. Dyer in his book, The Refiner's Fire, states:"Revelation when received by a prophet of God, is automatically bindingupon the people. They do not have the right, in democratic fashion, toveto its content, nor to screen its possibility of ever being placedbefore an assembly. God's word, given through His Son Jesus Christ, is thelaw of the Church. To challenge a prophet of God with regard to hisstatements places the right the member above that of the chosen servant ofGod and challenges God's will." (p. 303) Elder Dyer quotes the ProphetJoseph: "If anything should have been suggested by us, or any namesmentioned, except by commandment, or `Thus Saith the Lord,' we do notconsider it binding." (D.H.C. 3:295) The Manifesto of 1890 does not present the merest hint of "Thus saiththe Lord." The four revelations say nothing else. Elder Dyer continues:"The Prophet thus makes clear in his writings from Liberty Jail the factthat when utterances are made which are not from the Lord they are not tobe considered as binding upon the Church, but when he speaks by `thussaith the Lord' or `by commandment,' then, his utterances are binding ascoming from the Lord and need no vote of approval of the members of theChurch. The members may sustain or even vote to place such revelations ina book as was the case with the original Book of Commandments, but not thevalidity of the revelation." (p. 304) This calls for the revising of our traditions. The four revelations"are binding as coming from the Lord" to His Priesthood. If the fourrevelations are not binding, the Manifesto is much less [49] so. However,the four revelations were accepted unanimously by the leaders of theChurch, and resulted in policy as well as three appointments to positionsof Church leadership. Each is by way of commandment and "thus saith theLord." When the Lord speaks, we cannot, in effect, vote as to whether or notHe has spoken. We do so at the peril of our eternal exaltation. Note 1: According to a recorded talk by Reed C. Durham, Jr., LDS Coordinator of Seminaries and Institutes in Salt Lake City and President of the Mormon History Association, speaking by assignment on February 24, 1974, to the High Priest Meeting of the Salt Lake Foothill Stake: "There was a revelation that John Taylor received and we have it in his handwriting. We've analyzed the handwriting. It is John Taylor's handwriting and the revelation is reproduced by the fundamentalists. That's supposed to prove the whole story because there was indeed a revelation. The revelation is dated September 27; that fits this account of a meeting, 1886, and this revelation is very short. I'd like to read it to you (which he proceeds to do)." Elder Durham then takes the position that while that was the word of the Lord to John Taylor in 1886, it was not voted upon by the Church and "the living oracle supercedes all that has ever been written even in the scriptures."

While we commend his presentation of the 1886 revelation to the High Priests and his unassailable defense of its authenticity, his position regarding it is hard to substantiate. The whole point of the 1886 revelation is that the Lord emphasizes in great plainness that He has not and will not change the law and that if men would enter into His glory they must do the works of Abraham. Now what oracle be he man or angel would pretend to have the authority to supercede the Lord in such an unchangeable, eternal declaration? [50] [51] SECTION FIVE THE MANIFESTO IN REVIEW Despite the admonitions of the Lord repeated in the four precedingrevelations to His people, as pressure continued to mount against theChurch and its practice of polygamy, the Saints on the firing line beganto waver. The mood of the times is captured in an editorial by ElderCharles W. Penrose. Because of tremendous pressure from within and without, the Church isinching toward the Manifesto. The Gentiles are relentless in theirinsistence upon concession, and Editor Penrose, true to his principles, isflying all flags. We reprint his editorial in full: Charles W. Penrose Deseret Evening News Editorial 1885 "The flow of the tide has set in against the Saints. It looks as ifno popular movement was favoring them. The executive, legislative,judicial and religious influences are against them, and to these is addeda more or less widespread popular clamor. The object of this furor, backedup by threats of stripping the people of what few rights remain, ofimprisonment and family and communal disruption is to force the Saints torelinquish a prominent doctrine of their religion. The whole reasoning offriends, real and professed, and of bitter and relentless foes, on theoutside, takes this one and only direction. "One of the reasons adduced more frequently than any other in favorof the demand that plural marriage relationship be abolished is that it isnot religion. To this we have but to reply that if some one outside of thereligious professor has the power to prescribe what his religion shallconsist of, all pretensions to the existence of religious liberty are adelusion and a snare, and a hollow and meaningless mockery. The only line

of demarcation over which the exercise of religion must not step is thatwhich divides its practice from the domain of the rights of others. It hasnever been shown, nor is it susceptible of exhibition, that the peculiarmarital institution interferes with the rights and privi-[52]leges of any,under the Constitution. Nobody outside of the relationship are injured,and therefore have no reason for complaint, neither has any power theright of interference. A remark lately attributed to General H. S.Eldredge, on this point appears strikingly appropriate. It was to theeffect that nobody was injured by the plural marriage relationship of the`Mormons', and if it be claimed that the women and children are, therefutation to that insinuation lies in the fact that it is not from themthat the complaints are coming. "It has been held by some of the Saints that if even the doctrineagainst which the bulk of the opposition is hurled were abrogated orrelinquished, the clamor would not cease. The demand would still be madefor a further retreat from religious principles, until the Church as anorganized body--religious would become an entity of the past; otherwisepopular thirst for the demolition of `Mormonism' would not be satiated. "We look upon this as an erroneous conception of the character of thework in which the Saints are engaged. The chief object of the crusade isto get the Church to apostatize. That arrived at, nothing more would benecessary for the satisfaction of the enemies of the work of God. Thataccomplished, they would be jubilant and all hell would rejoice. "What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the heartsof the opponents of `Mormonism,' more properly termed the Gospel of theSon of God'? Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new andeverlasting covenant of marriage in its fulness. Were the Church to dothat as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body. The authorityof the Priesthood would be withdrawn, with its gifts and power, and therewould be no more heavenly recognition of the ministrations among thepeople. The heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lordwould raise up another people of greater valor and stability, for his workmust, according to His unalterable decrees, go forward, for the time ofthe second coming of the Savior is near, even at the doors. Therefore theSaints have no alternative but to stand by the truth and sustain what theheavens have established and propose to perpetuate. This they will do,come life or death, freedom or imprisonment, and there is, so far as wecan observe, no use to attempt to disguise this fact. "As already stated, were the step so much desired on the outside tobe taken, there would probably be but little need of [53] any furtheropposition, because the Church would be shorn of its strength, havingsurrendered its integrity because of earthly opposition. Its adherentswould no longer be distinctive, but would be like the rest of the world,whose hate would turn to affection, because of the love it has for itsown. The Saints might have the meagre satisfaction of having all men speakwell of them, but it would be overshadowed by the miserable reflection

that they were subject to the woe and misery consequent upon their gettinginto that lamentable situation. "Individuals may falter and fall, as they doubtless will, whenbrought face to face with the testing point. They may be ready, forconsiderations connected with their personal convenience or safety, torenounce their religion, cast away their wives and render themselvesperfidious in the eyes of their own offspring by this crouching apostasy,but the bulk will not follow examples of that character. Having the lightof truth and manhood burning within their souls, they will, when the stormhowls about their ears, continue to stand at the post of duty at whichthey were stationed when the sunshine of peace and prosperity smiled uponthem. And if any who are in jeopardy feel as if the germ of faith were notas bright and powerful in themselves as they could wish, and they need anexample after which to follow, let them not keep close to the heels of thecraven, but tread, in the footsteps of the man who will `Do what is right,let the consequence follow.' Many hold that it is less cruel to a man'sfamily to renounce them and the sacred contract by which to him they arebound, than take the probable alternative of having to go to prison andleave them, it may be in some instances, to face poverty. There are somethings, however, that to people of nobler instincts are worse than.temporal hardships, and he is `poor indeed' who does not take this stand.Poverty may be met and conquered, but the stain of the recreant canscarcely be wiped out. Besides from the standpoint of every trueLatter-day Saint a renunciation of his religion has a blasting effect uponhis hopes of eternal happiness, the foundation of which lies in theretention of his wives and children in the life to come. If he bartersaway his birthright for a mess of pottage here, upon what ground has hereason to believe his heirship will receive any recognition hereafter? "It goes without saying that the crusaders are anxious to obtainamong those who are pursued by them as many examples of recreancy aspossible, not only on account of the satisfaction [54] that such cases ofthemselves impart to them, but it is desired that they should have astrong effect in influencing others to take a similar course. The goodSaints, however, can afford to suffer any species of discomfort, even tothe sacrifice of life itself if it be necessary, but they cannot entertainthe alternative of proving recreant to principle, to wives and children,and turning their backs upon their religion and their God." (1:376-379) The faith and zeal of Charles W. Penrose was but an extension of thatheld by all the faithful in their attitude toward plural marriage and allof God's restored laws. But talk of concession, talk of a new revelationincreased among the large percentage of suffering Mormons, most of whomwere not living the principle and who did not take too kindly to theirsufferings because of it. Some of the Saints pressed their Church leadersfor new light. The response was unyielding: "The childish babble about another revelation is only an evidence howhalf informed men can talk. The `Mormons' have either to spurn their

religion and their God, and sink self-damned in the eyes of allcivilization at a moment when most blessed in the practice of their faith,or go calmly on to the same issue which they have always had--`Mormonism'in its entirety, the revelation of God, or nothing at all. `Mormonism'allowed in its entirety, or `Mormonism' wiped out in blood!" (Mill. Star,Vol. 7, No.43, 1885) George Q. Cannon maintained a steady, unfaltering stand: "What willbe the effect, it may be asked, of all this? Will it destroy pluralmarriages? Will it crush out the belief in this God-like principle? Willit stop the birth of children? We may ask in reply, did the decrees ofPharaoh against the birth of the Hebrew male children and his edict thatthey should be thrown into the Nile stop the increase of that oppressedpeople? Certainly not; neither will it do in this instance." PresidentCannon wavered not in the least: "This principle will be maintained; itwill be believed in; it will be practiced by this people in the mannerthat God has commanded, and no agencies that can be brought to bear uponthem will prevent this." (Juv. Inst. p. 220, 1885) The words and prophecies of the Mormon leaders concerning the certainperpetuation of the patriarchal order of marriage did not vary. So certainwere they of the Lord's will in the matter that they could well cry out toall the world, "`Mormonism' allowed in its entirety, or 'Mormonism' wipedout in blood!"[55] But "Mormonism wiped out in blood" was not an issue that the greatmajority of Saints not responsible for the principle were too anxious toface. It is important to understand the extremely difficult situation inwhich the Saints found themselves during those several years prior to the1890 Manifesto. Many of us tend to view the relinquishing of a holyprinciple by the Saints as a sudden moment of concession. But theprinciple was all but gone from among 97% of the Church members wellbefore 1890. The Manifesto was an effective soother for a harriedgovernment and a fine filler for the eastern newspapers, who, by the way,received it by telegraph for publication in September before the UtahSaints knew anything about it--until October. That procedure could beconsidered rare treatment for a revelation from God to His Church. It is essential to come to a better appreciation of the position theearly Saints were in, those conditions the Saints were enduring as theManifesto appeared on the scene. It is critical that the matter be clearbecause of its direct relationship to the living of plural marriage as itwent "underground," and as it relates to the position of plural marriagetoday under the direction of the Priesthood. The fires of persecution, due largely to prosecution, were lapping atthe heels of the Mormons and their kingdom during 1885 to 1900, theparticular period we wish to consider here. We call attention to thefollowing as a preface to the matter under consideration: "That the MormonKingdom should continue as a permanent enclave in American commonwealthwas unthinkable to a large segment of American opinion. The system of

plural marriage, though admittedly practiced by a small minority ofMormons, was an unspeakable vice; the theocratic economy interfered withthe spread of capitalistic institutions; and the supposed church controlof political life was thought to be inconsistent with democracy. AsCongress sought to end Mormon `peculiarities' with increasinglyrestrictive legislation, the Church fought back with every availableweapon. With the formal disincorporation of the church and theconfiscation of its properties under the Edmunds-Tucker Act, however, thedays of the independent exclusive Kingdom were numbered. When the SupremeCourt approved the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1890, a program of accommodationwas inaugurated. The 'People's Party was dissolved, the church sold mostof its business interests, and President Woodruff's Manifesto declared theend of poly-[56]gamy." (Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 352) The death knell sounded again in the form of the Petition For Amnestypresented to the President of the United States: "To be at peace with theGovernment and in harmony with their fellow citizens ... our people havevoluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believedto be a sacred principle (2:547-9) Plural marriage had been a major plank in the platform of Mormontheology. It was intrinsic to their way of life. But the Gentile minorityin Utah found the practice abhorrent and an infringement upon the Americanmonogamous culture. From behind the curtain of protesting polygamy,however, they cast a jaundiced eye upon the theocratic economy whichproved a fortress against their capitalistic inroads. Rather than anysingle item of doctrine, the real thorn was the all-pervasive power of theChurch. Pressure mounted on all sides to create a chink in the Mormon armor.Strong tones were heard from the pulpit an press, demanding prohibitinglegislation against the evils of Mormonism and its practice of polygamy.The nation's capitol was deluged with petitions and letters from crusadingeditors, clergymen, women's groups, federal officials. The agitators wereastute enough to know that Washington was their only hope, inasmuch as thelawmaking body of Utah Territory in the early 1880's was composed almostentirely of Mormon Church officials. Through constant anti-Mormonpropaganda, the public was influenced with charges of immorality and, moresignificantly, treason. The Mormons were not accepting separation ofchurch and state. Their cause was, without question, indefensible. President Abraham Lincoln had signed the anti-polygamy Morrill Law in1862, but everyone knew it had no teeth. The Mormons, regarding the Law asunconstitutional, went about their business and defied federalenforcement. The courts at that; time were in the hands of the Mormons,anyway, much to the consternation of the Gentiles. Along came the proposed Cullom Bill in 1870 (1:171), which was tosubject the Territory of Utah to federal control, denying polygamistsfranchise, naturalization and the right to hold office. The Mormons werebeing fettered on all fronts. Internal problems required their attention

at this time as well. Overpopulation needed immediate solution. They werehard-pressed to find farming space. Water was in short supply, as wasemploy-[57]ment. They established local industries to help the situationredistributing wealth and income, lending to the poor without interest,etc. But their attention to these problems became diverted under thepressure of government as to its own particular interests. In the meantime, Mormon collectivism came under severe andunrelenting attack in economics and politics. The bills and laws, someintroduced, some threatened, some passed, were not only to stamp outpolygamy but were more especially designed to separate church and stateand church and economy. The United States Supreme Court upheld the Reynolds case decision in1879, (1:217-225) which brought the Church to its knees. The Mormons wereleft with no legal basis for their practice of polygamy. The future lookedbleak indeed. Further, congressional action, was urged upon Utah byPresidents Rutherford B. Hays in 1880, and James A. Garfield in 1881,supported by Chester A. Arthur. This action was to leave Utah governmentto non-polygamists. It wasn't long before the political machinery of theTerritory was vested in non-Mormon appointive officers, a major victoryfor the protagonists. With the help of a proviso in the Edmunds Law, the election board, or"Utah Commission," achieved permanent status in 1882. A group of five menwas appointed by President Arthur (1:290-291). It was their position tosupervise registration of voters, conduct elections, etc. They formulateda test oath which all were required to sign in order to register.(1:291-292) Since the oath was to deny polygamy, it was effectivelydesigned to strip the Mormons of their voting power. The Mormon Church wasbruised. Enforcement of the Edmunds Law of 1882 (1:287) sent hundreds ofmen to prison. The Law was enforced with an ex post facto application, andprosecution became persecution. Because polygamous marriages were nearlyimpossible to establish in court, the common charge levied against theMormons was unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six monthsin jail, or both. It was at this time that the President of the Church, John Taylor,dispatched Mormon colonists to Mexico and Canada, where they were free tofully practice their religious beliefs. (See Section Seven, page 84 &seq.) Referring to the hardships of the Mormons under the press ofprosecutions, a contemporary author writes: "There were 1,004 convictionsfor unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds [58] Act between 1884 and1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitudeof the effect of the Act upon Mormon society. The period from 1885 to 1890was marked by intensive `polyg hunts' for `cohabs.' Officials of thechurch made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives `for time andall eternity,' they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert

these women in order to avoid the punishment provided in this law ofBabylon. Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that the rigorousenforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional,church leaders--nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives--went`underground.' Leading out in this action was the church president, JohnTaylor, whose last public appearance was in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle,February 1, 1885. President Taylor died while in hiding on July 25, 1887..." (Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 359) Rather than go into hiding, President Joseph F. Smith was sent toHawaii to oversee church business there. He returned in 1889. PresidentGeorge Q. Cannon was in constant flight and hiding and was captured in1886 enroute to Mexico, escaped, recaptured, later surrendered himself tonine months in the penitentiary. Much of the hiding was successful due toan ingenious underground setup and signal system. Life had become very nearly intolerable for the Mormons. They werehunted and hounded and imprisoned as if they were the lowest of criminals."A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never beenfaced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of anydistinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escapedinto exile. Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and theirchildren to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prisonbars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more wereconcealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends .... Old men were comingout of prison, broken in health." (Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, p. 360) In 1887, the Mormon "People's Party" made the sixth organized effortfor Utah statehood. Into the proposed constitution were adopted clausesoutlawing polygamy and the union of church and state. No amendment to theconstitution could be made without the express consent of Congress and thePresident. However, Utah's memorial for statehood was rejected on the [59]grounds that the anti-polygamy clauses in the proposed constitution "werenot trustworthy." The Church had faulted because it had come out with noofficial abandonment of their polygamous practice. There was another major influence that rattled the foundation of theMormon position. It came from among the Mormons themselves. Young andaspiring Mormons, dissatisfied with conditions which imposed restrictionsupon them in political and economic circles, made the first rift in Mormonunity. This, coupled with increased sale of property to the forbidden"Gentiles," began to muddy the waters. Additionally, Church leaders werereceiving letters and other forms of persuasion from prominent businessmenof the Mormon faith. They urged the yielding up of the practice of pluralmarriage because of talk of heavy personal losses due to confiscation oftheir own holdings, along with the Church property. Further pressure wasbrought to bear from high-ranking political leaders who made certain theMormons understood and fully appreciated their support of the toughfederal legislation. The real issue became clear: "We care nothing for your polygamy. It's

a good war cry and serves our purpose by enlisting sympathy for our cause;but it's a mere bagatelle compared with other issues in the irrepressibleconflict between our parties. What we most object to is your unity; yourpolitical and commercial solidarity; the obedience you render yourspiritual leaders in temporal affairs. We want you to throw off the yokeof the Priesthood, to do as we do, and be Americans in deed as well as inname." (Larson, The "Americanization" of Utah For Statehood, p. 243) In other words, Utah was not to be granted statehood until she wouldbend the knee. The political power of the Mormon Church was to be crushed,the Church neutralized, and Utah "Americanized" and made available tocapitalistic influences. Wilford Woodruff recorded the inevitable: "Thusends the year 1889, and the word of the Prophet Joseph Smith is beginningto be fulfilled that the whole nation would turn against Zion and make warupon the Saints. The nation has never been filled so full of lies againstthe Saints as today. 1890 will be an important year with the Latter DaySaints and the American nation." (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Dec. 31, 1889;Larson, The "Americanization" of Utah For Statehood, p. 249) Predictably, the U. S. Supreme Court sustained the pro-[60]visions ofthe Edmunds-Tucker Law, in May of 1890, and the Saints saw their Churchbrought down around them. It was disincorporated, its property escheatedto the government. Any procedure was fair to force the Priesthood torecognize national sovereignty. With almost all leaders in prison or inhiding, businesses toppled or were sold. United Orders were discontinued,and cooperative trade and industry was in a state of decline. Legislationwas proposed for the total destruction of home rule in Utah. Such was the condition of Utah and the Mormons prior to the issuanceof the 1890 Manifesto from President Wilford Woodruff. With all the factsat hand, it is still difficult to realize how intense the persecutionswere among the Mormons. Hundreds were in jail; some were in hiding as longas seven years. The pleas of the people were answered. The Manifesto pleased Saintand Gentile alike. It soon encouraged Mormon-Gentile economic cooperation,complete with mergers, which were a contributing factor in bringing aboutUtah's statehood. But some who had stationed themselves on the winningside found themselves quite disappointed, since the Manifesto also servedto remove the smoke-screen from the face of the real object--their ownpersonal rise to political power. They shouted charges at the Mormons of"insincerity," but the actions and attitude of some of their own peersfavored the Mormon concession, and Utah achieved statehood in 1896.Meanwhile, plural marriage remained underground. In June of 1891, Utah's People's Party was finally dissolved, withits members choosing affiliation with either the Republican or Democraticcamps. The change was not without stress. Switching over to the two-partysystem in Utah caused ripples and rifts among the ranks of the Churchleaders, which resulted in instances of public censure. In 1893, measures for statehood and restoration of personal Church

property were passed, with amnesty for Mormon polygamists granted in 1893and 1894. Statehood in 1896 carried with it the provision that the Mormonswould get into line in abandoning polygamy, the Church would ceasefighting Gentile business claims, and the Church would also "normalize"and leave politics and economics to the persuasions of non-religiousfactions. So Utah achieved statehood, and the Mormon Church was brought toheel. The reader is encouraged to read the details of the events outlinedabove in the volumes of the Most Holy [61] Principle, as well as thedocumented history as recorded in the works of Arrington and Larson. Our intent in citing the foregoing history which led to the signingof the Manifesto, is to present an explanation of the situation thatexisted in the Mormon society, not to present a justification. The Lordhad promised to fight their battles if they would be faithful. He wouldnot give them commandment impossible to obey, or law impossible to live. The Patriarchal Order of Marriage went underground in the days ofJohn Taylor and, through provision made by the Lord through PresidentTaylor, it has remained in a similar position. The principle must beperpetuated because God's laws are binding upon the Priesthood and are notsubject to voting away except as it involves individual free agency. TheLord said he would not revoke the law. The Church made a covenant which it is obligated to honor. It iswritten into the State Constitution of Utah that polygamy is never to rearits head again. Were the Church to sanction polygamy, it would bedisincorporated again, its properties confiscated again, and Utah wouldcease to exist as a state. But the Priesthood made no such covenant, norwould it dare to. It is accountable neither to man and his laws nor to theChurch and her vote. The Church faced its fiery furnace and, generally,yielded. It has to suffer the consequences. It cannot receive blessingsfor laws not lived. But the gospel remains the same, and all blessings arepredicated upon obedience to God's laws. Therefore, it is essential toknow that God's laws are available. In the light of the events as theytranspired, it "makes reason stare" far more to expect the principle ofplural marriage to be found within the framework of the Church, than todiscover that it has to be elsewhere, though under the same Priesthood ofGod. Let us now turn to the Manifesto itself and review it as a documentor directive to the Saints, and as a "revelation." MANIFESTO 1890 Official Declaration "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

"Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from SaltLake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the UtahCommission, in their recent report to the [62] Secretary of the Interior,allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last Juneor during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of theChurch have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practiceof polygamy-- "I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare thatthese charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage,nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny thateither forty or any other number of plural marriages have during thatperiod been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in theTerritory. "One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that themarriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in theSpring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed theceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. Inconsequence of this alleged occurrence, the Endowment House was, by myinstructions, taken down without delay. "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding pluralmarriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court oflast resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and touse my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside tohave them do likewise. "There is nothing in my teachings to the church or in those of myassociates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construedto inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church hasused language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has beenpromptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to theLatter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden bythe law of the land." /s/ WILFORD WOODRUFF (2:443-444) In connection with the Manifesto, several important comments from ourprophets come immediately to mind. Lorenzo Snow said, prior to serving hissentence in prison: "The severest prosecutions have never been followed byrevelations changing a divine law, obedience to which brought imprisonmentor martyrdom." (1:410) We have just outlined the very severe prosecutionsthe Saints were enduring. Was President Snow in error? We can onlyconclude that it would have been a grand contradiction for [63] the Lordto do anything other than provide for the perpetuation of a holy law. Further, Apostle Matthias F. Cowley said in 1901: "None of therevelations of the prophets either past or present have been repealed ....These revelations received by our prophets and seers are all of God, andwe cannot repeal or disannul them without making God out a liar, and God

cannot lie." (Smoot Inv., 1904, 1:8) Was not the 1890 Manifesto todisannul? Joseph Smith warns: "See to it that you do not betray the revelationsof God, whether in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants,or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man inthis world or that which is to come. Lest innocent blood be found on yourskirts, and you go down to hell." (Hist. Rec. 7:468) The revelation oncelestial plural marriage, Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, wasbetrayed. It was repealed as far as many Saints were concerned. We reprint also the Petition For Amnesty which followed on the heelsof the Manifesto. It was presented to the President of the United Stateson December 19, 1891: Petition For Amnesty SALT LAKE, December 19,1891 "We, the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints, beg respectfully to represent to your Excellency thefollowing facts: "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestialmarriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it wasa necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come. That doctrinewas publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, fortyyears ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-daySaints up to a short time before September, 1890. Our people are devoutand sincere, and they accepted the doctrine, and many personally embracedand practiced polygamy. "When the Government sought to stamp the practice out, our people,almost without exception, remained firm, for they, while having no desireto oppose the Government in anything, still felt that their lives andtheir honor as men were pledged to a vindication of their faith; and thattheir duty towards those whose lives were a part of their own was aparamount one, to fulfill which they had no right to count anything, noteven their [64] own lives, as standing in the way. Following thisconviction hundreds endured arrest, trial, fine and imprisonment, and theimmeasurable suffering borne by the faithful people, no language candescribe. That suffering, in abated form, still continues. "More, the Government added disfranchisement to its other punishmentsfor those who clung to their faith and fulfilled its covenants. "According to our faith the head of our Church receives, from time totime, revelations for the religious guidance of his people. "In September, 1890, the present head of the Church, in anguish andprayer, cried to God for help for his flock, and received permission toadvise 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 andrepresenting every community of the people of Utah, and was by them in themost solemn manner accepted as the future rule of their lives. "They have since been faithful to the covenant made that day. "At the last October conference, after a year had passed by, thematter was once more submitted to the thousands of people gatheredtogether, and they again in the most potential manner, ratified the solemncovenant. "This being the true situation and believing that the object of thegovernment was simply the vindication of its own authority and to compelobedience to its laws, and that it takes no pleasure in persecution, werespectfully pray that full amnesty may be extended to all who are underdisabilities because of the operation of the so-called Edmunds andEdmunds-Tucker laws. Our people are scattered; homes are made desolate;many are still imprisoned; others are banished or in hiding. Our heartsbleed for those. In the past they followed our counsels, and while theyare thus afflicted our souls are in sack cloth and ashes. "We believe there are nowhere in the Union a more loyal people thanthe Latter-day Saints. They know no other country except this. They expectto live and die on this soil. "When the men of the South, who were in rebellion against thegovernment in 1865, threw down their arms and asked for recognition alongthe old lines of citizenship, the Government [65] hastened to grant theirprayer. "To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellowcitizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of thegovernment and people, our people have voluntarily put aside somethingwhich all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle. Havethey not the right to ask for such clemency as comes when the claims ofboth law and justice have been fully liquidated? As shepherds of a patientand suffering people, we ask amnesty for them, and pledge our faith andhonor for their future. "And your petitioners will ever pray." Wilford Woodruff George Q. Cannon Joseph F. SmithLorenzo Snow Franklin D. Richards Moses ThatcherFrancis M. Lyman H. J. Grant John Henry Smith John W. Taylor M. W. Merrill Anthon H. Lund Abraham H. Cannon (2:547-9) The Petition is embarrassing. We remember the words of Brigham Young:"There is nothing that would so soon weaken my hope and discourage me asto see this people in full fellowship with the world, and receive no morepersecution from them because they are one with them. In such an event, we

might bid farewell to the Holy Priesthood with all its blessings,privileges and aids to exaltations, principalities and powers in theeternities of the Gods." (J.D., 10:32) The Petition says, "To be at peacewith the Government and in harmony with their fellow citizens ...... In contrast with Brigham Young, a Church President in modern times,Heber J. Grant, said: "My greatest happiness I find in the good will andfriendship that has developed among all classes of people at home andabroad toward the Latter-day Saints, during my lifetime; in place ofeveryday persecutions and bitterness we now enjoy the high regard andhappy association with all denominations." (S.L. Trib., Nov. 22, 1938) Wehave a dilemma here. Which is the sound word? Brigham Young again: "When we see the time that we can willinglystrike hands and have full fellowship with those who despise the Kingdomof God, know ye then that the Priesthood of the Son of God is out of yourpossession!" (J.D., 10:273) How shall we view such a pronouncement, exceptto know of all surety that the Lord made such arrangement as to secure thePriesthood and [66] perpetuate His full law? The direction of our persuasion is unquestionable. Consider James4:4, "Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." "To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellowcitizens ...." The reader may judge for himself. "THAT MANIFESTO" In examining the Woodruff Manifesto, first let it be established thatthe memory of President Wilford Woodruff is deeply reverenced. His lifeand character are beyond reproach, and it is not he who is on trial. Hewas a true servant of the Lord, a man of honor, integrity and deephumility. His life was dedicated to the building up of the Kingdom of God,and he performed a mighty work. When John Taylor approached the Lord in 1886 about acceding to thepressures from within and without the Church, the Lord was firm in Hisunwillingness to revoke the law of plural marriage. John Taylor, afterinquiring of the Lord, said that the Manifesto presented to him by no lessa light than George Q. Cannon, and associates, was "from the lowerregions," and he refused to sign it. As we have outlined, by 1890 President Woodruff and the Church wereagainst the wall. The insistence of the majority of Church members for amove to appease the government was unrelenting. It is reminiscent ofJoseph Smith's importuning the Lord on behalf of Martin Harris to give himpart of the Book of Mormon manuscript. Having been told no, Joseph stillpersisted because of the persuasion of Martin Harris. The Lord yielded,and we know the result. But that incident no more destroyed the Book ofMormon than did the Manifesto destroy plural marriage. President Woodruffwas "inspired" to issue the Manifesto in the same manner that Joseph Smith

was "inspired" to give up the 116 pages of the manuscript to Harris. Inthe same manner, ancient Israel received a king in the stead of a prophet.The king in modern Israel was monogamy. One can blame Wilford Woodruff nomore than one can blame Samuel. The faith of the Saints was wavering, and the temporal salvation ofthe Church was at stake. The attitude of the Saints in 1890 is bothunderstandable and disappointing. They had had [67] crises after crisesheaped upon them. The older Saints had known drivings and plunderingsbefore. They had been greatly outraged by their enemies in Kirtland andNauvoo. But they did not compromise principles. There was no more occasionfor making a public surrender of their principles of salvation inPresident Woodruff's day than there was in the earlier days. The Lordpromised to fight their battles if they would prove faithful. The promiseis restated in the revelations of 1880 and 1889. Nevertheless, theprospects of once again having their temporal achievements crumble aroundthem proved weightier than the prospects of crippling their spiritualprogress by relinquishing a holy law. Additionally, their Church holdingswould also fall into the hands of their enemies. Their assessment of thesufferings ahead was certainly correct. However, a better course was expected of them. Apostle Matthias F.Cowley expressed the feelings of many of the faithful Saints. He said in1901: "I wish to remind you of a certain revelation (1882) given youthrough President Taylor. The command was given to set our quorums andhouses in order, and the promise was that if we should obey the command,God would fight our battles for us; but we did not obey the command, soGod did not fight our battles for us. If we had obeyed that command andrevelation given through President Taylor, there would have been noManifesto." (3:325) (Observation: It does not sound as though ApostleCowley questioned the 1882 revelation as being binding upon the Church.And were it not binding, President Grant had no appointment. To say the1882 revelation must have been binding but the other revelations were not,is absurd.) The situation was, then, that the Saints as a people assumed allresponsibility and voluntarily surrendered plural marriage. They so statedin their Petition For Amnesty. God had nothing to do with it, only insofaras He permitted the people to use their own agency in accepting orrejecting the responsibility of His law. It must be admitted and takeninto account in our analysis of our standing with God, that we cannot giveup principles without suffering the consequences. Incident to an investigation of the Manifesto, one soon learns thatPresident Woodruff did not write it. It was written by Charles W. Penrose,assisted by Elder Frank J. Cannon and John White. After its preparation,it was submitted to a committee of non-Mormons, Judges Charles S. Zane,C.S. Varian, and O.W. Powers, none of whom were well known for theirfriendship for [68] the Mormons and their institutions. A change, ofwording was insisted upon in the Manifesto, and the document was recopied

by a clerk named Green. It would seem unusual that the Lord would dictatea statement to His mouthpiece upon the earth that required a committee torender it intelligible. President Woodruff, fully aware of the situation and the designs ofthe Lord, signed the completed document. But he knew that the fulness ofthe gospel was restored to be perpetuated, that the Manifesto would serveto "beat the devil at his own game." (Stated by Apostle John Henry Smith,2:375-377) The dire circumstances of the time prevented him from making afull disclosure to the Saints, and certainly not to the government, of theseveral purposes the Manifesto would serve. The Lord has often usedSatan's evil to accomplish the Lord's good. The Manifesto rendered untoCaesar that which was his, but God's work was to go on. Diversionarytactics have been employed by the Lord's servants since the beginning oftime. For example, Abraham led King Abimelech to believe Sarah to be hissister. Moses had hidden motive in asking Pharoah's permission for hispeople to go "three days' journey in the wilderness" to worship their God.In 1844 Joseph Smith declared polygamy to be a "false and corrupt"doctrine while he and his associates were living the principle, because itwas necessary to do so. (2:505. See also 1:6, 3:23) President Joseph F.Smith on one occasion said that Joseph practiced plural marriage,"notwithstanding their seeming denials .... Those denials can beexplained, and have been, and while they are true in the sense for whichthey were designed, they are not denials of plural or celestial marriageas taught by Joseph and Hyrum Smith ...." (Hist. Rec. 6:219-220; Des.News, May 20, 1886) The Manifesto was another such necessity in its timeand was also "true in the sense for which it was designed." It, too, hadother purposes to accomplish. Obviously, many of the Saints were ready to take President Woodruff'sadvice. It was good counsel for the willing majority. But celestial pluralmarriage was a "law of the Priesthood." For over 20 years after it wasrevealed to Joseph the Prophet, the Church knew nothing about it. Being alaw of the Priesthood, plural marriage as a law of God cannot be affectedby Church vote, nor can the practice of it. It is a law to the Church, notof it. Nothing less than direct revelation can relieve the Priesthood fromliving that law. The Church leaders took that stand, and their own livesattest to the fact that the Manifesto did not [69] "concern" them. One hasonly to read the Smoot Hearings in the 1904 Congressional Record alone toknow the attitude of the brethren after the 1890 Manifesto. Public record,however antagonistic, was made of plural marriages long after theManifesto among the leading church officials and others. (3:418) If pluralmarriages were to stop, why didn't they? The Apostleship embraces the right to the perpetuation of all therevealed word of God, regardless of the opposition from the devil or man.The privilege of participation in these blessings might, however, bewithdrawn from certain individuals or at various times from the Church, asnecessity demands, in order that God's work might be perpetuated.

President Woodruff issued his advice and then proceeded to arrange forplural marriages to be performed outside the jurisdiction of the UnitedStates. They could well say they were not performing plural marriages,inasmuch as the assignment was given to others. These facts areestablished. They do not sound like the actions of a man commanded by theLord to have the practice stopped. With the issuance of the Manifesto, the Church had taken its firststep in making friends with the government. In its efforts toward itshoneymoon with the world, the Church added an unwritten interpretation toits Manifesto. Samuel W. Taylor records in Family Kingdom: "The Territorywas on its good behavior, desperately trying to be admitted to statehood.In its eagerness to pacify the world, the Church was interpreting theManifesto officially to mean that men shouldn't live with plural wivestaken before the Manifesto, an extremely precarious position becauseeveryone knew there was no intention of following this policy. It was amatter of expediency, the sort of thing that made Father contemptuous ofthe word `policy.'" (page 68) We discover that Joseph F. Smith, presidentof the Church, later insisted that the Manifesto be called the "rule" ofthe Church, not its "law." (3:332) He knew that the Lord did not intendthat His designs would fail. Not all of the plans involving issuing a Manifesto went according toschedule. Clamorings for abandonment of plural marriage by Mormons andnon-Mormons alike had to be heeded. So the policy developed under thecircumstances was: 1) Issue a Manifesto, 2) Make it binding upon theChurch, leaving the Priesthood to act independently of it, particularlyoutside of the United States, 3) Obtain statehood and therebyself-government, 4) Pass legislation favorable to resuming pluralmarriage.[70] However, a fly appeared in the ointment in the form of the stateconstitution. It was set up under the requirements of the Enabling Act of1895, which expressly forbade plural marriages forever without the consentof the President of the United States and of Congress. The mostheartbreaking realization of all was that so large a percentage of Mormonsthemselves were prepared to abandon the principle of plural marriage. That was the situation. The Manifesto is not a blazing issue. It wasincidental to the changing attitude of the Saints and a governmentemploying unconstitutional demands. "An incident but never an essential"more aptly applies to the Manifesto. That the document was necessary atthat time is conceded. But the reason it was necessary is unfortunate,from the standpoint of both Saint and government. The Lord gives all menfreedom to insist. His concern was to save what was savable. That was thereal issue. The Manifesto becomes obscured, and it seems senseless totravail over it as many do. That the document was not a revelation is easily ascertained. Itscontent and presentation leave little doubt that it was formulated by man.Joseph Smith established a key when he was in Liberty Jail: "If anything

should have been suggested by us, or any names mentioned, except bycommandment, or `Thus saith the Lord,' we do not consider it binding."(3:295) If the Manifesto were God's revelation binding all Saints, then theyare most terribly bound indeed. "And Zion cannot be built up unless it isby the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom; otherwise I cannotreceive her unto myself." (D.&C. 105:5) Unless all laws are perpetuated,Zion will never be built up and received by the Lord. The Lord did notdesign for this people to "break the first tablets" and live under the lawof the second. The fulness of the Gospel necessary to exalt mankind wasgiven through the Prophet Joseph to this people, not to be yielded upagain. Orson Pratt said: "Jesus will have to stay a long time in theheavens providing that monogamist principles are the only principles thatwill be introduced. In fact, He never can come, for the scriptures say theheavens must retain him until all things are restored." (J.D. 17:221) Thisis significant. The contemporary writer, Samuel Woolley Taylor, whose book we havealready mentioned, points to another item of truth in his writings: "`People say something will have to be done. Plural marriages aresecret now. I've heard the Principle might be put aside [71] by theChurch. Really.' "His stubborn jaw set. `Whatever is done officially, the Principlewill go on!' "`I don't believe I understand, John.' "`The Principle was a secret doctrine for years before it was givento the world or even to our people as a whole. It may have to become oneagain. That won't change it.' "`But, Brother Taylor, we are guided by revelation. If the Principleis put aside, it will be because of the Lord's command.' "`It will be because of policy,' he said with blunt scorn. `Man hashis free agency. The law of God never changes. Today the Church sanctionsplurality, but only a few have the courage and faith to undertake it. Therest of our people exercise their free agency to reject it. If the Churchabandons the Principle as official policy, it will be exercising its ownfree agency in the matter. And a man `Will still have his free agency toobey the law of God.'" (Family Kingdom, p. 40) This was precisely thesituation. The essence of the matter has been summed up many times. PresidentWoodruff's action, combined with the vote of the people, had the effect ofdiscontinuing the practice of plural marriage as a Church rite, but it inno sense affected the living of the principle under the authority of thePriesthood. President Woodruff, in making arrangement for exercising thesealing authority independent of the Church, was but continuing the actsof President John Taylor in 1886. Again, it is unquestionable that theLord would provide for the continuation of plural marriage in fulfillmentof His words.

Therefore, Lorin Woolley's testimony is one that falls into itsnatural place and position in the Lord's designs. It could not beotherwise. Although there are ceaseless efforts to discredit his testimonyand witness of the eight-hour meeting referred to in preceding pages, ittakes a far greater stretch of the imagination to believe that it did notoccur, than that it did. Opponents of the Woolley testimony base theirclaim on the fact that none of the participants in the eight-hour meetingmade record of the event in their diaries. The very fact that none does,proves that not one of those men, in keeping with the confidence placed inthem, violated that trust by mentioning anything about it. Perpetuation of the Patriarchal Order of Marriage has continueduninterrupted until the present time, despite strange and unauthorizedfactions. It is destined to continue until all [72] things are united asone in Christ. In the Fall, 1971, edition of the Utah HistoricalQuarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 359, we read: "President Woodruff was quotedby Smith [John Henry] as stating at a meeting in the Manti Temple in Mayof 1888 that, `We won't quit practising Plural Marriage until Christ shallcome.'" This is also found in Apostle John Henry Smith's journal underdate of 17 May 1888. In summation, the words of the Lord are explicit. He declared in1880, "That people or nation hindering my people from obeying thePatriarchal law of Abraham, shall be damned." He said in 1882, "Seymourmust conform to my law." He said in 1886, "I have not revoked this law,nor will I" He said in 1889, "I cannot deny my word. Make no furtherpledges." What are we left to conclude? Without the fulness of the Gospel,the earth cannot be redeemed. (See Section Twelve.) It is of interest to note a conversation during the taking ofdepositions in the Temple Lot Case in March of 1892, involving LorenzoSnow: "Question: Well, is it not a fact that it was a rule of he Churchthat if anybody should undertake to follow a principle that was notaccepted, and was not accepted as a principle and true doctrine in theChurch, that they would be violators of a law of the Church? "L. Snow: Yes sir. But there are exceptions to all law." (3:245) That is where the matter stands. THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE ON THE MANIFESTO "That Manifesto" (Fri. 26 Sept. 1890) "It seems that Pres. Woodruff of the Mormon Church has caused adispatch to be sent through the Associated Press to the newspapers of theUnited States, giving his advice to the Latter-day Saints to refrain fromcontracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. It isunnecessary to say that that is not the usual way by which the Presidentof the Mormon Church makes his decrees known." (2:444)

"That Manifesto" (Sat. 27 Sept. 1890) "There is nothing, when we come to examine it closely, in thisManifesto of Pres. Woodruff. He merely says that he advises his people notto engage in polygamy, since the law against it has [73] been declaredconstitutional. That law was declared constitutional by the Supreme Courtyears ago, and since then the predecessor of Pres. Woodruff, in amanifesto very much more imposing than this, declared that for the Saintsto abandon polygamy would be damnation. In this manifesto, Pres. Woodruffcautiously advises the people. That is not the style in which manifestosare given to the Mormon people by their chiefs. That law was the last timedeclared constitutional prior to the meeting of last April's Conference,and yet at that Conference the same old exactions were insisted upon, thesame discipline, the same rules; and there was not one breath of anythingthat looked like giving up polygamy or of relaxing in the slightest onetenet of their faith. "Hence, we believe, and it is with a feeling which is conclusiveevidence on our part, that this Manifesto was not intended to be acceptedas a command by the President of the Church, but as a little bit ofharmless dodging to deceive the people of the East, and especially the menin Congress. ..." (2:448) Following is the testimony of a contemporary witness, who was wellknown by the writer: Salt Lake City, Utah August 4, 1956"Dear Brother ________________: "In response to your inquiry as to authorship of the Manifesto of1890, the following events which occurred on my mission to England andWales during 1907 and 1908, might give you a satisfactory answer. Shouldanyone be interested, I have also made this statement in the form of asworn Affidavit, which was made and placed on file in 1935. "The following is a true and correct statement of an occurrence thattranspired in Bristol, England, on November 16, 17 and 18, in the year1907, while I was on an LDS mission in that country: "By request of Charles W. Penrose, I was transferred from NottinghamConference to Wales, my birthplace, to finish the rest of my mission atthis time. So on the dates named above, I was with President R.J. Smith ofthe Welch District, visiting Saints and investigators in Bristol duringthose three days. President R.J. Smith said to me: `I am glad to have youwith me as I see that you have a strong testimony and implicit faith inGod. With our faith and prayers, Brother Rosser, I desire you to go withme and testify of the knowledge and testimony which you [74] have of thegospel. "`We have one peculiar case here. The investigator believes in everyprinciple of the gospel but Plural Marriage. Perhaps, through the help of

the Lord, we can convince her that this is a true principle. I would liketo have her baptized before the coming conference.' "We then went to this Sister's home, and I was introduced to the ladyby Elder Smith. After a few passing remarks, she said to us: `Brethren, Iam ready for baptism!' Brother Smith was much surprised, as well asmyself. He then said: `What has now taken place?' She then answered,`Brethren, only yesterday while doing my washing out there on the porch, Iheard the voice of the Lord saying that Plural Marriage is true and wasinstituted from before the foundation of the world. Brethren, I am 55years old ... I don't expect to enter the Principle, but nevertheless, Iknow it is true!' Upon hearing this, brother Smith and I left, rejoicingbecause of the testimony she had borne to us. "I then left for Treoracbry, Wales, my birthplace, and labored thereuntil May 23, 1908. Then I went back to Bristol, my headquarters, to aconference, which was held Sunday, May 24, 1908. On Monday morning, the25th, our Conference Priesthood Meeting was held, which lasted four hoursand a half. After the preliminary exercises, President Charles W. Penroseasked if any of the brethren had any questions on their minds, and if so,to present them now before he delivered his message to us. "Up went my hand. `All right,'he said. `President Penrose,' I said,`I have heard much discussion on the principle of Plural Marriage, somesaying that it is withdrawn from the earth and that the Manifesto was arevelation from God. Dear President, what about this case? Then I relatedto him the testimony of the Sister, which is written above, and then Iasked him, `Why should she receive this testimony if God has withdrawnthat principle from the earth, and the Manifesto is a true revelation fromGod?' "President Penrose then rose to his feet, scratched the side of hishead with his right hand for a moment or so, then stretched out his righthand toward us and said, `Brethren, I will answer that question, if youwill keep it under your hats. I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifestowith the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. It's no revelationfrom God, for I wrote it. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the Devil athis own game. Brethren, how can God withdraw an everlasting Principle fromthe earth? He has not, and can not, and I testify to you as a [75] servantof God that this is true.' "The reason this statement is given is because I have heard so muchdiscussion as to whether or not the Manifesto of 1890 is a revelation fromGod, and so I wish to relate here with the understanding given to us atthe Bristol Conference by Charles W. Penrose on May 25,1908." Sincerely your brother, Thomas J. Rosser [76]

[77] SECTION SIX "CAST OUT OF OUR SYNAGOGUES" Marriage is one of the spires of the spirit. It is a "time ofhyacinths" for those who have recognized a former covenant in the stillcenter of their souls. The delicate imprint of their former celestial homeremains in heart and soul, and they know that exaltation is a familything. The holiness of marriage was taught by God Himself in the Garden ofEden. Altars and Temples where sacred ordinances can be performed are avital part of the history of God's dealings with man. At great sacrificeand privation, the Saints caught the spirit of Temple work and forgedahead to build their Temples, for man must have a holy, sacred placewherein he covenants again with God. Who does not rejoice in going to the House of the Lord, the idealplace and setting to unite companions in holy marriage for time and alleternity? Who does not rejoice before the holy altars there? But some ofthe Saints have been cast out. What of them? They are found dedicated tothe full law of celestial plural marriage, and they have been cast out. Itis often said, "Those plural marriages cannot be binding because celestialmarriages cannot be performed except in the Temples." What of thosemarriages? We refer to a similar occasion in the scriptures. Approximatelyseventy-four years before the birth of the Lord, a group of Nephitedissenters, the Zoramites, were visited by the Prophet Alma. Alma found alarge group of people who had become somewhat distasteful to the majority.In this case it was because of their "exceeding poverty," because of the"coarseness of their apparel." Their humble cottages were no match for thelocal Rameumptom which graced the center of the synagogues, presided overby the more affluent. With the perception of his prophetic calling, Almasaw that their hearts were poor and humbled because of theircircumstances, and he rejoiced. Here was fertile field for the word ofGod. Downcast and disheartened, the people inquired of Alma as to how theycould worship God when they were denied access to the synagogues. Almareplied, "Behold thy brother hath said, [78] `What shall we do?--for weare cast out of our synagogues, that we cannot worship our God.' Behold Isay unto you, do ye suppose that ye cannot worship God save it be in yoursynagogues only? ... Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship yourGod because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say untoyou, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and yeought to search the scriptures; if ye suppose that they have taught youthis, ye do not understand them." (Alma 32:9-10, 33:2) Alma taught them of the worship of God whether in synagogue orwilderness, whether in the fields or in the midst of congregations. To

worship God involves more than prayer and tithing and meetings. Itinvolves the keeping of all of His commandments, participation in all ofthe ordinances restored to man for the sanctification of his life and forthe glory of God. To cast someone out of the Lord's Church is a grievousthing, and it may or may not have the sanction of the Lord. However,judgment and setting in order belong to the Lord and are in His hands.Plural marriage was ordained of God, and those living that principle underthe Priesthood of God are as much entitled to the blessings of Heaven andthe benediction of God as were any who entered into the principle sinceits introduction, providing they abide in it with the intention of servingGod with an eye single to His glory. It is not in harmony with the prophets of God to assume that suchmarriages cannot be performed outside of the Temples. Our traditions havebecome so ingrained, that were Lorenzo Snow, Heber C. Kimball, JohnTaylor, Brigham Young and the Prophet Joseph himself to walk among ustoday, they would have to be excommunicated for their actions. All ofthose holy men, and others, had wives sealed to them outside of theTemples. Anthony W. Ivins had no Temples in Mexico, nor was there one inCanada before 1923, and certainly none was to be found upon the high seas.Countless lay members of the Church since its organization up to the timeof the Manifesto and subsequent to that time, had their wives sealed tothem by the Priesthood in offices or homes or in the woods or uponmountain tops, by those holding the authority of the sealing power. Fewwould undertake to dispute that fact. We are taught by Brigham Young: "There are many of the ordinances ofthe house of God that must be performed in a Temple that is erectedexpressly for the purpose. There are [79] other ordinances that we canadminister without a Temple .... We also have the privilege of sealingwomen to men without a temple. This we can do in the Endowment House; butwhen we come to other sealing ordinances, ordinances pertaining to theHoly Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from Father Adamuntil now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for ourforefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a Temple. But we can sealwomen to men, but not men to men, without a Temple." (J.D. 16:186) It must be understood that without celestial or plural marriage,there is no eternity of the marriage covenant, for so the prophets havestated. (See the Summary) Therefore, all of the Temples in the world willhave no influence in eternity if the full marriage law has not beenentered into. It becomes as much a state of monogamy if performed withinthe precincts of a Temple as it is if performed outside of a Temple, if aman remains with one wife. "Temple marriages" do not fill God's law ofeternal marriage, in a monogamous state. The Lord specifies that withoutplural marriage, there can be no eternal sealing. We have cited referenceson that issue throughout this work. The Temple, the altar, the sincerityof the people cannot sanctify or make eternal a marriage, if it is not

performed after the order of eternal lives. If we no longer have the rightgiven us to perform plural marriages, then we must accept that there areno eternal marriages performed. President Joseph F. Smith makes thisexceedingly plain in Section One, to which the reader may again refer. Let us consider for a moment the first part of our marriage vows, thecovenant we make in the Temple. These are the words to which we listen inour ceremony, and they are only part: "Do you, brother _____, take sister_____, by the right hand, to be your lawful and wedded wife, and you to beher lawful and wedded husband, for time and for all eternity, with acovenant and promise on your part that you will fulfill all the laws,rites and ordinances pertaining to this holy matrimony in the new andeverlasting covenant, doing this in the presence of God, angels, and thesewitnesses, of your own free will and choice?" (Mill. Star, 15:214) Thesame is then asked of the sister on her part. If that marriage completes the covenant, if that marriage fills thefull law, why are the parties placed under covenant "that you will fulfillall the laws, rites and ordinances" pertaining to [80] that covenant?What, then, are "all the laws, rites and ordinances" pertaining to themarriage covenant? Have the married partners entered into any morecovenants pertaining to holy matrimony? We promise to "fulfill" them asthey pertain to the everlasting covenant of marriage, and theyspecifically involve the full law of celestial plural marriage as revealedthrough the Prophet Joseph Smith and as outlined in D.&C. Section 132. Itis the law. It is the order practiced in the heavens, of which the orderon earth is a pattern. (See Section Ten, page 136) Therefore, unless thelaw is fulfilled, what is a "Temple marriage" but monogamy for the verysame reason it would be monogamy on the outside of the Temple? There ismore to the law and covenant, and the prophets have made that very clear.The Lord has given us the true order of marriage by commandment, and it isbinding upon the Priesthood of this dispensation. It is a blessing to havemarriages performed within the Lord's House. But if it is not possible,they can be entered into in righteousness and sacredness by Priesthoodauthority outside of those structures. Apostle Charles C. Rich emphasized in 1877: "... A Temple is theproper place in which to perform these sacred ordinances. We learn fromour past history and experience that there have been deviations from thisrule from time to time.... There are ordinances that can only beadministered in a Temple, hence the importance of completing the Temple sothat these ordinances may be administered for the living and for the dead.In relation to this deviation from this rule pertaining to sealings andendowments, we understand that the Priesthood is greater than the Temple,and that which is sealed on earth by those holding the keys, is sealed inheaven." (J.D. 19:164) John Taylor also puts our minds at rest: "I was asked if certainordinances could be performed in different places. I told them, yes, undercertain circumstances. `Where,' I was asked `anywhere besides in temples?'

Yes. `Anywhere besides the Endowment House?' Yes. `Where, in some otherhouse?' In another house or out of doors, as the circumstances might be.... Thus under such circumstances we perceive that our operationselsewhere will be all correct; it makes no difference. It is the authorityof the Priesthood, not the place, that validates and sanctifies theordinance. I was asked if people could be sealed outside. Yes. I have toldthem I was sealed outside, and lots of others .... I will say that man wasnot made for Temples, but Temples were made for man, under the directionof the Priest-[81]hood, and without the Priesthood Temples would amount tonothing. "I speak of these things for your information; but men are notauthorized to act foolishly about these matters. The Temples are placesthat are appropriated for a great many ordinances, and among theseordinances that of marriage; but, then if we are interrupted by men who donot know about our principles, that is all right, it will not impede thework of God, or stop the performance of ordinances. Let them do theirwork, and we will try and do ours." (1:343-345) Under present circumstances, the Saints desiring to abide by afulness of the laws of the Lord are positively prohibited from receivingthis ordinance in Temples dedicated for the use of the Priesthood inadministering the law of the Lord. The Temples do not rule, the Priesthooddoes, and other places may be sanctified as Temples when necessitywarrants, as it has in the past and as it does presently. After Alma had concluded talking to the Zoramite poor, his companion,the prophet Amulek, spoke to them. His words are significant to everyLatter-day Saint: "This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God;yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform theirlabors .... For after this day of life, which is given us to prepare foreternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, thencometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed."(Alma 34:32-35) The full law of the gospel is for here and now. (Note alsoD.&C. 132:22-24) The wheels of history seem always to grind toward a full circle. TheNephites were cast out of their synagogues. Many in Christ's time werealso cast out. We note the attitude of a few in Christ's day of whom weunfortunately have counterparts in our day: "Nevertheless among the chiefrulers also many believed on him; But because of the Pharisees they didnot confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogues." (John12:42) There are many among the Latter-day Saints with like fears. Butthere are also many who will go forward in God's laws regardless of thecost, for they are not willing to walk in by-paths and live at a "poordying rate." Therefore, many among us suffer being "cast out of thesynagogue." But we understand that because of His insistence upon living the fulllaw, even the Lord lost His Temple recommend.

[82] [83] SECTION SEVEN CONTEMPORARY WITNESSES These are times of increasing peril to the Saints. It is most urgentthat the people should possess the spirit of revelation in their ownhearts. Plural marriages under the umbrella of Priesthood authority havenever ceased. The things of God are known by the Spirit of God, and weinvite all Latter-day Saints to know for themselves that our witness isGod's truth. We present here some items of supportive evidence of the works of Godin the matter under consideration, in order to make such evidence a matterof record. But it is a weighty responsibility. Some available evidencemust be held in reserve until a future time when it will reflect neitherupon the Church nor upon individuals who are involved, or whose familymembers are still living and would suffer from untimely disclosure. Wetrust it may be generally accepted that a little evidence is indicative ofmore evidence, and the following is presented for consideration. It is critical to understand that this work is not an effort againstthe Church or its members, for it is folly to build up on the one hand andtear down on the other. Rather, the intent is singular, to support andgive substance to the issue of plural marriage and its uninterruptedperpetuation. May we note first that Dr. Hugh W. Nibley's book, SinceCumorah, poses a position relative to the rationalists and believers ofvery early days, which is definitive in its application to our presentissue. He writes of a "horizontal" and a "vertical" type of religion, orthe influences within a religion. The latter has revelation from God andwalks in obedience to His commandments. The former does the best it canand walks in obedience to the forms and observances according to thepressures of the world. (p. 272) This concept is, of course, not onlyapplicable to religions, but it applies very distinctly to everyindividual. We are also, in varying degrees, rationalists or believers andcourt motivation through horizontal or vertical seeking. The spirit ofrevelation is the true guide to know of the things of God. It was the privilege of the writer, together with six witnesses, nowliving, to examine the Diary of President Anthony W. Ivins. Just prior tothe death of his son, Elder Stanley Ivins, [84] we were invited to hishome in 1965. Stanley Ivins assured us at that time that the diary wouldbe entrusted to the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. We were informed thathe, Stanley, had offered the diary to President Heber J. Grant, who saidthe diary was "too hot to keep." Upon examination, we found the recorded dates and names of severalhundred marriages performed at the Anthony W. Ivins Mansion at Colonia

Juarez, Chihuahua, Old Mexico. Elder Stanley Ivins showed us the names ofmany couples, about 100 or more in number, which he said were "likelyplural marriages." The six men, as well as the writer, were able to personally identifymany of the persons Elder Ivins thought were parties to plural marriages.Among them were Presidents of Stakes and others of high ecclesiasticalauthority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some of thecouples were near-relatives to the six witnesses. Among these were theparents and grandparents of three of the six, which was substantiated byElder Stanley Ivins, who also knew them. These three are the offspring ofthose illustrious couples joined in holy wedlock by President Anthony W.Ivins. The couples were married by the authority of his Apostolicappointment, in his own Mansion. These unions were sanctioned by thePresident of the Church, to their certain knowledge. Moreover, those thussealed were engaged in the practice of plural marriage, with the marriagessanctioned many years after the 1890 Manifesto. Their numerous offspringare yet to be found in great numbers among the most faithful in theChurch. Many who were listed as witnesses of these sealings were alsoengaged, to the certain knowledge of the six, in the sanctioned practiceof celestial plural marriage. An estimate was given in the ImprovementEra, about 1969, to the effect that 65% of the Elders in the mission fieldhad polygamous parentage. Three of the six, as stated, found verification of the testimoniesthey heard from their parents that President Ivins had indeed performedthese marriages, some as late as the fall of 1903. The exact place anddates and witnesses were in every instance fully established. We do notfeel free at this time to name these noble people. To do so wouldcertainly embarrass those who are ashamed of the truth. "And truth isknowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are tocome." (D.&C. 93:24) Further, to do so might endanger the standing in theChurch of many of its worthy representatives. Others might [85] well beexcommunicated, as many have been, for offering proof of the existence ofsuch truth. Prison threatens others, as many already know, because theywere obliged to acknowledge these things as true. At any rate, the diary is numbered among the evidence of theperpetuation of plural marriage within the Church, in contradiction to theManifesto of 1890, and in support of the words of the Lord and the ProphetJoseph. (D.&C. 112:30, 128:18) The writer's father was a young man of 17 years in St. Charles, BearLake County, Idaho, in 1887, when Apostle John W. Taylor visited theSaints there. He took father aside on that occasion and read the 1886revelation to him. Apostle Taylor told the writer's father that theprinciple of plural marriage would never be done away and would be lived. In 1901-2, the writer's father was in a Ward Bishopric in StarValley, Wyoming. The Stake President, George Osmond, came to him and readfrom the 1882 revelation to John Taylor. President Osmond told the

writer's father that no man could stand in a presiding position in theChurch unless he had a family in order and was living the law of pluralmarriage, in accordance with that revelation. The writer's father mulledthe situation over for a considerable time. The admonition that he had toconform to the law compelled him finally to write a letter to PresidentJoseph F. Smith, concerning the issue of plural marriage. He was furthermotivated to do so by the fact that his first wife had experienced a dreamin which she saw her husband's second wife, the writer's mother. No answerwas received to his letter to President Smith. However, two months later, Louis A. Kelsch, one of the Presidents ofthe Council of Seventy of the Church, came to the Conference which washeld in Montpelier, Idaho, in 1902. He contacted the writer's father afterthe first meeting of Conference. Elder Kelsch told him that he had beensent to him by President Joseph F. Smith, in answer to his letter. He hadbeen told to warn father that Apostle Francis M. Lyman, who was the Seniorrepresentative from the Authorities at the Conference, was not to be toldof the matter regarding father's inquiry into plural marriage. Father talked to him in the meeting house, along with his first wife,and asked what he should do. After the talk they met with Dr. ArthurBenjamin Clark, father of the writer's mother, and made arrangements to goto dinner with them at the latter's home. At this home, the writer'sfather and mother and the first [86] wife made arrangements as to how toproceed to enter into the holy law. The writer's mother was instructed to go to Logan to get her TempleEndowments. The parties were informed that the President of the Templewould be made aware of the circumstances. Then she was to meet father inGreen River, Utah, and father would be there with his first wife, ready togo to Old Mexico where President Ivins would seal them in the New andEverlasting Covenant of Marriage. President Ivins would have alreadyreceived a recommendation from President Joseph F. Smith, withinstructions to perform the ceremony. President Ivins did perform theceremony, having received a recommendation carried by father, stating,"This is to verify that the bearer, ______, is worthy and qualified toenter into the United Order." The sealing in plural marriage was July 15,1903. This same couple, the writer's parents, was at the dedication of theCardston Temple on August 26, 1923. President Heber J. Grant dedicated thebuilding. The couple had with them all of their living children, nine innumber. The mother had been sealed, as stated above, in plural marriage inOld Mexico by Anthony W. Ivins. They had been instructed by PresidentIvins that if ever they should have opportunity to go into one of theTemples and have their sealing re-performed, that it might be a matter ofrecord in the Temple and on the records of the Church, that they shouldtake advantage of that opportunity. Just prior to his Dedicatory Prayer, President Grant had joyouslyrelated how Apostle John W. Taylor had been sitting "in that chair" as a

witness to all the proceedings. This because Apostle Taylor had propheciedin the name of the Lord that this holy house should be reared anddedicated on this exact spot. The reader should perhaps be reminded thatApostle Taylor was dead and had long since been excommunicated from theChurch for the practice of plural marriage in the United States after theManifesto. Yet, this excommunicated Apostle was privileged to be presentin this holy house at its Dedication, and his presence was witnessed bynone other than the president of the Church. After President Grant's Dedicatory Prayer, those blessed to have theprivilege of attending were slowly dispersing. The Temple President,Edward Wood, stood near by. The couple who had been married in pluralmarriage by President Ivins in Old Mexico in 1903, approached PresidentGrant. Their children stood by as witnesses. As the father related theinstructions of [87] President Grant called, "Edward!" President Ivins,Wood came to his side. "Take this couple to the holy altar. Seal them asman and wife for time and for all eternity. Then seal their children tothem" directed President Grant to President Wood. The couple are now dead,but eight of their children still live as witnesses to this importantoccurrence. The mother of these above witnesses told us that she personally hadattended and witnessed a number of the plural marriages performed byPresident Ivins. She stated she personally knew about 75 couples who hadentered into plural marriage after the Manifesto, in Old Mexico. She saidthat she and Winnie Porter Jessop had attended the marriage of Guy C.Wilson, Stake President in Juarez (who lived with three wives in Salt LakeCity), when he had the daughter of President Anthony W. Ivins sealed tohim as a plural wife in 1906. (President Ivins for some reason seems tohave escaped the normal procedure of excommunication.) She stated that the writer's grandfather, her father, had his fifthwife sealed to him in 1905, that at least six couples had been sealed inthe plural relationship after 1904, after the pronouncement of PresidentJoseph F. Smith that plural marriages had "ceased in all the world." Both parents of the writer related that their grandfather (father'sfather) had attended the L.D.S. Conference at Salt Lake City in 1890,having traveled from Star Valley, Wyoming. Grandfather had with him hisfirst and second wives and a lovely young lady of about 21 years, whodesired to enter their family as a plural wife. At the Conference, the Manifesto was presented and adopted. Thesefine people were deeply concerned. They hastened to President Woodruff forinstruction, relating to him their hopes and dreams, now seemingly dashed.He said, "As President of the Church, I cannot counsel you in this matter.I will send you to an Apostle. Will you promise to follow his directions?"This they promised to do. They were sent to Apostle Matthias F. Cowley. Hetold them how they could realize their hopes and dreams. Subsequently, theyoung woman was sealed as a third wife to Grandfather. Her children arefaithful members of the Church all of them.

The above serves to corroborate the statement made to the writer by agrandson of Wilford Woodruff. In 1970, this son of Apostle Abraham OwenWoodruff described his experience as a [88] lad when he rode around "onthe buckboard" with Anthony W. Ivins and Matthias F. Cowley, as theysealed plural marriages to help keep the principle alive in the earth. Wilford Woodruff's granddaughter presently lives in the Salt LakeValley. She told the writer in 1970 that her mother was sealed to herfather, son of Wilford Woodruff, in the Salt Lake Temple in 1903, byMatthias F. Cowley. This event is indicated in the family Bible in herpossession. This history was submitted in May 1969 to the Galena Camp ofthe Far South Salt Lake County Camp of Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. Herfather, Wilford Woodruff's son, died in 1960. As formerly stated, among the plural marriages performed by AnthonyW. Ivins were those performed by the request of the Presidency of theChurch. The writer has spoken personally with a former Stake President ofa neighboring state, who is presently living in the Salt Lake Valley. AsPresident, he received a letter from President Heber J. Grant in 1941,instructing him to permit a member of his Stake High Council to enter intothe principle, but it was not to be made known. We wonder if PresidentGrant should not have been excommunicated. The wife of one of these six witnesses to President Ivins' Diarywrote to ask President Heber J. Grant if her husband's father and motherhad truly, as her husband insisted, been sealed by President Anthony W.Ivins in plural marriage in Old Mexico. This excerpt is taken fromPresident Grant's letter, under date of November 15, 1935: "Your letter ofOctober 19 came during my absence from the City. I have read it for thefirst time today. For a period of time after the issuing of the Manifesto,plural marriages were performed in Old Mexico. I have not the slightestdoubt that President Ivins performed the sealing uniting your husband'sfather and mother in polygamy in Mexico before this pronouncement ofPresident Joseph F. Smith (1904: 3:368-369). He has performed no suchceremony in the United States for any living person." Again, the writer knows positively that the President of a Stake,Heber Allen, with whom he was intimately acquainted, had a second wifesealed to him in Canada in 1912. President Joseph F. Smith, as has beenmentioned, instructed a select group of people there to enter thatprinciple, and President Allen was among the number. His second wife was ateacher in the Raymond Academy, Alberta, Canada. In his declining years hemoved to Salt Lake City and died in 1956 while residing in the [89] homeof his second wife. The writer was personally acquainted with both of thewives of this man, as well as the circumstances which motivated theirliving plural marriage. President Ephraim Chapman, for forty years President of the MantiTemple, died in 1954. He left three plural wives whose names were listedin his obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune. One of the three was thewriter's aunt, who had borne President Chapman a number of children since

the year 1912. In 1951, Nellie Todd Taylor, plural wife of Apostle John W. Taylor,visited the writer and his family. She spoke of the revelations of 1882and 1886 and bore witness of her marriage to John W. Taylor many yearsafter the Manifesto, and of the necessity to go "on the underground." Shesaid she had given the 1886 revelation to Frank Taylor, who took it to theChurch Authorities. Later when she went to see it, they "couldn't findit." Such evidences are without end, that although plural marriages werestopped "by the Church in all the world," it did not stop God or HisPriesthood from performing such marriages. The several issuances of"little manifestos" subsequent to 1890, had the same intent and effect asdid the original, including President Smith's necessary 1904 statement.The government was prodding again. There was a very efficient "underground" system in operation forseveral years, particularly during 1885-1889. President John Taylor calledseveral trusted men around him, all of those named in the eight-hourmeeting. One of those included was Elder Samuel Bateman, trusted bodyguardto President Taylor and subsequently, to President Woodruff. He was amember of the Kingdom of God organization. We wish to include in thisSection some excerpts from the book, "Little Gold Pieces," written bySamuel Bateman's daughter. Juliaette Bateman Jensen, under copyright dateof 1948. She was a sister to Daniel R. Bateman. Her writings include itemsfrom her father's diary. We think the readers will find it of interest. Page 101: The author of the book writes: "There were various hidingplaces called by secret names; they were usually designated by initials,such as D O, the G Q C farm, O P A's or The Half-way House ... in everycity and town of any size there were hideouts, homes of trusted men andwomen who were willing to share all they had, and who ran a great riskthemselves for harboring fugitives from the law. Sometimes these hideouts[90] were the homes of relatives .... But generally speaking, the Exilesdid not go to homes of relatives who might be under suspicion. They soughtrefuge with reliable members of the Church who had little or no connectionwith the polygamists." She then writes a description of the system of guards and signalsthat were effectively used. Page 103: The author continues: "Life became exceedingly difficultfor Mother and Aunt Harriet, Father's plural wife, during the yearsbetween 1885 and 1889, when my father fled into Exile with other men.Fortunately he was chosen by the president of the Church, John Taylor, tobe his chief body-guard, and later his nurse in his final illness." Chapter 17 in the book is entitled, "Our Home a Hideout For PluralWives." Chapter 18, entitled "D O," records an excerpt from her father'sdiary under date of August 26, 1886: "All day at D O. Reading, pitchingquoits. D. R. Bateman came to where we are. At night Pratt and Burt came.

They thought the deps were on our track." The author continues: "According to other records, President JohnTaylor went into Exile February 1, 1885, for what he considered the bestgood of the Church. I think my father must have entered the Underground atthe same time because his diary shows that he was special guard ofPresident Taylor's person, and also his nurse and companion. I presume hewas, at that time, head of all the guards from Bountiful to Kaysville." Page 114: In the author's words, "Every evening after dark someone,H. C. Birrell, James Malin, or Father went with the mail to the Half-wayHouse. There he met the man from Salt Lake City. Mail bags were exchanged.Sometimes C. H. Wilcken brought the mail. Often men went to Salt Lake, oron to D O, with the mail carriers. Father frequently speaks of meeting D.R. B., his son, who brought special letters and packages from home." Page 117: Samuel Bateman's writings: "In May of that same year, 1887,the 17th, they received word at D O that the deputies were `calculating tomake a general raid from Bountiful to Kaysville.' I had Bro. Rouche seethat the guards were put out promptly at night. A. M. Cannon went home.James (Malin) went after the mail to the Half-way House. Bro. Wooley wenthome." Notice the names of those trusted by President Taylor and George Q.Cannon. Notice also the less than exalted respect they held for the law ofthe land, as it pertained to their religious [91] freedom. Page 119: "Sunday, Feb. 27, 1887 . . . President Taylor's wife,Sophia, died, could not attend her funeral, held Sunday services. Bro.Wilcken, Bro. Nuttall and myself were the only ones that spoke." Page 120: The death of President Taylor: "There were around his dyingbed, Mary Taylor, Margaret Taylor, his widows; Pres. G. Q. Cannon, Pres.J. F. Smith (just returned from Hawaii), L. J. Nuttall, C. H. Burrell,James Malin, Bro. Rouche and wife." "D O" was the home of Thomas F. Rouche, in Kaysville, Utah. Page 123: Samuel Bateman's diary states: "Went to the President'soffice. Met D. H. Wells and shook hands with him and Bro. Penrose. Bro.G.Q.C. and J.F.S. and myself went down to Bro. Cannon's home. One other ofBro. Smith's wives was there. We remained overnight." Notice especially the following notation made by the author. Thebrethren involved in the "underground" took special care as to what wasrecorded in their diaries. Page 123: "These early trips to the President'sOffice had to be made before the world was stirring. While the meetingswere in session, men were on guard to warn the Church Authorities of theapproach of any man that aroused suspicion. His accounts are verycarefully recorded." Make note of that, because it is true. Shall we fallin, then, with the multitude who say the eight hour meeting of 1886 whenthe Lord and Joseph instructed John Taylor to see that plural marriage wasperpetuated, did not happen because it is in no diaries at that time, onthat date, in that year? Could we realistically expect that event to bewritten out in a diary?

The author continues: "Often he leaves out names of buildings andmerely writes, `the place where we were.'" Page 125: Samuel Bateman became a guard and driver for President W.Woodruff and his counselors after the death of President John Taylor. Page 134: The author again: "Some years later (after 1890 Manifesto)new offenders were excommunicated, among them my brother, Daniel, who,during the days of the Underground, had helped guard the lives of theChurch authorities then in hiding. He had grown up in polygamy andbelieved in it sincerely, but he did not enter it until after the death ofhis wife Ellen. This was some twenty years or more after the Manifestowhich he did [92] not support." Page 241: The author writes of her visit to "D O" in Kaysville onJuly 28, 1946: "Mrs. Rouche (a daughter-in-law) took us to visit ElizabethBailey Smith, who lived nearly a half mile away. She was a young woman atthe time of the President's death, and she was in the room at that time.... She said Uncle Sam (Bateman), Pres. George Q. Cannon, Big Charlie(Wilcken), Little Charlie (C. H. Burrell), and James Malin lived therealmost constantly during the eight months. President Joseph F. Smith wasthere a great deal of the time, and there were many others." These excerpts from the book are of interest because they reflect theconditions of those times, the attitude of the Church leaders toward thelaw, and more particularly showing who the trusted men were in those days.They were men of honor and integrity toward God and His servants upon theearth, and toward the restored law of plural marriage. These same men werewitnesses to the events surrounding the 1886 revelation which was toperpetuate the principle. They were close to and trusted by President JohnTaylor and President Wilford Woodruff and President Joseph F. Smith. Wewould have to swallow quite a camel to dispute the events of the fall of1886. A similar publication of interest was produced in October of 1956. Itis A Review of Draper History, published by the Draper First Ward. Wequote from pages 22-24, entitled, "The Underground." "In 1883 and the succeeding years to 1890, there were manyprosecutions for polygamy against the Latter-day Saints. In January, 1885,President John Taylor felt that it was wise for him and a number of theTwelve to leave Utah until the storm had spent in fury. These brethrentraveled to settlements in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.They returned to Utah in 1886 and learned that President Taylor's arrestwas planned by the non-Mormon officers. "President Taylor went into `retirement' and was not found by thenon-Mormon officers. He continued to direct the Church and from time totime issued epistles addressed to the Saints. "During the summer of 1886 or 1887, President Taylor and his partycame to Draper and lived in the home of Henry Day. Included in this partywere: President John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, John Nuttall, theirscribe--Charles Burrell, President Taylor's valets--Samuel Bateman and

Charles Wilkins, and bodyguards--Andrew Burt, Jr., Daniel Bateman and aman [93] named Pratt. "The Day house was favorably situated. It was quite a distance fromthe main traveled roads and made an ideal retreat for the brethren. Guardswere posted along the roads and the citizens were on the alert. Whenvisitors came, the brethren were always out of sight. On such occasionsthe men were walking in the orchard or pitching horseshoes. "They held Sacrament meeting every Sunday and Fast meeting once amonth. Frequently the Day family would meet with the brethren for aprogram. "They sent mail to Salt Lake City every day on the Southern PacificRailroad. Charles Burrell carried the mail most of the time butoccasionally Andrew or George Day would change with him so people wouldnot wonder why a strange man should meet the train every evening. "The mail was placed in a small basket with a tight lid and waslocked. This basket was put in a grain sack and carried to the depot. Ifany strangers were around they would say to the man, `Give this to mybrother when you get to Salt Lake City.' "This system was carried on for a short time. Then they decided itwould be safer to take it by horse and buggy to Union where they were metby someone from Salt Lake City and the mail was exchanged. "Guards wereposted along all important roads leading into Draper. If any suspiciouslooking buggies or strangers came along, certain signals were given towarn the President and his party. "One night a false signal was given. The men were aroused as quicklyas possible. They dressed and hid themselves in some willows along thebank of an irrigation ditch. Their belongings were hidden and PresidentTaylor was taken to George Stringfellow's place, one and one-fourth milesfrom the Day home. He stayed there until it was safe for him to return. "While the brethren were living at the Day home, George Q. Cannon'swife died. He wanted to go home to her funeral but was afraid he would betaken prisoner. He dressed in women's clothing and put on a hat with aheavy veil and went to the funeral. "During their stay in Draper, President Taylor was stricken with asevere cold and was ill for some time. As soon as his health wassufficiently improved, he and his party left." Most of the leaders of the Church would have sacrificedany-[94]thing, including their very lives (some did), to live all of theholy ordinances of the gospel and keep them alive. Little wonder thatPresident Taylor, when presented with a manifesto, was filled with theSpirit of God and declared, "Sign that document, never! I would suffer myright hand to be severed from my body first. Sanction it, never! I wouldsuffer my tongue to be torn from its roots in my mouth before I wouldsanction it!" We present another interview. This was recorded on November 28, 1969,in the Salt Lake Valley. The interview was with Douglas M. Todd, Jr., a

former Stake President: Question: "Did your father take his two living wives after theManifesto?" Answer: "The story pertaining to that is this: After my mother died(I don't know the dates right off--how long it was), he had these twochildren to care for: my sister, who is still living and is eighteenmonths older than I am and lives in Farmington, and myself. His secondmarriage turned out very badly for those two half-orphans, as she was verystrict and harsh in her discipline. Father was a science teacher in theBrigham Young College in Logan at the time. "Apostle Merrill, the father of the late Apostle Merrill, was veryclose to my father, and Father always consulted him about various matters.They were in the Logan Temple one day, and Father was pouring out hisheart to Brother Merrill, and was so distressed because of his homeconditions he didn't know what to do. Brother Merrill said, `Well, BrotherDouglas, why don't you get yourself another wife?' Now I was born in '89,and this would be somewhere in the '90's, after the Manifesto, in about1908. And Father said, `Well, Brother Merrill, I didn't suppose anythinglike that could be done.' He said, `You use your wisdom and keep yourcounsel and do it quietly and make a home for those children.' "So not long after this he called a young lady, Hannah McMurray,aside one day, and explained what his situation was and what he wanted,and asked her if she felt that she could undertake a mission of that kind,and she said yes. And they were married by Matthias F. Cowley, down herein Salt Lake, above where the Capitol building is--up on the hill. (Thearea now called `Memory Grove.') Father put her under the wing of AuntNellie. So Father went into that after the Manifesto. "I might tell you another experience that occurred. Father was amember of the General Board of the Young Men's Mutual. [95] And in thosedays the President of the Church was the superintendent of the Young Men'sMutual, and that continued down to Joseph F. Smith, and possibly intoPresident Grant's administration. I don't remember just when it waschanged. But father used to attend board meetings, and of course PresidentSmith would have to be there. But sometimes President Smith would be sooccupied in his office, that they would have to wait in the adjoining roomfor him to come in. B. H. Roberts was one of President Smith's counselorsin the Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association. "One day this circumstance occurred: B. H. Roberts was there, and myfather, and most all the other members of the Board, They got into adiscussion about plural marriage. This was a time when the agitation aboutplural marriage was at its height, and it was a very common topic. So theyfell to discussing this subject. B. H. Roberts, as you know, was a verypowerful, and forceful speaker. He pounded the table and said, "There willnever be a year go by, but what in some way, somehow, children will beborn under that covenant.' Now they hadn't noticed, but just before this,President Smith had stepped into the room, and when he heard this

discussion he just stood there; they didn't know of his presence. After B.H. Roberts had made this declaration before all the people there, frombehind them came a resounding `Amen' from Joseph F. Smith. I got that frommy father, who was present." (3:330) That was a significant statement from both B. H. Roberts andPresident Smith at that time, inasmuch as President Smith's tenure ofoffice was from 1901 and 1918. It seems to lend little strength to the1890 Manifesto. The writer has in his possession another taped interview. This onewas on December 17, 1969, and was with Dessie Grant Boyle, daughter ofPresident Heber J. Grant. We give an excerpt from a highly interestingconversation: "There was a feeling in the Church, when Joseph F. Smith was made thePresident of the Church--`cause I'm old and I can remember all this--whenJoseph F. Smith was made the President, there were a lot of people thatwent around saying, `Oh well, Brother Joseph F. Smith's got five or sixwives. He's not going to stand for this business against polygamy. They'llstart polygamy up again.' And these Apostles picked that up, startedpreaching polygamy up again; and they used to take these couples to Mexicoand Canada and marry them, and..."[96] Question: "You mean after the Manifesto?" Answer: "Yes, And they did it themselves. They married womenthemselves, and ..." Question: "Well, you actually know this then?" Answer: "Of course I know it. I knew some of the women that theymarried, and I know now some of the children of those women. Well, whenthis happened that all these men took these jobs, they didn't cut them offof the Church, the ones that these Apostles converted to polygamy, theydidn't cut them off the Church. There was a whole string of them. "... My mother, when she was married to father, nobody knew it ...nobody. And when she got pregnant, her father was the President of theEuropean Mission, Daniel H. Wells. So father sent mother to England tostay with grandpa so that no one would know. It was during the time of theworst raids when they were putting everybody in jail. George Q. Cannon andeverybody else was getting put in jail for polygamy. And father didn'twant that to happen to him; so he kept his wives ... nobody knew he hadthem. And Aunt Gusta lived in New York. ... And now people think thatfather was too busy to bother about his family. There wasn't one of usthat he didn't know all about and everything we were doing and all aboutus, and the same with his grandchildren." Sister Dessie Grant Boyle was 83 years old at the time of thisinterview. She is now deceased, but her voice is on tape. The Salt Lake Tribune published the names of 200 plural marriagespresumably performed in 1910 and previously. (3:418-421) Many of thoselisted are or were personally known by the compiler of these volumes, somebeing near relatives. Living testators aver they did truly enter this holy

law after 1890. An interesting article was printed in the August 1968 issue of theImprovement Era. We quote from it: "No doubt most Mormons could also tellhow, with minor variations, the tale repeated itself 40 years later, whendevout believers in the divine law of polygamy gave up their homes ratherthan suffer separation, and pioneered a new life in a new country, Mexico,where they could live their religion and prepare for eternal gloryaccording to the pattern laid down by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Thesezealous souls were forced across the border by the pressure of the UnitedStates marshals who, with the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887,galvanized their efforts to stamp out the practice of polygamy .... Itshould be recognized first of all that the move to [97] Mexico was notmerely a private and personal affair. The Church authorities advisedpolygamists to go to this new country and actively supported theiremigration. High officials were sent from Church headquarters in Salt LakeCity to precede the colonists into Mexico and look for areas wherecolonies might be established. These men were instructed to help theemigrants to organize colonization companies in order to purchase tractsof land and lay out townsites. The whole endeavor had the blessing of theChurch." (p. 9) Internal conflicts in Mexico during the summer of 1912 caused anothergreat and difficult Mormon migration back to the States. This was 25 yearsafter they had arrived and built up lovely communities. In 1912 PresidentIvins gave them assistance from the Church. The article in the Eracontinues: "... But once they had reached the border and met with ElderAnthony W. Ivins, one of the Council of the Twelve from Salt Lake City,the matter was talked out, and those who had felt that they might havedone better to remain in Mexico were given leave without prejudice toreturn to the colonies and take up life again on their own." They had nohistory of chastisements and excommunications all through those years. Andthey were certainly polygamists. The law is restored, the Lord has made plain the way. There isneither change nor turning to the right or to the left. "For God doth notwalk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to theleft, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore, hispaths are straight, and his course is one eternal round." (D.&C. 3:2) The Prophet Joseph said, "We are only capable of comprehending thatcertain things exist, which we may acquire by certain fixed principles. Ifmen would acquire salvation, they have got to be subject, before theyleave this world, to certain rules and principles, which were fixed by anunalterable decree before the world was. The disappointment of hopes andexpectations at the resurrection would be indescribably dreadful!"(T.P.J.S., p. 324-325) His teaching is so self-explanatory that we need only add thefollowing as an extension: "In the early part of this century, the Mormon Church colonized the

Bighorn Basin in Northern Wyoming. Byron Sessions was the Stake Presidentand leader of this project under Apostle Owen Woodruff. Soon after myfather's death there, President [98] Sessions called my father's familytogether and gave them valuable advice and instructions. In his talk, heexplained the importance and necessity of obedience to the law of pluralmarriage. Members of the family who were present at this meeting consistedof my father's two wives and about twelve of his twenty children. We wereplaced under a pledge of secrecy, and the family honored this pledge whilePresident Sessions was still living. As he is now dead and beyond thepower of his enemies, I am relating in this letter, a part of this talk. "He said that he had had a dream in which he and his wife were takenbeyond the veil. A messenger, or guide met them there and gave them a viewof the marvelous workings and conditions that prevail in the place ofdeparted and righteous spirits. They finally came to a stairway that ledto the upper story of a large building. A guard was standing here, andthis is what he said, `This is as far as you can go as man and wife; youcan go in separately, but your status as man and wife ends at this place.' "Brother Sessions asked why this was the case, as they had beensealed in the Temple, and fully expected to remain together througheternity. The guide said, `You have not obeyed all the conditions of thelaw by which men and women are sealed for eternity. Because of this, yourunion must cease at death, and you will not be allowed to proceed furtheras man and wife.' He began to weep, and was weeping when he awoke. Hiswife, who was lying beside him was also crying, and he said, `Ida, what isthe matter?' She answered, `I have just had a dream and I am glad it wasonly a dream.' Their dreams were identical." The Prophet Joseph said, "They have got to be subject, before theyleave this world, to certain rules and principles. ..." In the November 28, 1969, interview with Douglas M. Todd, Jr., whichwe have mentioned on preceding pages in this Section, a similar experienceto that of President Sessions' was related. Interviewer: "Could you tell us about that dream you had in Denver?" Todd: "In this dream, I was standing in a large room. It seemed likethe entrance was to the east, and you passed through this larger room andthen on to the west side, where there was a door--as I recollect thedream. I even remember you stepped up one step to get into that room. Andthere was a man standing near the door and people were coming in from theoutside of the house, and walking through to this door. Every time they'dopen that door, the most beautiful and brilliant light-beyond mydes-[99]cription--came out and just enveloped you. You not only saw thelight, but felt the spirit of it--some way, I can't describe it. And thenthe door would close, and you could see the light coming under the door.The occasion there seemed to be some sort of a banquet, or something, withbeautiful tables and you felt as if you'd give your life, almost, if youcould be there with them. "So I worked my way up to this man at the door, and inquired about

how I might get in there. And he said, `Well, you can't come in here.Haven't you noticed the type of people that are entering?' That was thefirst time that it was forced on my mind that in those little groups thatcame, there was one man and several women in each group--always just oneman, and different numbers of women--I don't remember--and they would goin there and become a part of this. And that was the extent of the dream. "I wanted to know what that meant, and Aunt Nellie was the personthat I felt could tell me the interpretation. So the next morning I triedto type up that dream on my little portable typewriter. I wish I had thatcopy; I'm sure it would be much better than the way I'm telling it now.But I never had such a peculiar experience. I didn't have to think of anywords or anything--they just seemed to come right down to the ends of myfingers and onto the typewriter. And tears were rolling down my face, andI felt this same spirit that I did when I would see that door open and seethose people. So I sent the letter to Aunt Nellie, and she told me what itmeant, and the meaning is very obvious to you that represented the higherdegree of the Celestial Kingdom, and the only way that you got in it wasthrough the law of Celestial Plural Marriage." So we have similar dreams in different spaces of time, involvingunrelated people in different locations. They simply serve to furtherattest to the truth. It is beyond dispute that many polygamous marriages were performed byPresident Anthony W. Ivins, Matthias F. Cowley, Brigham Young, Jr., GeorgeTeasdale, John W. Taylor and others, in Old Mexico, Canada, on the highseas and elsewhere, that the covenant and commission to do so is yetbinding upon the Priesthood. But were volumes of evidence to be compiled,it would not hold sway with those determined that plural marriage hasceased. The Lord said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neitherwill they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31)[100] The things of God are known by the Spirit of God, and that is thesource to which we should go for answer to the question. We add the following to our Contemporary Witnesses, since BrotherJoseph W. Musser was in a unique position in modern history. JOSEPH WHITE MUSSER "O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him withall your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blamelessbefore God at the last day." (D.&C.) The life of Joseph W. Musser was a fulfillment of this scripture, forhe gave his life to God and sought none other gifts than those of theSpirit. Nourishing the spirit of prayer and humility, Joseph cultivated afriendship with God, and served Him with full purpose of heart. Joseph W. Musser joins our group of contemporary witnesses as anoutstanding example of a servant of God. He was born March 8, 1872, inSalt Lake City, Utah, to Amos Milton Musser, Assistant Church Historian

and pillar of the Church, and Mary Elizabeth White, first plural wife toBrother Musser. Joseph White Musser was born and grew to manhood at a time when theChurch was at war with the government of the United States. Pluralmarriage had been declared a crime, and the most respected men inMormondom were being hunted down and cast into prison. Joseph often usedto relate to his friends his experiences of taking plural wives from onehouse to another to evade the federal officers. He saw his father, withwhom Joseph's life was closely inter-woven, often driven into hiding. Itwas under this environment that young Joseph was raised. He had at leastmet, if not personally known, every Church president except the ProphetJoseph Smith. He was a man of great refinement, knowledge and experience. We name Brother Musser as a unique witness especially because of hisvantage point of close association with the Church leaders. He knew theinner workings of that body of men. Referring to his religious background and the reasons for hisacceptance of the principle of plural marriage, he stated: "I had beennurtured in the Patriarchal Law. I believe it earnestly. It seemed to me Ihad met Father Abraham and been taught at his knees. He had many wives andconcubines. Isaac, the son of Sarah, was Abraham's heir apparent, thoughnot his first born, [101] Ishmael coming before him. "Early in life I became familiar with the Lord's revelations to HisProphet, Joseph Smith, on the subject of marriage. My father had fourwives to my knowledge; though one, the first, I never knew in mortality.She died before my birth. My mother was his first plural wife, and herfaith and loyalty were, to my mind, perfect. "Coming from such an ancestry and being raised in a polygamousatmosphere, by parents devoted to their religious conceptions, I naturallyinherited and imbibed a strong spiritual nature. From early youth Idevoted my time to the Church. I believed intensely in the mission ofJoseph Smith, and were it possible to become fanatical in accepting thedecrees of the Almighty, I have been fanatically religious, but notobdurate toward the religion and actions of others nor offensivelydogmatic. Personally, I was brought up in the most puritanical fashion withreference to morality. To lose one's virtue was an offense in the eyes ofGod next to murder--the shedding of innocent blood. To take advantage of agirl, not one's wife, was a terrible act. I believed this doctrine and Ilived it completely--and I still believe it." As to his recollection of meeting the early presidents of the Church,he often related his experience of seeing President Brigham Young as helay in his coffin; also that he vaguely remembered seeing him before hisdeath. Later when old enough to remember and understand, his fatherinvited him to attend a meeting of the "Grand Council of the Kingdom ofGod." He remembered this meeting, of how armed guards admitted the invitedguests. His father, Amos Milton Musser, being a member of this "Grand

Council," was free to invite him to attend. At this meeting he wasintroduced to President John Taylor and heard him speak. He remembered the placing of the capstone on the Salt Lake Temple. Hesaid Apostle Lorenzo Snow led the open air congregation in the `HosannaShout.' A week later, April 13, 1892, he ascended the east middle tower ofthe Temple and touched the feet of the golden Angel Moroni. Joseph W. Musser's schooling opportunities in those early days wereminimal, though through self-teaching and the generous application ofsheer will and determination, he became an efficient court stenographerand developed valuable knowledge [102] in the field of law. At the age of 20, Joseph was married for time and all eternity in theLogan Temple. Three years later, in 1895, he received a call fromPresident Woodruff to fill a mission to the Southern States. He was setapart by Apostles Brigham Young, Jr., Heber J. Grant and John W. Taylor.He filled his mission without purse or scrip. While serving on his mission and in concern over the health of hisfirstborn, a son, he inquired of the Lord as to the welfare of his child.The Lord gave him a dream in which he visited his home and saw his childin improved health, with reassurances given him from his beloved wife.Brother Musser praised the Lord for His kindness in answer to prayer. In 1899, now home from his mission, a wonderful and marvelousexperience came to him, which was destined to change the course of hislife for time and all eternity. Speaking of this incident, he recorded thefollowing in his Journal: "Receiving a written invitation from President Lorenzo Snow, toreceive my `Higher Anointings' in the Temple, my wife and I, with fourother couples repaired to the Temple on Thanksgiving morning, November1899, where the most glorious blessings known to man were sealed upon us.We literally spent a few hours as in heaven 'mid the glorious calm andquiet of our holy surroundings. We were near the Lord and Oh! how happy! Iwas only 27 years of age and wondered why so young a person should be sofavored, for we were being sealed with the `Holy Spirit of Promise.'" Following on the heels of this glorious blessing, word came fromPresident Lorenzo Snow which was of a shocking nature. Explaining thesituation, Brother Joseph gave the following account: "When the Wilford Woodruff Manifesto was adopted (October 1890), Iwas not married. I had been promised in the name of the Lord, by my StakePresident, some days after the Manifesto was published, that I would yetenter the law. I believed it. And later, while courting my young lady, Itold her I expected to enter that law of marriage, that when the time cameI would take it up with her and we would make the selection of other wivestogether. Although I was taking her out of a plural family, she took thematter cooly, but she was true to her promise on that occasion. "In December 1899, after receiving my `Second Blessings,' a [103]messenger came to me from President Snow, stating I had been selected toenter plural marriage and to help keep the principle alive. Apprising my

wife of the situation, we both entered into prayer for guidance. At thistime I hadn't the slightest idea whom to approach. The `Manifesto' hadbeen issued, and word had gone out from Bishops and Stake Presidenciesthat a definite stop had been put to the practice. Those assuming to enterthe principle would be `handled.' I was placed in a peculiar situation.God's Prophet told me to accept the law and keep it alive. Hissubordinates said if I did so, they would cut me off the Church. I couldnot argue with them and divulge the source of my authority. It was a timewhen every man was in honor bound to carry his own burdens and yet liveevery law of the Gospel. "In answer to prayer, Mary Caroline Hill, a daughter of William HoodHill, a member of the Mill Creek Ward Bishopric, came within our horizon.She was a beautiful young lady, about 25 years of age; had refused manyproposals--had been waiting for the right man. Her father had done time,presumably with my father, in the penitentiary for polygamous living. Iwas astounded, when asking Brother Hill for the hand of his daughter, tobe flatly refused. He said it could not be done; they were handling peoplefor proposing it. I was greatly taken back. I had been at his home, withother Stake and General Officers of the Church on numerous occasions andeaten at his table. I rather took it for granted that he knew my hiddenmotive in being there so often and thought he was in harmony with it. "I said, `Well, Brother Hill, it can be done, and now theresponsibility is upon you. Your daughter is agreeable to the situation.' "The conversation took place in the office where I was employed, intown. He left and in about one half or three quarters of an hour hereturned and assured me it was all right and that I might go ahead.Astonished and yet grateful, I asked what had happened to change his mindso quickly. He said after leaving me he `bumped into Apostles John HenrySmith and M. F. Cowley'; he put the question to them. They assured him itwas all right and advised him to return to me and give his consent to themarriage. Thus Mary entered into my family in the year 1901." The marriage was sealed by an Apostle, a member of the Quorum ofTwelve, in good standing. Joseph's father, having heard of his son embracing the law, causedhim much sorrow, he supposing that his son had acted [104] without theconsent of the authorities. In order to soothe his feelings, the presidingauthorities of this most honorable "conspiracy" took A. M. Musser intotheir confidence and revealed to him the truth. His heart leaped for joy,and embracing his son Joseph, he exclaimed, "God bless you, my boy, Godbless you." Shortly before his death, Joseph's father had inscribed on hisgold watch a beautiful tribute to his son, and presented the watch to him.Engraved on the watch are the following words: "St. Joseph W. Musser--Inadmiration of your devotion to a divine principle of the gospel.Father--Zion, May 20th, 1909." Brother Joseph always considered the watchone of his priceless earthly possessions. Later, under the direction of President Joseph F. Smith, this man

again responded to the holy commandment and had his third wife, EllisShipp, sealed to him. Again in the 1930's under the direction of thePriesthood, he had another wife sealed into his family. Thus, Joseph W. Musser, at the age of 27, was introduced to the holyprinciple of Celestial Plural Marriage and commanded to embrace the same.This commandment came from God, and he was duly warned that if he did notrespond, he would lose every former blessing he had received in thePriesthood. He related that he was somewhat slow in obtaining his secondwife. Finally he was approached by President John Henry Smith and was toldthat if he did not embrace the principle soon, he would lose everyblessing he had ever received in the Church. He was commanded. Joseph recorded in his Journal: "Men other than Brother Ivins wereset apart to work in other parts of the country. Since the Church issubservient to the Priesthood, any action taken by it against thoseentering the law is null and void. A man or woman cannot properly be cutoff the Church for keeping a law of God, for the Church belongs to God andGod cannot act a lie and remain God." He explained the situation confronting him: "I was resisting theChurch, though I love its institutions. I had always taught my children tofollow the Church, and yet I now was resisting it. My blessed childrencould not understand my position, nor can I blame them, neither could Iexplain to them the full picture any faster than they were prepared toreceive it." Joseph received, because of his faithfulness, furtherinstruction and commission: "In the year 1915, an Apostle conferred upon me the sealing [105]power of Elijah, with instructions to see that plural marriage shall notdie out. President Snow had said I must not only enter the law, but musthelp keep it alive. This then was the next step in enabling me to helpkeep it alive. I have tried to be faithful to my trust." Here, then, Joseph W. Musser found himself in a peculiar situation.He was the husband of three wives. He had been commanded to take the lasttwo of these women with full knowledge that he was breaking the law of theland and the rule of the Church. Those members of the Church who heard ofhis action branded it as adulterous, just as they do today. Those whoconspired to have him break the law, made it plain to him that he couldnot depend on them for comfort or relief. Indeed, President Joseph F.Smith often passed him on the street without a sign of recognition. Laterunder the protection of darkness, this same man would step from theshadows, and with a friendly handclasp and a pat on the back, wouldexclaim: "God bless you, brother Joseph, keep the good work up!" Joseph felt the persecutions rage around him and his family. He wasspoken evilly of and had a difficult time making a living. In 1909, theSalt Lake Tribune selected him as an object lesson, which was also a coverto goad the leaders of the Church for their own similar actions. The headlines read: "JOE MUSSER HAS NOW TAKEN NO. 3--High Councilorof Granite Stake Enters Into New Polygamy in Salt Lake:

"Joseph W. Musser is chief clerk and assistant secretary of the UtahLight & Railway company. His father is assistant historian and politicalmouthpiece of the Church. He is himself a high ecclesiast in the church,though but about 40 years of age. He is high councilor of Granite stakeand as such passes on the differences between the Saints of his stake andhis decisions are final, save that an appeal may be taken to the firstpresidency. "The president of Granite stake, Frank Y. Taylor, and his secondcounselor, John M. Cannon, are publicly known to have recently contractedplural marriages. So have the Sunday School Superintendent and others ofthis stake. In fact, Granite stake is the hotbed of new polygamy, andForestdale, which is a part of the stake, is oftimes spoken of as`Polygamyville,' inasmuch as it is a refuge of those who are violating thelaws by `living their religion.'" The Tribune then goes on to name Brother Musser's wives [106] andchildren and their home locations. The article continues: "This is the first expose' that has been made of Joseph W. Musser'snew polygamy. He will not be punished for his violation of the law becausehe has the sanction of the teaching of the Church through the 132ndchapter of the Doctrine and Covenants, and through the life of PresidentJoseph F. Smith, who admits that he is living with five wives and whopleaded guilty to the charge of being the father of the last of thirteenillegitimate children, recently being fined therefor the measly sum of twohundred dollars!" It may have been because of pressures as a result of that article inthe newspaper that Brother Musser was called before the Quorum of TwelveApostles. After a lengthy questioning session before that body, he wrote:"The investigation along the lines it is being carried out, isunwarranted; the Quorum is not united, and such actions as these will tendto lose them their influence among the Saints .... My impressions werethat the brethren are not actuated by the proper spirit." In 1929, another marvelous event came into Joseph W. Musser's life,for the Lord spoke again. "May 14, 1929, I was ordained a High Priest Apostle and a Patriarchto all the world, by a High Priest Apostle, and I was instructed to seethat never a year passed that children were not born in the covenant ofplural marriage. I was instructed to give patriarchal blessings to thoseapplying for same, and who were denied access to a patriarch in theChurch. My calling is essentially a Priesthood calling ...... Brother Joseph related that when the Anointed of the Lord ordainedhim to this higher calling that he used the following words: "I ordain youa Patriarch and Apostle to the Lord, Jesus Christ, and I confer upon youall the keys, power and authority, that I myself hold, together with theresponsibilities and privileges attached thereto." After this ordination the Prophet said to Joseph, "Now you have allthat I have."

The individual thus ordaining him further instructed Brother Josephthat he had used the same phraseology that President Taylor had used toset him apart; and that President Taylor had informed him that JosephSmith, the Prophet, used the same words in ordaining him (John Taylor);and that the Prophet had explained that Peter, James and John had used thesame words when they ordained him to the Priesthood.[107] Interestingly, his ordination to the Apostleship partly fulfilled ablessing given to his mother, Mary White Musser, some years before. Inthat blessing she was promised that one of her sons would be ordained anApostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. On November 9, 1930, his dear wife Mary passed away. The main speakerat her funeral was President J. Golden Kimball. Some of his remarks werewritten down: "I am here at the request of Brother Musser, his wife and children;and before going on with my regular remarks on this occasion I want to saythis much--that I have known Brother Musser in Church and businessactivities for a good many years, and I know him to be an honest man, withgreat faith and trust in the Lord, and courage in the cause of truth. "Oh, I know we are supposed to say nothing about this thing--we areafraid to tell the truth; it isn't always wise to tell the whole truth,but I want to say that Brother Musser has been unjustly dealt with; he hasbeen persecuted. The principle of polygamy is true. Of course the door isnow closed. The Church does not sanction the practice now. I was of thatorigin and I am proud of it. Brother Joseph is a better man than I ambecause I cannot help resenting injustice. Justice is all right, but Ibelieve in the gospel of mercy, love, charity and patience. If this is notthe truth there is not truth. Thank God the final judgment does not restwith man." Because of his background and nearness to the presiding authoritiesof the Church, Joseph Musser received much important information. Upon oneoccasion, his father approached him with one of Wilford Woodruff'sJournals. His father pointed to the revelation of 1889, and requested hisson to copy it, stating: "Someday it will be necessary for you to use thisinformation." Years later in defense of the faith, Brother Joseph was ableto produce this very valuable revelation. (See page 44) The anti-polygamy crusades of 1944 resulted in the imprisonment ofJoseph, serving a sentence of seven months and then being placed on `twoyears' probation. He wrote in his journal: "My father preceded me to the penitentiary by some sixty years. I wasthen 13 years of age, he 55. In my youthful years, I regarded him an oldman, and yet I was placed behind the bars at 73, and would have resentedbeing called an old man, although the old timers there soon began to callme `Dad.' President Lorenzo Snow was 72 years of age when he wasincarcerated. So far as I know I am the oldest man placed behind the barsamong [108] the Latter-day Saints for polygamous living. When I wasordained a High Priest Apostle in May 1929, it was done in response to a

revelation of the Lord to the President of the Priesthood. Previous tothis, however, I was given the Priesthood of Elijah with instructions, asI was informed from President Joseph F. Smith, to seal couples incelestial marriage." While in prison, Brother Joseph suffered an attack, which was perhapsthe forerunner of his final illness. Being completely exhausted from yearsof work among the people, also having been the leading figure in the longlegal battle, plus discomforts of the state penitentiary, all workedtogether against his health. He suffered a stroke in early 1949, and wasfinally released from this world March 29, 1954, at the age of 82. He wasburied next to his father in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Joseph White Musser, aside from the personal effect he had forimmense good in the lives of countless others, was responsible for thecirculation of many publications, including many unpublished manuscriptsof lasting worth. He held responsible positions in six different stakes inZion, and preached the gospel in many of the States of the Union. He wasin charge of the East India Mission, attending to that responsibility fromhis home. He traveled from Canada to Old Mexico because of his love forand devotion to the Lord and His gospel. Joseph W. Musser was a man of God. He received his errand from theLord, and he devoted his life to it regardless of the cost. In his ownwords, as a stalwart witness in the latter days: "I entered the state of plural marriage after the issuance of theManifesto; and I did so with the encouragement, advice and counsel of themajority of the members of the Quorum of Apostles, and with the blessingsof the President of the Church. These facts cannot be gain said. The factthat I have been `handled' and `ostracized' for having done my duty as Iwas taught it, makes no difference to the case in hand. Indeed, I was toldat the time by one having authority that this very thing might occur, butthat it was my duty to live the law .... "I have championed Mormonism from every angle; have accepted therevelations of Joseph Smith on the subject of celestial and pluralmarriage--must I say it--even against the body of the Church, and inopposition to the laws of my country; and now I find myself expelled fromthe Church, and a virtual outcast from its functions and benefits.Strange, but true, and yet my heart is filled with gratitude for my wivesand my 21 beautiful [109] children. Oh!! how I praise God for His mostwonderful blessings, and how grateful I am that the invitation came to me,as a young man, fifty years ago, to embrace the principle of pluralmarriage. I was assured it was of God and that His blessings would followthe law's acceptance. "As God answered the child Joseph's plea for wisdom and direction, sohe is answering the prayers of the faithful today, many of them being ledto accept the fulness of the gospel, including the Patriarchal order ofmarriage. These Saints uphold the authorities of the Church by their faithand prayers, so far as it is possible to do without a surrender of eternal

life. They would like to remain with the organization and add theirstrength in building it up along permanently righteous lines, but whendenied this blessed privilege they are resigned and bow to the inevitable,leaving their case in the hands of God, who will judge all flesh. "That truth will prevail is certain, but that it may find a speedylodgment in the hearts of all who have the courage and the will to seekit, is the earnest prayer of your humble servant." A prayer, offered on New Year's Day, 1935, by Joseph W. Musser: "Dear Lord, continue to guide my footsteps. Help me to get my housein order; to teach Thy children the truth; to obtain the gift of faith andthe spirit of meekness; help me to serve Thee in truth. Give unto mewisdom, and knowledge, love and charity. Help me to teach and guide mywives and children, and to bear up under every burden and obligation oflife. "Let the balance of my mortal life be spent in the ministry, bringingsouls unto Thee, and when I am released from this existence, let mecontinue such work of salvation until the end of all the eternities, couldthere be an end. "Father, I thank Thee for all my blessings and covenant anew withThee to be more diligent and valiant in accomplishing my earthly mission.Help me remain true and faithful." * * * * * "O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him withall your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blamelessbefore God at the last day." (D.&C. 4:2) Such was the heart and life of Joseph White Musser, a latter-daywitness to the work of the Lord. [110] [111] SECTION EIGHT A CONTRADICTION Although it is good to read of evidence, or to have the opportunityto talk personally with living witnesses to those events involving theperpetuation of a holy law, its weight toward motivating anyone isminimal. It is the heart that yearns to grow toward sanctification, thesoul who seeks to know the Lord's will through the light of the HolySpirit, who abandons satisfaction and contentment for the discipline andblessing of higher law, who will come to know whether or not a principleis true. True evidence seems always to come from within, so one knows howto read the signs when it takes an outward form. Our preparedness, our

intent are known to the Lord. He can read the small print in each soul. However, any man who seeks to know God, who seeks to purify his lifeand make himself receptive to better than worldly persuasions, hasunavoidably come to grips with opposition in its varied and sometimesalluring forms. Anyone who believes in other dimensions than this visibleworld knows that the highest principles are fair game for the adversary'sfullest concentration. The Prophet Joseph Smith placed the principle (and, of necessity, theliving) of Celestial Plural Marriage as one of the most holy and exalting.One would, therefore, simply expect a little trouble to be brewing in thewake of its restoration and acceptance into our lives. But man has utterlylost perspective. The people of our nation have just gone through two extremes. One isthe angry, militant, intolerant change-seekers who offer no replacementvalues, and the other is the passive, detached, non-involved group whoseworld is largely illusory. Though a little less vocal at the present time,the two camps are still functioning. Many parents, taken in by theoverwhelming sincerity of youth ("sincerity" is as much an ingredient inevil as it is in righteousness; Satan is sincere), have given way to apermissiveness with their children that has become a solid foundation forchaos. The permissive wave has washed over our parents, and idealism hasreplaced facts. The permissive wave has washed over our children, andslogans have become solutions, The [112] permissive wave has washed overour laws and courts and rhetoric is confused with reasoning and justice.Our nations leaders, floating along in the wash of the wave, have becomeso-called liberals, as are many parents. We seem no longer capable oflooking squarely into the strong, clear light of truth. There are those who would storm the bastions of society withforbidden beliefs and enslaving laws, in the name of eradicating all evil.They receive applause. But those who would create a little order, maintainwell-proven principles such as affection and humility and integrity andfamily life are extremists and warrant prosecution. Criminals receivereverential treatment and often go free. The tangled web of law and orderis so snarled that those arrested on drug charges are long gone fromdetention while law officers are enmeshed in the snarls. When it comes to plural marriage, there are no holds barred. Thepresent is a reflection of the past. Witness a notation in Volume 1, page376: "April 20, 1885--The U. S. Supreme Court sustained the decision ofthe Utah courts in Apostle Rudger Clawson's polygamy case, but decided infavor of giving the murderer, Fred Hopt, a fourth trial." Clawson wasimprisoned. Plural marriage, taught by God and lived by the prophets since thebeginning of time, has given place to no marriage. No marriage,accompanied by its moral looseness, is acceptable. Plural marriage, God'slaw, is accompanied by prosecution and imprisonment, the breaking up of

homes and families. But no families, with no names and with diseases, arefree to increase their diseases. It is a strange, if not a disastrousposture, a contradiction worthy of Lucifer's applause. The wary remember awarning recorded centuries ago: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darknessfor light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweetfor bitter!" (Isa. 5:20) It is verily a description of our day. That which was evil, is nowgood. That which was good, is now evil. Considering the frequent yieldingup of man's innate sense of virtue, one could immediately sympathize withanother Great Washing of the earth. Strangely and sadly, Church fellowshipping is extended to thoseinvolved in overt adultery, thievery and all manner of heinous crimes,including that of murder and infanticide in its various forms, whileexcommunication is immediately leveled against those practicing theprinciple of plural marriage, a [113] commandment of God. Separationpapers also descend upon those whose insubordination is that of study anddiscussion only, of the subject of plural marriage. Israel is confused. And justice is strained. Mothers in plural marriage yearn for theirchildren and receive them into their arms with thanksgiving and love andpraise to God. They have a home and a loving family. But children aretaken away and parents are declared "unfit" and are imprisoned, while weaccept black laws on the books legalizing abortions, destroying life. Butthat is legal. That is a more intelligent and realistic way in anadvanced, sophisticated civilization. Mothers and fathers destroy theirbabies in the name of freedom. It isn't freedom. We become free from lawby obedience to law. So our permissive society dictates that abortion is good, butchildren allowed life within marriage before God, is evil. Isn't somethingterribly wrong? How long can the Lord stay His hand against suchwickedness? Moroni saw our day: "Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, thatye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good andof God to be of the devil .... And now my brethren, seeing that ye knowthe light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, seethat ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which yejudge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, thatye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know goodfrom evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn itnot, ye certainly will be a child of Christ." (Moroni 7:14, 18-19) Those with the discerning light of Christ will see through the evilcontradiction and will know truth. We conclude this Section with the wordsof the prose author, George MacDonald, which express our faith: "This is a sane, wholesome, practical, working faith; first, that Itis a man's business to do the will of God; second, that God takes onhimself the special care of that man; and third, that therefore that man

ought never to be afraid of anything." [114] [115] SECTION NINE FOLLOW THE LIVING PRINCIPLES A great deal of emphasis is currently placed upon the concept,"Follow the living prophet." It is singular that such an emphasis hasbecome necessary. If the present laws, principles and ordinances of thegospel were the same in all respects as those taught by Joseph Smith andothers of the subsequent prophets, there would be no need for eitherdistinction, explanation or emphasis. Following the living prophet woulddiffer in no respect from having followed Joseph Smith. Inherent in suchan admonition as "follow the living prophet" is a declaration ofdifference. The concept, however correct within proper definition, has becomestrained nearly beyond recognition. We refer, for example, to a recentstatement made before a ten-stake fireside at Brigham Young University onMay 5, 1974, by the Senior President of the First Council of Seventy ofthe Church, S. Dilworth Young: "I would like to remind you, though, that if you get engrossed in thehistory and how they did things in that day, do not attempt to figure outwhy they do not do it the same way today. We have what is called modernrevelation, which means the living prophet always is the one who tells uswhat we are supposed to do, the manner in which we are to do it, themanner in which we are supposed to be organized, and the manner in whichthe revelation is to be interpreted. Thus, the way they interpreted therevelation in those days has no particular bearing on the way therevelations are being interpreted today." (Author's Note: However,President Joseph F. Smith said, "The rites of the Priesthood of theChurch, as the Lord has revealed them, and the principles that underliethe organization of the Church of Jesus Christ, are irrevocable,unchanging and unchangeable." Gos. Doc. p. 14) "It is sad to know thatmany men have gone on the rocks of apostacy because they could not seethat point, that principle. They have said Joseph Smith did it this wayand you have to do it this way because Joseph Smith did it this way. Thatis not true at all. Joseph Smith did it one way for his day, and BrighamYoung did it another way for his day, and [116] John Taylor did it a thirdway for his day; and today we are doing it the way President Spencer W.Kimball wants it to be. We listen to him. What they did in that day doesnot bind us at all. If no change has been made by any living prophet, thenthe original method of doing things stands. You find that true with thedoctrine of plural marriage, don't you? Wilford Woodruff changed the

method of handling marriage, and his word stood until Joseph F. Smithenlarged it. Now his word stands. No one has changed it since then, so wenow obey the law as Joseph F. Smith promulgated it. That is modernrevelation. May I repeat? Modern revelation is what President Joseph Smithsaid, unless President Spencer W. Kimball says differently." These comments would not be so disturbing if the reference werespecifically stated as being of limited application. But the statement isbroad enough to include, and does include, ordinances and principles. Thisis not acceptable and leads to serious misunderstanding. That there were2500 young people in attendance at the fireside makes us wish it werepossible to have equal time. Throughout the history of the world, God has given two types ofrevelation. One is general revelation pertaining to all mankind in everyworld and in every age of the world. Such revelations pertain to the nameof the Church, the Church organization, the duties and laws of thePriesthood, and eternal laws, ordinances and principles. These neverchange, worlds without end. The gospel does not change, and we must abideby its principles and ordinances if we are to be saved in the celestialglory. The other type of revelation directs men to perform certain tasks inorder to accomplish certain purposes according to the existing conditionsand circumstances. For instance, Nephi and Jared were directed to buildships by revelation. David, Saul and Nephi were commanded to kill othermen in order to preserve God's people. The Israelites were commanded toplace blood of a lamb upon the lintels of the doorposts of their homes tocause the destroying angel to pass them by and not slay them. Joshua, byrevelation, had Israel's soldiers march around Jericho seven times, thenblow their trumpets, and the walls of Jericho fell. Jesus told Peter tocatch a fish and use the money found to pay their taxes. These arerevelations adaptable to certain conditions. They are not applicable toour day or to other people. Such examples as these are in considerablenumber in the scriptures. But it should be understood by all men that the laws of God, [117]the ordinances of the House of the Lord, the principles of the gospel, areeternal in their application. They never change. If any people in anyperiod of time fail to observe eternal laws, they inevitably fail toobtain the blessings predicated upon obedience to them. Brigham Young saidthat the ordinances of the Kingdom of God upon the earth are the same tothe children of Adam from the commencement to the end of his posteritypertaining to their carnal state on the earth. This is not in harmony withthe statement made to the B.Y.U. students. The reference made torelinquishing the holy law of plural marriage or any other principle orordinance reminds us again of the words of President Lorenzo Snow: "The purpose of God will be accomplished. What He has recommencedwill be consummated though the combined armies of the earth should rise upand oppose .... Better suffer a thousand deaths than succumb to the force

of persecution by promising to discard a single principle which God hasrevealed for our glory and exaltation." (1:404, 406) Another differing view from the B.Y.U. statement is found in the June5, 1965, edition of the Church News: "One of the most important things welearn about our religion is that God is unchangeable, the same yesterday,today and forever. Thus we may know that the principles of salvation willalways remain the same. We need not be disturbed by any new ideas ormodern innovations in the gospel which may come our way. A great mistakemade down through the ages by teachers of Christianity is that they havesupposed that they could place their own interpretation upon thescriptures, allow their own personal convenience to become a controllingfactor and change the basis of Christian law and practice to suitthemselves. This is apostacy." This concept, too, seems to differ frommodern view. Gospel principles, rites and ordinances are eternal in their nature.Joseph Smith made that abundantly clear. He is the Prophet of thisdispensation. This generation until the coming of Christ shall be judgedby the word of God that came through him, which witness he sealed with hisblood. That is the word of God to us. It is not likely that there is anymortal man who has the right or the authority to alter that pronouncementfrom God in its application to our lives or to the lives of the childrenof God any time, any place, or under any circumstances. The Priesthood of God is defending holy principles which God said tothe Prophet Joseph Smith and again through John [118] Taylor should remainupon the earth until Christ should come. As we quoted in Section Five,President Wilford Woodruff stated in the Manti Temple in 1888, "We won'tquit practicing plural marriage until Christ shall come." He said further,"The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance without thepatriarchal order of marriage is that it belongs to this dispensation,just as baptism for the dead does ...." (1:312, 318) Yet we are being told that some principles are not applicable, theyare not acceptable to the Church or pleasing to God. But Brigham Youngsaid that the principle of celestial plural marriage, supposedly dead andburied as to practice at the present time, "would ride triumphant over allof the prejudice and priestcraft of the day." (1:34, 3:208) Indeed it has,under the careful direction of the Lord. President Joseph F. Smith saidthat the principle of plural marriage was "particularly adapted to theconditions of this dispensation, to its necessities and circumstances,"(1:206) and it is an error to assume that any conditions or necessities orcircumstances arose in any period of time sine the restoration of thegospel in its fulness that forced the Lord to change His plans or nullifyHis words. Those who are determine to sanctify their lives will find forthemselves the course which, the Lord pursued. It is the privilege and the duty of the Priesthood to be obedient tothe command of God and fulfill all His words. It is their duty toperpetuate that Priesthood, for the Priesthood of God has been going on

forever. It never had a beginning and will have no end. It has been goingfrom world to world, moving from one willing heart to another, from oneready hand to another, from one diligent foot to another. The gospel doesnot float in space but reposes in the sons of God. The brethren who haveperpetuated the fulness of the gospel by special dispensation, did it byappointment. The concept that it is all right to receive modern interpretation ofrevelations or that someone can teach differently from Joseph Smith'steachings, is unacceptable. We support a significant statement made byEliza R. Snow Smith in the year 1887: "There is a test before us in thenear future that will try every soul; and who will be able to stand? Onlythose who have the Holy Ghost abiding in them. The Lord is going to have apure people--a people that will move en masse at the bidding of thePriesthood. "God is at the helm, and the faithful who uphold everyprin-[119]ciple which He has revealed, and maintain their integrity to Godand to each other, have nothing to fear; but have great reason to bethankful that they are counted worthy to suffer for the gospel's sake.After tribulation cometh the blessing. The glorious gospel of the Son ofGod, of which we are happy partakers, is worth as much today as it waswhen Jesus died on the cross, and when the ancient Apostles, and many ofthe Saints died for it. There is not one principle which God has revealedthat is not worth more than our mortal life. Then what has a true Saint tofear? With God on our side, we have a great majority, although the wholeworld should rise up against us." (K. Carter, Our Pioneer Heritage, March1974) That is the standard we raise. Whether 97% or 99% of the Saints voteagainst a holy law of God, the remaining small percentage who are willingto uphold every principle that He has revealed will be found sustainingand living all of the restored gospel. For the Lord has made provisionthat this would be possible. To those Saints, "there is not one principlewhich God has revealed that is not worth more than our mortal life." No,not one. Following living prophets is a correct principle, and they will leadus as far as they possibly can. But the teachings of living oracles mustnot conflict with those of the dead oracles in either principle orordinance. This is an eternal key, a sure safeguard. It is a greatblessing to have the Lord's spokesmen upon the earth through whom He mayreveal His mind and will. The true prophets of God represent the mostnoble mortals upon the earth. But recorded history verifies the fact thatman has often imposed limitations upon the prophets by their acts ofdisobedience. We must bear in mind that our Church leaders were placedunder restriction as representatives of the Church pertaining to thehigher laws of the gospel. A large percentage of the body of the Saintsdid not want the higher laws. But a few of the Saints did, and because ofthe Lord's action relative to them, access to further laws and ordinances

is available to those who will stand upon correct principle and who followthe Lord's admonition to ask and to seek. Truth always outlives thesuccession of prophets, and Joseph Smith's revelations remain as thestandard for all Latter-day Saints who would be with Abraham and theprophets. This necessarily includes Section 132 of the Doctrine andCovenants. The heart of the issue was declared by Joseph F. Smith in [120] 1909:"The time is here when the Saints cannot come to Joseph F. Smith, FrancisM. Lyman or Charles W. Penrose, or others, for counsel. But they must goto the Lord and not depend upon the arm of flesh for guidance." (S. L.Temple, 1909) Similarly, the Millennial Star recorded: "The day will comewhen every Saint must learn to walk by sheer naked principles alone,without bringing either men or their individual actions into the questionat all." (Mill. Star, 20:708) That day arrived some time ago and is a keyto individual progress. It is not our intent to say that we must walk independently of theLord's anointed. For it is upon the Lord's servants that we rely forconfirmations and ordinances, for counsel and advice, as well as for theword of the Lord in the midst of our effort to seek Him. But it is not theprophets who will sanctify our lives for us. Sanctification rests upon thehead of each individual. There is no one to tow us into celestial glory.No man can go to heaven who has not first sent his heart there. We mustplace it there ourselves; the prophets cannot do it for us. Neither canthe Lord. That following the living prophets has its limitations was attestedto by Brigham Young: "I am more afraid that this people have so muchconfidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves ofGod whether they are led by Him. I am fearful lest they settle down in astate of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands oftheir leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart thepurpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they couldgive to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations ofJesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know,by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether theirleaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not." (Disc. of B.Y., p. 209) In connection with this, the Saints needed to have the Spirit of theLord when Joseph Smith himself presented a contradiction in statingpublicly that the Mormon Church did not believe in polygamy (Section Ten),all the while living the principle and teaching it privately. It was truethat the Church did not teach polygamy and it was not a doctrine of theChurch. But the Priesthood had the responsibility to perpetuate thatprinciple, as Joseph and others were doing. Plural marriage sealings underthe proper authority continued after the Manifesto of 1890 up to thepresent day. One of many examples of disregard for Church policy in thatmatter is that of B. H. Roberts:

[121] In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith issued another "little manifesto"on behalf of the Church to meet the pressures of the outsiders. It was tothe effect that excommunication awaited those who fraternized with pluralmarriage in any form. However, the case of Elder Brigham H. Roberts in1904 represented a rather common exception to President Smith's publicpronouncement. Elder Roberts was one of the Seven Presidents of the FirstCouncil of Seventy when he was prevailed upon to testify on April 20thbefore the Senate in Washington, D.C., in the Reed Smoot Investigation.(See Proceedings, etc., 1:704, et seq.) In the September, 1890, Manifesto,President Wilford Woodruff clearly denied knowledge of "either one orforty" plural marriages performed with the sanction of the Church betweenJune 1889 and August 22, 1890. The Deseret Evening News also invited proofof any such marriages. But B. H. Roberts provided fuel for the controversywhen under pressure of oath he testified as follows: "I have always known of the Manifesto of 1890, respecting the subjectof polygamy, and am familiar with the statements made by Wilford Woodruffand Joseph F. Smith and others after the Manifesto was issued, that theManifesto referred to the subject of unlawful cohabitation as well as tothe taking of plural wives .... My third wife's name was Mrs. Shipp. I wasmarried to her in Salt Lake City in April of 1890. Daniel H. Wells, anassistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, performed the ceremony.... "Chairman: Was it necessary to get the consent of any of theauthorities of the Church to marry a plural wife? "Roberts: It was necessary to get those who were understood to holdthe authority to perform the ceremony. "Chairman: Could you, occupying the position which you did in theChurch, take a plural wife without the knowledge of the authorities? "Roberts: I did so, with the exception of Mr. Wells .... When theauthorities of the Church learned of this marriage, they took no actionagainst Mr. Wells for having performed the ceremony. He continued in hisposition as an assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Nor was Ireprimanded for it, nor have I been at any time since. "Chairman: In living in polygamous cohabitation you are living indefiance of the Manifesto of 1890, are you not? "Roberts: Yes sir. In defiance of the action of the Church on [122]that subject." (Vol. 1:718-719) So here we obviously have a living prophet who was not following theliving prophet. Elder Roberts continued in his position in the Churchuntil the day he died, neither the marriage nor his standing in the Churchever having been challenged. Nor was the standing of Daniel H. Wells everchallenged. He was formerly a member of the First Presidency of the Churchand had been ordained an Apostle under the hands of Brigham Young onJanuary 4, 1857, never having been a member of the Quorum of Twelve. Further, President Joseph F. Smith, as we have noted, testified thathe "was living in defiance of the rule of the Church on that matter." So

the living prophet was not following himself. And it was his standard thatElder S. Dilworth Young referred to as being the "method of handlingmarriage." We don't believe there has been a modern revelation changingthe method either. We could go on at considerable length with examples that are similarthrough subsequent years. But the issue remains one of seeking the Lordand His constituted authority upon the earth for our individual progress,not resting upon the votes of a majority in decades gone by. George Q.Cannon spoke regarding this matter 83 years ago. "Do not, brethren, putyour trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President; ifyou do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong, orseem to, and your support is gone; but if we lean on God, He will neverfail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone,their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should stepaside." (Mill. Star, 53:673-4) Many Saints do not rely upon the Lord. If they begin to search outthe facts at all as to whether or not plural marriage can be lived todayand still retain the approbation of the Lord, they invariably go aboutcounselling with one another or go to an Institute teacher or draft aflurry of letters to members of the General Authorities of the Church. Itis perhaps satisfying homework, but the Lord's will concerning theindividual cannot be a blanket statement from Authorities who are bound tocovenants and agreements entered into with the government decades ago.Mental pre-determination negatively used is a constant bar to progress;therefore, we must seek the Lord concerning His will in our own lives. Ifwe are humble and submissive to His will, not privately hoping that Hewill endorse our own, we will be led in due time to the necessaryPriesthood [123] sanction. Such a course was marked out for us by the Prophet Joseph. He said,"I advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper intothe mysteries of Godliness. A man can do nothing for himself unless Goddirects him in the right way; and the Priesthood is for that purpose."(3:147) It was the Priesthood that organized the Church and presides overthe Church, which Priesthood can teach and direct in areas where theChurch presently cannot. Some of the "mysteries of godliness" fall intothis category. Total reliance upon the arm of flesh precludes learning of themysteries. It is not a word with which we should become distraught. It istrue that there are the mysteries at certain points in our developmentthat should be left alone. But there are also many areas of, understandingnot now known to us, called mysteries, which we should and must rightfullyseek. Ammon in the Book of Mormon teaches us: "Yes, he that repenteth andexerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continuallywithout ceasing--unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea,unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have beenrevealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls

to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these ourbrethren to repentance." (Alma 26:22) Again, we find, "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, themysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be maderich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich." (D.&C. 6:7) Verse 11also counsels, "And if thou wilt inquire, thou shalt know mysteries whichare great and marvelous . ..." The key word, if all Israel will hear it,is "inquire." In Section 8, verse 11: "Ask that you may know the mysteries of God ...." And in Section 42: "If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelationupon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know themysteries and peaceable things ...." (v. 61) The hope of this people, those who would sanctify their lives byliving all of the restored laws, lies in humbly obeying the light we havefrom God and in seeking for more. We have been counselled to cease leaningupon the prophets in this matter. When we so live that our bodies become asanctuary for the Holy Ghost, the mysteries will become the light of truthto us unto our sanctification. The gifts of the Spirit are available tomen only [124] according to their desires. The frequent admonition to leave the mysteries alone, depending uponwhich mysteries, also becomes an admonition to leave sanctification alone.Those who do search the revelations of God and seek the Lord concerningthem, soon find it said of them that they are out of order because theyare not waiting upon the Church. We should certainly hope not. The words of the Prophet Nephi are revelant to our day and to ourneeds if we would become a holy people: "Angels speak by the power of theHoly Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I saidunto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christwill tell you all things what ye should do. "Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannotunderstand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock;wherefore, ye are not brought into the light but must perish in the dark. "For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by theway, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what yeshould do." (2 Ne. 32:3-5) This is precisely our point. We have sought to analyze the concept of "follow the living prophets"which has crept so deeply into our philosophy. Some of its earmarks aredangerous. Joseph Smith, observing the same tendency in his day, taughtthat the people were "depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened intheir minds in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving uponthemselves ...." (T.P.J.S., p. 237-238) Additionally, the editor of theMillennial Star knew of the precarious results of depending upon the armof flesh. "We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark that theywould do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, ifthey knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to

us; it is slavery in the extreme . ..." (14:594) One wonders where test oaths and loyalty oaths in the Church fit in. The counsel of the Lord is given in the Inspired Version of theBible: "Therefore, let every man stand or fall by himself, and not foranother; or not trusting another. Seek unto my Father, and it shall bedone in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believingthat ye shall receive. "And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed [125]to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offendthee, pluck him out. It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom ofGod with one eye than having two eyes be cast into hell fire. For it isbetter that thyself should be saved than to be cast into hell with thybrother . ..." (Mark 9:44-48) Charles W. Penrose was also explicit: "President Wilford Woodruff isa man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him. But we do not believehis personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when `Thussaith the Lord' comes from him, the Saints investigate it. They do notshut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Mill. Star 54:191) Joseph the Prophet advises: "Search the scriptures ... search therevelations which we publish, and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name ofHis Son Jesus Christ, to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do itwith an eye single to His glory, nothing doubting, He will answer you bythe power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and notfor another. You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge ofGod." (T.P.J.S., p. 11-12) Yet, we read in the Ward Teachers Message for June 1945, "When ourleaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it isGod's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. Whenthey give direction, it should mark the end of the controversy." (Kraut,Prin. or Pers., p. 38) Brigham Young taught: "Those who suffer themselves to be led entirelyby another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning theirfaith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into thecelestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never becapable of becoming Gods .... Who will? Those who are valiant and inspiredwith the true independence of heaven ...." (J.D. 1:312) Brigham Young didnot teach that the thinking should be done for us at all. It is the "trueindependence of heaven" that we are speaking about, not the independenceassumed by many men and women who have forfeited the blessings of heavenby having become a law unto themselves. Further, we read in the October 1972 Ensign: "Brethren, keep your eyeon the President of this Church. If he tells you to do anything and it iswrong and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." We are appalled. The Lord will do no such thing, for He cannot.Blessings are predicated upon obedience to God's law, not [126] uponobedience to error no matter from whom it may come. The responsibility may

be upon the shoulders of the President or an Apostle or a Bishop, but whois certain to suffer the loss? Surely we will be led to the kind ofremorse expressed by the poet, T. S. Eliot: "Where is the life we havelost in the living?" All men must follow the living principles in connection with theliving prophets, and in His infinite kindness, God will bless mankindindividually. The key to progress does not rest solely upon the pulpits.There is an individual searching that must combine with all that the holyprophets have been sent to bestow. We must shoulder our own load. When, inthe yielding up of our hearts to God, the corners of the load begin topress, it is then that the Lord pours out His choicest blessings. We donot hammer at the doors of the prophets; we knock at the windows ofheaven. And as much of heaven is visible as we have developed the eyes tosee. The statement deserves repeating: "The time is here when the Saintscannot come to Joseph F. Smith, Francis M. Lyman or Charles W. Penrose, orothers, for counsel. But they must go to the Lord and not depend upon thearm of flesh for guidance." President Smith seemed to have been doing allhe possibly could to tell the Saints to live all of the laws because allof the laws were available. He set the example. Heber Bennion, son-in-law of President Heber J. Grant and a StakePresident in Taylorsville, stated the issue clearly for us: "We are toldthat the living oracles take precedence over all other authority, livingor dead. We agree that the living oracles take precedence, provided thatthey do not conflict with the dead oracles ... If it is true that theliving oracles take precedence over all others regardless of theirdisagreements with the dead prophets, then the Saints must necessarilychange their faith every time there is a change in the presidency ... Themention of such an attitude is so absurd as to border upon theridiculous." (Gosp. Prob., p. 6) The conclusions we must arrive at, then, according to the views ofthe prophets, are very clear. 1) Individual seeking is essential for thesanctification of our lives; 2) We are counseled not to rely solely uponthe arm of flesh, for God prepares us as we prepare ourselves; 3) Theposition of God's holy prophets, who are essential to our progress andblessing, does not relieve us of personal responsibility; 4) Therevelations of God are not subject to either private interpretation ormodern innovation; and 5) [127] Principles and ordinances restored throughthe Prophet Joseph Smith are worth more than our mortal lives. But we were recently taught, "... Thus, the way they interpreted therevelation in those days has no particular bearing on the way therevelations are being interpreted today ... What they did in that day doesnot bind us at all ... Modern revelation is what President Joseph Smithsaid, unless President Spencer W. Kimball says differently." The comparison between those conclusions outlined by the servants ofthe Lord and that of the view outlined in modern times, leaves one

marvelling in unbelief at the inconsistency. Joseph Smith's warning, "If any man preach any other gospel than thatwhich I have preached, he shall be cursed," is of vital significance. Hiswords were but the modern reflection of the Apostle Paul's Anxiety in thefirst century: "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any othergospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him beaccursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach anyother gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."(Gal. 1:8-9) Both prophets recognized the tendency to fall into error aschanges creep into laws and principles and ordinances and revelations, theerror gradually transforming itself into complete apostacy. The prophetsknew the earmarks, and their warnings Were stern and unmistakable. If we carry the unchecked concept of "follow the living prophet" toits inevitable conclusion, we must recognize that it was this exactprocedure that paved the way for the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. Itwas born from "follow the living prophet." The gradual abandonment andchange of original principles and ordinances could have resulted innothing else. Policy, rather than revelation, finally took over and becamesubject to anybody's whim. This is a tremendously significant issue,because it laid the groundwork for the necessary calling of the ProphetJoseph Smith. Men had so far changed the religion of Jesus Christ that itbecame a form of godliness without the power thereof. It is the contentionof some that the Christian religion established by the Lord wasperpetuated through the ages of apostasy into a pure modern form. Thethought is absurd. No possible age of reformation could sift out theimpurities, fallacy of doctrine or strained interpretations ofadministering ordinances which gradually transformed the early ChristianChurch into the Church of men. There is a great difference [128] betweenprofessing religion and possessing religion. The time had come for a fulland final restoration of the gospel. It was time for the calling of theProphet Joseph Smith. By once more conferring divine authority upon men,the Lord re-established His Church upon the earth, embodying everyprinciple and ordinance necessary to exalt mankind. The dispensation ofthe fulness of times was to restore all things, gather together in one allthings in Christ both in heaven and in earth, never to be taken from theearth again. (Daniel 2:44) The Church's mission is to prepare men for theFather's Kingdom. She will become the Church triumphant, glorified by thepresence of her Lord and Head, Jesus Christ. This generation has the word of the Lord through Joseph the Prophet.The fulness of the gospel has been entrusted to us in the latter days andcannot be added to nor taken from, in any form. Joseph said, "Ordinancesinstituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in thepriesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.All must be saved on the same principles ... All men who become heirs ofGod and joint-heirs of Jesus Christ, will have to receive the fulness ofthe ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the

ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory, if they do notlose the whole." (D.H.C. 5:423-4) Thus, all men must be saved by submitting themselves to the same,unchanging ordinances, ordinances that must not be altered. Consider aconflict: Said Apostle Stephen L. Richards in 1932, "I hold it entirelycompatible with the genius of the Church to change its forms of procedure,customs and ordinances in accordance with our own knowledge andexperience. I would not discard an old practice merely because it is old,but only after it has outworn its usefulness." He pointed out that somechanges in the ordinances, forms and methods of the Church had been madein recent years and that these changes had disturbed some of the members.(The temple garments had been changed at that time.) "Personally," hecontinues, "I approve of those changes and hope the general authoritieswill be led to make others as changing conditions warrant." (3:455-6) We are reminded of the prophecy of Isaiah, who pointed to the latterdays: "... They have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, brokenthe everlasting covenant." (Is. 24:5) Elder Stephen L. Richards was the living prophet at the time, notJoseph Smith. What is truth? We remember also the [129] followingcontradiction: Brigham Young firmly stated, "There is nothing that wouldso soon weaken my hope and discourage me as to see this people in fullfellowship with the world, and receive no more persecution from thembecause they are one with them . ..." (J.D. 10:32) But Heber J. Grant said, "My greatest happiness I find in thegoodwill and friendship that has developed among all classes of people athome and abroad toward the Latter-day Saints, during my lifetime; in placeof everyday persecutions and bitterness we now enjoy the high regard andhappy association with all denominations." (S.L. Trib., Nov. 22, 1938)Where shall we place our faith, since Brigham Young was a dead prophet andHeber J. Grant was a living prophet? Further, in 1906, President Joseph F. Smith taught: "The Lord hasgiven unto us garments of the holy Priesthood, and you know what thatmeans. And yet there are those of us who mutilate them in order that wemay follow the foolish, vain and (permit me to say) indecent practices ofthe world .... They should hold these things that God has given unto themsacred, unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gavethem . ..." (3:401-402) If a garment should be held sacred and unaltered and unchanged, whatshould be our attitude about principles and ordinances? Seventeen years later, President Heber J. Grant authorized extensivechanges in the garment style and pattern. The First Presidency stated in aletter under date of June 14, 1923, "After careful and prayerfulconsideration it was unanimously decided that the following modificationsmay be permitted, and a garment of the following style be worn by thoseChurch members who wish to adopt it, namely ...." and he enumerateschanges in sleeves, legs, eliminating the collar and strings. Buttons were

readily available in Joseph Smith's day. Why didn't he authorize buttons?Did this new pattern still constitute a garment "unchanged and unalteredfrom the very pattern in which God gave it?" Was this all right becausePresident Smith was a dead prophet? Joseph Smith was also a dead prophet. We have a further key from Joseph the Prophet: "Every principleproceeding from God is eternal and any principle which is not eternal isof the devil." (T.P.J.S., p. 181) Eternal means unchanging and unending. Other serious alterations and modifications are to be found [130]elsewhere in the restored gospel, and they justifiably give cause forconcern. Let us consider a reality: Since those in the Church who believein or teach or, worst of all, practice plural marriage (under correctauthority) are quickly excommunicated, let us assume that every lastperson is identified and favored with separation papers. Let us add tothat the relinquishment of the United Order and Consecration. What thenmakes the Lord's Church any different from other churches in its abilityto exalt mankind? What is salt that has lost its savor? These are seriousconsiderations and a basis for the assurance that the Lord provided a wayfor all of His holy laws to survive in the last dispensation. We may besure that Satan is pleased with religion. He likes people to be contentwith all the religion they want. He likes people to attend meetings andfast and pray and go to the temple. If he can nullify it. If he can justtake the teeth out of it. The Lord has given us a pattern in all things. It seems doubtful thatHe would do so and leave us without a way to embrace that pattern unto thefulfilling of all the law. The Lord taught: "And again, I will give untoyou a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan isabroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations. Wherefore hethat prayeth, whose spirit is contrite, the same is accepted of me if heobey mine ordinances. "He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meekand edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances. And again, hethat trembleth under my power shall be made strong, and shall bring forthfruits of praise and wisdom, according to the revelations and truths whichI have given you. And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forthfruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me. Wherefore, by thispattern ye shall know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens."(D.&C. 52:14-19) That is the word of the Lord. We are unquestionably in a state ofparalysis if the saving ordinances are no longer available to us. If theyare in a state of suspension, so are we. Further emphasis on this point is given by the Lord: "Therefore, inthe ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And withoutthe ordinances thereof and the authority of the Priesthood, the power ofGodliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; for without this no mancan see the face of God, even the Father, and live." (D.&C. 84:20-22) Therefore, those saving ordinances and principles must be [131]

available to us by God's authority or we are as the people of Moses,wandering in the wilderness under less than saving laws. The Lord hasrestored all things, together with the necessary keys of authority. TheProphet Joseph Smith said that it was necessary to know where the keys ofauthority are. Not only must we know where they are, but we mustunderstand the nature of those keys and that authority. There are keys andauthority within the Church sufficient to bear off its work triumphantly.There are also keys, there is authority, there is Priesthood sufficient toseal the sons and daughters of Adam up to their eternal exaltation. We must live up to every principle of the gospel. There is not onesingle principle of the gospel that we can change or alter. We cannotchange the principle of faith for hypnotism. We cannot replace theprinciple of repentance with pretension. We cannot change the principle ofbaptism by immersion for sprinkling. We cannot partake of the holy emblemsof the Sacrament and believe in transubstantiation. We cannot violate theSabbath day without displeasing God. We cannot break the Word of Wisdomand expect health and strength. We cannot replace the law of celestialplural marriage with monogamy and expect exaltation with the gods who areliving it. We have the same unchanging, unchangeable gospel that God hasrevealed unto the children of men since the days of Adam, with theaccompanying promise that that same unchanging, unchangeable gospel wouldbe upon the earth when Christ came in His glory. And it is up to you andto me to see that these ordinances without exception are fulfilled if weanticipate remaining upon the earth when He is here. Joseph the Prophet said that one of the things that haunted him aboutthe resurrection was the look upon some of the Saints when he gazed intotheir faces and saw that they had fallen short of the glory they thoughtthey had obtained. He said that they did not obtain it because of thecares of the world. They sought after the honors of men and neglected theweightier principles of the gospel, without which they could not receive afulness of exaltation. If we fail to look at root causes, we willinevitably fail to look at ultimate consequences. We can prepare ourselves increasingly by the devotion of our lives tothat faith which is within us, which will grow like a seed unto thatperfect day when it shall no longer be faith, but knowledge. For the HolyGhost will give us a knowledge that will overrule any knowledge we cansecure by miracles or by the [132] testimony of others or by the externalevidences that now prove that all the scriptures are true. The still,small whispering of the Holy Ghost can let us know these things are true.But that is a spiritual gift. It is a gift directly from God. It is thefoundation upon which you and I must develop our spiritual abilities untilthat time when, through the grace of God and absolute meekness andhumility within ourselves, this spiritual gift can prepare us for a moretangible evidence than all earthly evidences. And that is the personalvisitation of angels and the eventual companionship and joy of seeing theface of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and having spiritual existence

become as real and as tangible to our eyes and ears and our touch as arethe physical evidences of our physical existence now. This is God's willconcerning His Saints. There is not one principle that is not worth morethan our mortal lives. No, not one. On the following page is a reproduction of an Editorial in theKlamath Falls, Oregon, newspaper, The Herald and News, October 11, 1974.A. We are bewildered by their bewilderment of our "concepts of baptism andsacrament." We baptized by immersion and partake of bread and water. Don'tmost other churches?B. There is no forceful rule of any kind by the Twelve. The Church wasfounded upon the principle of free agency and common consent in theChurch, which free agency allowed every member is constantly guarded.1. If a man with only one leg is accepted into the Church with his oneleg, but he was told he must do as best he can, are we denying himprivileges belonging to all mankind? If a man has a black skin and God has decreed he cannot hold thePriesthood now but may at God's appointed time, then is the Church obligedto say God is wrong and men are right and therefore the negro must begiven the Priesthood because he clamors for it (very few do)? Yet hecannot use it anymore than the man with one leg could use his amputatedmember until by God's power and mandate the leg or the Priesthood has beenrestored. No man can receive the Priesthood and exercise it except he isobedient to the provisions given by God. Any white man who has a blacksoul is denied that privilege. There is no discrimination by God in thesematters. We receive the blessing we merit by obedience to God's laws andby living. in compliance to His ordinances in the past, in the present,and in the future. [133] Latter-day Saints Face Many Problems The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has just opened aglistening new temple in Washington, D. C. Four soaring spires reach intothe sky, perhaps symbolic. of the high goals of the Mormon community, hereand overseas. For most of this century, the focus of concern and publicrelations has been at Salt Lake City and the famous Tabernacle that hasbecome a western landmark, with its first-rate choir. The new center is clearly a move by the Church of Latter-day Saintsto reach the millions of Washington visitors with their message of JosephSmith and the Book of Mormon. In this era of fascination for the strangeand bizarre in religion (witness the two-hour sermon in Madison SquareGarden by Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church) the Mormons mayindeed be looking to a major breakthrough and acceptance in Westernculture. In Christian circles, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintshas never gained approval. The theological differences have been too vast

(and early Mormon practices unacceptable) for mainline denominations toadmit much common ground. Most Christians admire the high values on familylife prized by the followers of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, but arebewildered by the concepts of baptism and sacrament as expressed in Mormonpractice. Presently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is facingsome serious questions within its own ranks. In a church completelydominated by, "The Twelve" and ruled forcefully by the most senior ofcitizens, younger members are expressing quietly these concerns: 1. The racism of their theology--that black people have no trueparticipation in the life of the church or in the teachings of theirfaith. There is no way that this doctrine can be justified in contemporarylife. Until this religious group has a "reformation," the stress andinherent conflict of this point will be sure to grow. 2. The place of women. In a male-dominated church Mormon women havebeen placed in a secondary role. Joseph Smith preached and practicedplural marriage. This was finally outlawed by an act of Congress, andabandoned by the church in 1890. Yet today the leadership of women isnowhere to be found in key positions or posts. It is hard to imaginesignificant growth in this century for a denomination that has noopportunity for women. 3. The soaring divorce rate in Utah. Younger Mormons are alarmed atthe apparent high rate of divorce for the Zion state of Utah. Reprint from The Herald and News, October 11, 1974. [134] 2. To this we only vehemently assert that the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day Saints grants to women a suffrage never accorded any otherreligion on earth. They preside and hold office in women's organizationsunder the direction of the Priesthood. The Church through the Priesthoodoffers them a glory of motherhood impossible to other faiths, that ofQueenhood and Godhood. The Editor pleads a cause for the Mormon women with which Mormonwomen would completely disagree. It is rather reminiscent of the raids onhomes and families by the well-meaning to save the women in polygamoushomes from a fate they have freely chosen and from which they have no wishwhatever to be saved. God never reveals a program or a law which in anyway is designed to harm women.3. The soaring divorce rate is the inevitable result of our having adoptedthe ways of the world in preference to the laws of God. We must repent andreturn to God and God's laws. We have inserted this news article into this Section as a matter ofinterest and as an item for comment. The article exhibits an obvious lackof understanding of both doctrine and organization of the Latter-day SaintChurch. But more significantly, Eliza R. Snow Smith's statement, `There isa test before us in the near future that will try every soul; and who will

be able to stand?" can very well be levelled at contemporary youngMormons. Are the young men and women prepared to stand for everyrevelation in the gospel? Shall they surge against the gates of God's lawsand press for innovation and modification? Shades of 1890. A contributive part of the ingredients that made upthe pressures for giving up plural marriage came from the young Mormonsthemselves. They desired to hold office as well as to succeed in theirbusinesses in an antagonistic gentile society who had cut them off. Ifthey pressure today for reforms and changes in the gospel of Jesus Christ,they shall surely have them, to their ultimate desolation. The question each must ask is, "Where do I stand when the issues aresquarely before me?" For that question will have to be answered by everyLatter-day Saint as surely as God lives. The hour is upon us. Are theprinciples and ordinances, the revelations of the Lord worth more than ourmortal lives? [135] SECTION TEN "ONE ON EARTH AT A TIME..." When God revealed His will concerning the patriarchal order ofmarriage in this last dispensation of time, it was in answer to a querymade by the Prophet Joseph Smith as to how the Lord "justified Abraham,Isaac and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, as touching theprinciple and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines." TheLord told him He would answer him as touching "this" matter. Therefore hemust prepare his heart "to receive and obey the instructions" which Godwas about to reveal unto him. "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and aneverlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are yedamned." (D.&C. 132:1-4) The Lord was talking about justifying Abraham, Isaac and Jacob inhaving many wives and concubines. He was specifically talking about thatsubject and specifically said that He would answer Joseph as touching thatparticular matter. It is not a revelation solely on the matter of thesealing of marriages for time and eternity. It is a revelation oncelestial plural marriage. There is a, tendency to slide over the realissue of that revelation. God is explicit in telling us that we must obeythis commandment, for it is according to His will. Included in theeternity of the marriage covenant is the necessity of righteous men livingthe order of celestial plural marriage. We are clearly taught that thisorder has to be obeyed in this life if men are to rise above the order ofangels and be gods in the world to come. "For these angels did not abidemy law; (The law in Section 132 is specifically the keynote of therevelation, the law of plural marriage in which God justified David andSolomon.) therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and

singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; andfrom henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (v.17) Such is the future condition of those who will not abide that law. The Lord stated in verse 11 that this law was instituted by Him andHis Father before the world was, and that no man could come unto theFather, "but by me and by my word which is my law." (v. 12) We callattention again to the words of President Joseph F. Smith, whose entiretalk is found in Section One. This [136] is cited to remind us that ourcomplacency in having fulfilled only part of the law is not onlyunfounded, but presumptuous. The law was instituted before the worldwas--the full law--and that means that the law always was and always willbe. "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 hepossibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protestagainst this idea, for I know it is false ... is fulfillment of thecelestial law of marriage in part ...." (J.D. 20:24-31) Therefore, thefull law of marriage, which is plural marriage, is binding upon the Saintswho would receive a fulness of the Father's glory. In connection with this, we are surprised to note a paragraph in thelatest publication of Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus. He said on page 457 ofDoctrines of the Kingdom, "The basic law of eternal marriage was that ofmonogamy." On the contrary, monogamy has never been eternal marriage.There are no Gods living in the monogamous state. It is a grievous thingto find attempts being made to sink plural marriage out of existence or topresent plural marriage under God's law as a watered-down concept, or asone with rarified application in preference to monogamy. This is a falseassumption, and it tends toward apology for God's holy law. Monogamy is not God's basic law of eternal marriage. The fact of thematter is that God's system of marriage is the same yesterday, today andforever. God's system of marriage that runs down through the worlds ispatterned after the order of marriage that exists in the heavens and hasnever changed. Orson Spencer writes in his Letters, 1891 edition: "WhenGod sets up any portion of his kingdom upon the earth, it is patternedafter his own order in the heavens. When he gives to men a pattern offamily organization on the earth, that pattern will be just like his ownfamily organization in the heavens. The family of Abraham was a transcriptof a celestial pattern. The likeness was drawn by a master artist, who wasperfectly familiar with the celestial pattern .... This family order ofAbraham was spread out before God, and met with his entire and fullapprobation. And why did God approve of it? Because it is the only orderpracticed in the celestial heavens, and the only peaceful, united andprosperous order that will endure, while man-invented orders and deviceswill utterly deceive and perish with the using." (p. 192-193) Further evidence of that system in heaven was made very [137] clearby Brigham Young: "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 withhim." (J.D. 1:50-51) Obviously, that represents plurality. Monogamy is notthe basic system in heaven or on earth. The order in heaven finds itspattern upon the earth. We find the friends of God, Abraham, Isaac andJacob, all living plural marriage. All scripture, it may be added, hasbeen written by polygamist prophets. If monogamy is the basic form ofmarriage and polygamy is something of an incidental, why do we not findChrist in all His teaching saying something against polygamy and brandingit as secondary or wrong or perhaps transitory? Instead, we find the writings of Aurelius Cornelius Celsus, the greatphysician of the first century, teaching a great truth: "The grand reasonwhy the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ,was because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth and Mary, and ahost of others that followed him." (JMG, J.D. 1:345) Was not Christ thegreat Exemplar? In all things He led the way. Joseph F. Smith taught: "Jesus Christ never omitted the fulfillmentof a single law that God has made known for the salvation of the childrenof men. It would not have done for him to have come and obeyed one law andneglected or rejected another. He could not consistently do that and thensay to mankind, `Follow Me.'" (Mill. Star 62:97) Though He was holy, yethe was baptized. Can we safely assume He did not fulfill the highest lawof marriage? He was the Word of God. Polygamy, not monogamy, was the basic form of eternal marriage.Brigham Young gave the background for monogamy as it evolved into thesubstitute for the true form of marriage. "Monogamy, or restrictions bylaw to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such asystem was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire. That Empire wasfounded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When theserobbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that theirsuccess in attaining a balance of power with their neighbors, depended onintroducing females into their body politic, so they stole them from theSabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcity of women gave existence tolaws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of theworld, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway wasacknowledged. Thus this monogamous order of marriage so esteemed by modern[138] Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothingbut a system established by a set of robbers." (J.D. 9:322) So we haveBrigham Young's opinion of monogamy as the "basic form of eternalmarriage." The eternity of the marriage covenant comprehends plural marriage.Charles W. Penrose spoke to the Saints in Centerville: "He showed that therevelation that had been the subject of attention (See. 132) was not theonly one published on Celestial marriage, and if the doctrine of pluralmarriage was repudiated, so must be the glorious principle of marriage foreternity, the two indissolubly interwoven with each other." (Mill. Star45:454)

The order of marriage is again set forth: "Why do we believe in andpractice plural marriage? Because the Lord introduced it to His servantsin a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have alwayspracticed it. And is that religion popular in heaven? It is the onlypopular religion there, for this is the religion of Abraham, and unless wedo the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham's seed and heirs according tothe promise." (B. Young, J.D. 9:322) President Young states that theLord's servants have always practiced it. The Lord's servants, then, oughtnot to be found diluting a holy principle and encouraging substitutes asbetter or more basic doctrine. Apostle Erastus Snow said, "Joseph Smith said that the parable thatJesus spoke of that the man who had one talent and hid it in the earth wasthe man who had but one wife and would not take another, would have hertaken from him and given to one who had more." (Journal of W. Woodruff,Oct. 14, 1882, meeting of acceptance of the 1882 revelation.) Brigham Young understood the parable similarly: "Now where a man inthis Church says, `I don't want but one wife, I will have my religion withone,' he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he getsthere he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He hashad a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, `Here isthat which thou gavest me. I have not wasted it, and here is the onetalent,' and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to thosewho have improved the talents they received, and he will find himselfwithout any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever." (J.D.16:166) Eternal marriage and monogamy are unquestionably incompatible. As aconcept of eternal marriage, monogamous marriage has no more substance toit than does it to say that baptism is all [139] that is necessary for thefulness of the Holy Ghost. As an interesting matter of fact, the monogamist state was ratherrepugnant to Heber C. Kimball: "I have noticed that a man who has but onewife and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up.For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business." (J.D.5:22) We find Apostle George A. Smith speaking from the same platform:"They are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men who chainthemselves down to the law of monogamy and live all their days under thedominion of one wife." (J.D. 3:291) We can safely assume that monogamy isnot the "basic law of eternal marriage." Rather, we would agree thatmonogamy is the basic law of the world. Let us now consider a more significant statement made in Dr. Hyrum L.Andrus' otherwise commendable publication. On page 441 of Doctrines of theKingdom, it is stated: "In a revelation, the Lord announced that there was`never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys ofthis priesthood are conferred.' That man was the Prophet and President ofthe Church of Jesus Christ .... All things within the divine system,therefore, were to be directed by the eternal law and inspiration of God

through a living prophet." This particular issue is the crux of ourconcentration in this Section, since many Saints become quite nervous whenconsidering the possibility of Priesthood functioning independent of theChurch. A statement of J. Reuben Clark comes to mind in connection withthis: "The Priesthood is essential to the Church, but the Church is notessential to the Priesthood." (Imp. Era, Mar., 1936, p. 134) We agree that God directs His word through a living prophet, for"Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto hisservants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) It is true that Joseph as Prophet andPresident of the Church received the keys for the perpetuation of all ofthe gospel. It is true that in the early days of the Church he taught theprinciple of celestial plural marriage to a few trusted friends in whom hefelt he could place his confidence. He, himself, entered into it andinstituted all of those who could abide it in righteousness into it also.But it was not a doctrine of the Church at that time. The Prophet, veryproperly under the direction of God, took action against any who justifiedthemselves in living that principle unless they did it under his directcommand. Consequently, we find seemingly contradictory positions on hispart, the Prophet teaching it privately for a number of years to trustedindividuals, [140] while openly declaring that it was not practiced by theChurch and was not a tenet of the Church, which, in both instances, itwasn't. It was a doctrine under the direction of the Priesthood, as it istoday. As an example of Joseph's position: "I answered the questions which were frequently asked me, while on mylast journey. . .`Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?'No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies,they have a right to marry again. But we do disapprove of the custom,which has gained in the world, and has been practiced among us, to ourgreat mortification, in marrying in five or six weeks or even in two orthree months, after the death of their companion. We believe that duerespect ought to be had to the memory of the dead, and the feelings ofboth friends and children." (1:6-7) This was recorded in 1838, and Josephwas living the principle at the time. Again, Joseph records in February of 1844: "As we have lately beencredibly informed that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preachingpolygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer,State of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, thathe has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is furthernotified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, tomake answer to these charges. Signed Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Presidentsof the Church." (3:132) The contradiction here is obvious, but there is a position assumed bythe Prophet in this that we must understand. He knew the difficultiesunder which he would have to establish that principle. He saw well inadvance that because of the traditions of men, all of the troubles they

had formerly experienced would be compounded upon them. He knew it was thedisposition of the wicked to enter into the principle as a justificationof their wickedness. He intended under God's direction to keep it a pureand a holy principle. With these things in mind and with a view to thefuture and the danger that it would invite upon the very establishment ofthe Church itself, he was very, very careful. Had God not directed him to take the steps necessary to conceal theprinciple where necessary and to teach it where possible, it would havebeen impossible to establish the Church in its fulness and keep it alive.Joseph also said, "I have constantly said no man shall have but one wifeat a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise." (D.H.C. 6:46) That is true.But the Lord has directed [141] otherwise. Joseph received thecommandment. Monogamy was the established system of the time, and he knewthat if he let everyone go around freely entering into plural marriage,they would abuse the law, and great havoc would be the result. But that itwas very definitely established by the Prophet in his lifetime and livedby him and his associates, is impossible to deny. It is also verydefinitely functioning today, under the Lord's command, and is bindingupon His Priesthood. Brigham Young gives us insight as to an item of procedure. Said he,"The Keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph to build up theKingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in time orin eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it was bythe voice of the people, though he held the Keys of the Priesthoodindependent of their vote." (J.D. 1:133) Joseph could have lost hisposition as President of the Church, had the people so voted. The Churchis democratic in function and is persuaded by the vote. But the Priesthoodis theocratic in government, directed by and accountable to God. It wasthe power of the Priesthood that established the Church. The Church didnot and does not preside over the Priesthood. Priesthood directs as to thewill of God, whether the people choose to obey or not. God cannot bebound--unless it be through our righteousness. "I the Lord am bound whenye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."(D.&C. 82:10) We mention these things because much is made of the issue that theprinciple of plural marriage cannot be perpetuated except through thePresident of the Church. But that is to say that the people can tie thehands of the Lord for all mankind, and that is incorrect. A differentprocedure was adopted by the Lord when the Church's majority decided tovote the principle of plural marriage into obscurity. The Lord madearrangement to fulfill His word in the last dispensation in order that thefulness of His gospel would remain and accomplish its holy design. Thatthe Lord should do so isn't too surprising, if one ponders the questioninevitably placed before us: If the keys for perpetuating plural marriage are Church-held but havebeen suspended, how do you suspend keys without losing them? When a

generation passes without an ordinance being perpetuated, how, then, canit be perpetuated? Who has lived the law? Can you hold the keys andperpetuate an ordinance you, yourself, have never received? Can youbaptize if you have not been baptized? Can you confer Priesthood if youhaven't [142] received Priesthood? Or, if the keys to an ordinance areperpetuated on the earth, can that be so without perpetuating theordinance? And without all of the keys alive and active, can we have the"winding-up scene"? If keys are lost by being "suspended" so that no oneis authoritatively living the principle, can they be dispensed again?Would that not require another dispensation? Was this not declared by theLord Himself to be the last? If the keys were taken from the earth or weresuspended and no one is living the principle, the keys are lost in theimpossibility of perpetuating an ordinance no one has received. We canonly build up to making liars out of the Lord and Joseph Smith, for wewould need another angel from heaven to restore "suspended" keys that noone could activate. Brigham Young provides another clue: "Does a man's being a Prophet inthis Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, no! Aman may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to dowith his being the President of the Church." (J.D. 1:133) The Lord canaccomplish His work through any worthy man He chooses, and indeed must, ifthe Church President is bound by the people. Another statement worth our contemplation: "As to a person notknowing more than the written word, let me tell you that there are keysthat the written word never spoke of, nor never will." (Times and Seasons,5:667) We have outlined in Section Four the manner in which he Lord chose toensure the continuation of plural marriage, which was through PresidentJohn Taylor. We hear and read of protests that there are no "secretordinations" sanctioned by the Lord. This is covered more completely inSection Eleven. It is an uninformed stand, for unpublished and unannouncedordinations are not unheard of in the early Christian Church as well as inthe latter days. For instance, it is recorded in the Life of Joseph F.Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 225: "He was ordained an Apostle andCounselor to Pres. Brigham Young--the ordination kept secret." On page 227is the account of that secret ordination, and it was kept secret for 14months. Heber C. Kimball, the other member of the First Presidency, washimself unaware. This was not a one-time exception. The same was true ofGeorge A. Smith, the Prophet's cousin. Common consent is not alwayssought, nor should we assume that it would be necessary in all things.Joseph F. Smith, by the way, was an Apostle for 20 years before he was amember of the Quorum. The Church cannot bind the Priesthood, [143] and thePriesthood is never instructed from below. Further "secrecy:" "There are men here, brethren, who have gotauthority, but we don't want to mention their names, for the enemy willtry to kill them." (B. Young, Times and Seasons, 5:663) Death may not

presently be the issue, but that necessity can demand secrecy ifnecessary, or require extra measures as events may suggest, should not bequestioned or cause us to waver in our faith. The Manifesto brought aboutthe necessity of "re-routing" God's law of plural marriage. Judging such athing impossible and insisting that the Lord hold to our ideas ofprocedure indicates an unyielding tendency to counsel the Lord. Surely itisn't in our hearts to do that. The president of the Church under the direction of God can instructany man to function as the Lord sees fit. John Taylor's action tended todisannul an unfortunate covenant with the government, independent of theChurch. Subsequent Church presidents carried out the policy. It is veryapparent that the presidents of the Church had no intention of allowingthe Manifesto, offered to the government and to the petitioning Saints, tostop plural marriages in this last dispensation. There is no question thatwe cannot have the fulness of celestial glory unless we have the fulnessof celestial law. And the fulness of the celestial marriage covenant ofnecessity includes plural marriages, for so spoke the prophets. There isno revelation in our Standard Works on monogamy--unless it is an exceptionand a limiting edict to an unworthy people. From the Millennial Star: "Wecannot be married ... for eternity without subscribing to the law thatadmits a plurality of wives." (5:15) That the Lord in His tender mercywould find means for making everything available to us necessary for ourexaltation, ought to fill us with gratitude, not shock. Therefore, if there is a president of the Church who is notadvocating that law either because he will not or he cannot, and he is notliving it, then God must choose another prophet from among His Priesthoodto perpetuate the principle, who is living it. This is a key: If youdesire to seek after the man who holds the keys, look for the man who isliving all of the laws. "For it is not meet that men who will not abide mylaw shall preside over my Priesthood." (1:336) We are reminded of Daniel2:44 again: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set upa kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not beleft to other people, but it shall break in pieces and [144] consume allthese kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Whatever its hardships andbuffetings, the Kingdom yet stands. It is the Kingdom of God. It should beunderstood that because the "Gentiles rejected the fulness of the gospel,God took it from them and drove it into the wilderness again, among HisPriesthood. (See Section 12.) It could no longer be under the direction ofthe Church presidents, and they were the first to proclaim that verything. Consider a scripture: Quoting from Doctrine and Covenants Section130:14-17: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of thecoming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thoushalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, andtrouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to

decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the Millennium orto some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than thattime." That would put us into the fall of 1890, Joseph having been born in1805. Orson Pratt, when writing his footnotes for the Doctrine andCovenants, wrote as a footnote for the scripture just quoted: "Near theend of the year 1890. See the prophecy of Joseph uttered 14 Feb. 1835,Millennial Star (Vol. 15, No. 13). `Even fifty-six years shall wind up thescene.' Whether this has reference to the coming of Christ, or the`fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles' is unknown." Joseph prophesiedin 1835, according to the minutes recorded in the Millennial Star, that"Even fifty-six years should wind up the scene," which again puts us into1890-91. It becomes very evident that the fulness of the times of the Gentileswas fulfilled in the rejection of the principle of plural marriage. "Atthat day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel ... and shallreject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bringthe fulness of my gospel from among them." (3 Ne. 16:10) Obviously, whohad the fulness of the gospel and were in the position to reject it? Onlythe Latter-day Saints. It is evident from the Prophet Joseph, cited above,that the end of the year 1890 or the beginning of 1891, was, by the wordof the Savior, to witness some remarkable event, either the coming of Lordto usher in the Millennial reign, the redemption of Zion, or the "fullnessof the times of the Gentiles." The Savior came to [145] John Taylor in1886, as well as to others, but we are well aware that the Millennium isnot yet. And certainly Zion has not yet been redeemed. It is not livingcelestial law as stated in D.&C. 105. Therefore, we must conclude thatJoseph had reference to the "fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles," assuggested by Orson Pratt in his footnotes. Further, it is in fulfillment of prophecy. Doctrine and Covenants45:28-30: "And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shallbreak forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulnessof my gospel; But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light,and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men. And inthat generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." The Lord said He would not revoke the law of celestial pluralmarriage in 1886, though the Saints would have their free agency to acceptor reject it. They rejected it in large number, forfeiting theiropportunity to the fulness of the gospel. Thus, the "times of theGentiles" was fulfilled. The Savior did not come to redeem them becausethey failed to keep their covenants. Therefore, the fulness of His gospelwas indeed taken from among them, into the arms of the Priesthood. Yet westill have many Saints presuming to state that plural marriage cannot belived or perpetuated because the president of the Church has to be the oneactivating the keys. Thus we seek to counsel the

Lord even when rejecting His law. Brigham Young would have allowed the Church to do as it chose, takingthe power and authority of the Priesthood with him to organize under God'sdirection elsewhere if necessary. After Joseph's death in 1844, he said:"I do not care who leads the Church, even though it were Ann Lee." BrighamYoung knew who held the keys. He said further, "I know where the keys ofthe kingdom are, and where they will eternally be." (D.H.C. 7:230-233) Weare reminded, "Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that heshall be the President of it? I answer, no!" Plural marriage cannot beperpetuated through the Church president under the circumstances imposedupon the Church in 1890. The Church is presently fulfilling all of themission that it covenanted to do. It is God's true Church. May weemphasize the fact that the fulness of the gospel is not held out as asubstitute for the Church. Indeed not. The fulness of the gospelcomprehends all of the gospel restored through the Prophet Joseph. It is essential to emphasize that the president of the Church [146]on a number of occasions has commissioned men to act in his behalf, andhas made it clear that he does not want to know when they performmarriages. The president of the Church has that authority. For example,here is part of the examination of the witness, President John Taylor,before Judge Zane in the 1884 polygamy trials: Mr. Dickson: Give me the names, if you can, of the priests orministers, or whatever name they are known by in the Church, in this city,who were authorized to perform plural marriages within the past threeyears. Taylor: I could not give you these names. Q: Can you give me any of them? A: No sir. Q: Can you not give the name of any person in the Church who wasauthorized to celebrate plural marriages within this period of time? A: I will state in relation to these matters, that I have nothing todo with the details. Q: I understand it is you from whom the authority comes? A: Yes, sir; but I have nothing to do with the details of the matter. Q: But you are the person who confers the authority? A: Yes sir. Q: Then you do know upon whom you do confer authority? A: There are hundreds of people who have authority .... Q: You do not know at any time who is authorized to celebrate pluralmarriages? A: No, sir, I do not know .... Q: There is no records kept? A: Don't have any such records. Q: Then if you don't know the names of the persons who celebrate therites, and there is no record of it known to you, how can you tell whethera marriage is celebrated?

A: I have nothing to do with details .... Q: Is there any record of marriages? A: I am not acquainted with the records. Q: Do you know whether a record of marriages is kept? A: It is very probable there is. Q: Can you say whether there is or not? A: I think likely there is. Q: Did you ever see it? A: I do not know that I have.[147] Q: If you wanted to see it, is there any means of ascertaining whereit is? A: I could find out by inquiry. Q: Will you be good enough to do so? A: Well, I am not good enough to do so." (3:210-224) To follow up and make clarification to the Saints, President Taylorspoke of this interview to them. The entire reference on the above-citedpages should be read. It is pure entertainment. He said, "I was latelycalled upon as a witness--perhaps you may have seen some account of it inthe papers--and I want to make some explanation in relation to the mattersthat I then presented, because they are not generally understood. I wasrequired to divulge certain things. I did not know them to divulge.Perhaps some of you have had people come to you with their confidences. Ihave. But I don't want to be a confidant. Why? Because if they made aconfidant of me and I was called before a tribunal, I could not, as anhonorable man, reveal their confidences, yet it would be said I was atransgressor of law; but no honorable man can reveal confidences that arecommitted to him. Therefore, I tell them to keep their own secrets, andremember what is called the Mormon creed, `Mind your own business.' Idon't want to know the secrets of people, those that I cannot tell. And Icould not tell very much to that court; for I have studiously avoidedknowing any more than I could possibly help about such matters."(1:343-344) Surely we can understand that the president of the Church was in aposition where he made it his business to give the right to perform thesemarriages, but did not know what was going on so they could not pin himdown and get him and the Church into trouble. For example, the writer'sfather's plural marriage after the Manifesto was with the knowledge andconsent of the First Presidency, though they did not perform the sealing.Further, when the writer's grandfather went to President Wilford Woodruffabout entering into plural marriage after the Manifesto had just beenratified, President Woodruff said that as President of the Church he coulddo nothing for the parties. "But if I send you to an Apostle, will you dowhat he tells you to do? (See page 87) They went to the Apostle, and thatmarriage was performed. The Apostle did not ask President Woodruff forpermission. In fact, President Woodruff made it very apparent that he hadnothing to do with it. Yet it was certainly under his authority that it

was [148] done. Though President Joseph F. Smith did everything in his power to keepfrom becoming personally involved, he did permit many marriages to beperformed during the entire time of his administration. For example, theirritated Salt Lake Tribune drew a bead on President Smith on October 11,1910: "President Joseph F. Smith said that he was the only one authorizedto permit the ceremony of plural marriage and that he is not making thisauthorization. The Tribune has repeatedly called attention to the factthat he is the only man authorized to permit these marriages and thatbecause this is so, his profession of ignorance of such marriages or ofirresponsibility for them on behalf of the Church, is a falsehood. Nothingcan be more certain than that under the Mormon doctrine and laws he is thesole one responsible for the new polygamous marriages .... This being so,his denial of complicity in the new polygamous marriages is futile. If hehas quit authorizing these new polygamous marriages, how long since is itthat he quit? "He himself performed the marriage ceremony for Abraham H. Cannon andLillian Hamlin, one of the first of the transgressions against theManifesto. He has been silent with regard to this, sustaining polygamists,favoring them, rewarding them in every way, giving the aid and comfort ofhis position to those who entered into new polygamy, and thus defied thelaw of God and man as he himself clearly confessed that he was doing."(3:428) The Tribune was more clear-eyed than were many of the Saints. Weought to understand that the president of the Church in most instancescould honestly say he was not giving any authority to anybody to performplural sealings, because he had already caused authority to be given. Whenhe said that there was no authority in all the world to perform pluralmarriages, he was correct at that particular time. He was in completecontrol of when that authority would have to be briefly quiescent, andwhen it was to be activated. Furthermore, in 1909, President Joseph F. Smith called Elders NathanClark, Bishop McKean and Joseph W. Musser and gave them commission to keepcelestial plural marriage alive in this last dispensation. It was acommand. The president of the Church also commissioned presidents of Templesto exercise this authority, and the Church has not known in each instanceof all the marriages that they were performing. He trusted them as beingone with the president to [149] act in accordance with the whisperings ofthe revealing Spirit of the Holy Ghost to do that which is right in thesight of God. And they acted under his authority and his keys. Presidents of temples, including Ephraim Chapman of the Manti Templeand Edward Wood of the Cardston Temple, entered into the practice ofplural marriage after the Manifesto. They received that right and thatauthority from the president of the Church, though there is no evidence ofwhat time or when or where. God doesn't intend that the world should know

how He and the Priesthood act concerning these matters. In 1912, President Joseph F. Smith went into Canada and got a selectgroup of faithful brethren around him and instructed them to go ahead inthat principle. Among those men was the president of the stake in Raymond,Heber Allen. We know of this personally. When the Church took the position that they could no longerperpetuate the principle, which position started in 1886 and not in 1890,only those who sought out where the keys were held, could live the higherlaw. Some did seek it out. Angus M. Cannon, a stake president, wasinstructed by President Taylor to tell people when they came to him thatthe Church was no longer performing the ordinance. In the suit of theUnited States against the Church in 1888, the following was Angus M.Cannon's testimony: Q: "Then it is a cessation because you could not safely perform thesemarriages; is that the idea? A: It is a cessation because the law declared we could not do it; outof honor for the law. Q: It was what? A: Out of honor for the law. Q: Why was it that when the law made these marriages penal that outof honor for the law they were not stopped twenty-five years ago? A: I will state that upon persons applying to me for recommends togo, when I believed such was their object, I have told them theconsequences. Q: And gave them the recommend ... ? A: I approved the recommend after explaining to them that if theyperformed them they must endure the penalty as Daniel did when he prayedcontrary to law, and when they insisted that they preferred to endure thepenalty to forgoing the promised blessings of God in that direction, Ihave signed the recom-[150]mends." (2:77) There is a basic teaching in that interview, which ought to beapparent to the reader. The interview was before the Manifesto, anddespite the law, marriages still went on. The principle of seeking out thekeys still holds. Any man who desires with all his heart to live thatprinciple and is willing to comply to it, the law is binding upon him.(J.F.S. 1:213) Satan fosters many delusions. We must remember that nomatter what the delusion may be, the earmarks are the same, one of whichis that everything is hopeless. Our intent is to stipulate that this isnot so. Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus joins the host of others who hold the commonconcept that plural marriages were stopped in all the world in 1904 byvirtue of the public pronouncement of President Joseph F. Smith. On aChurch basis, they certainly were. However, the actions of our leaderswere far more explicit than their words, as we have noted. Dr. Hyrum L. Andrus stresses also that the living of plural marriageunder the Priesthood must be by commandment, or it is not acceptable to

God. (See Doctrines of the Kingdom, pp. 457-462) We entirely agree. Thepermission of the servant of God in whom the keys for this work residemust be granted, for it is his position to know the mind and will of theLord in the matter. We wonder, however, that a question should even arise as to theprinciple being a specific commandment to this dispensation, and thereforebinding upon the Priesthood. We can produce no revelation countermandingthe commandment to Joseph Smith. Rather, the Lord declared in 1886, "Ihave not revoked this law, nor will I." President Woodruff taught the sametruth when he said that we will live the law until Christ comes again.Certainly there is overwhelming evidence of that fact, as brought forth inthe Summary to this volume. The present living of plural marriage is because of commandment, andwe dare not do otherwise. Joseph said the revelation on plural marriagewas "given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (1:26-27)"We have got to observe it," he said. It was obviously regarded as acommandment by the Church leaders through and beyond the Manifesto, and itis yet a commandment binding upon all who would enjoy a fulness ofcelestial glory. Said Brigham Young in connection with this: "The only menwho become Gods, even sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."(J.D. 11:268-269) The necessity of the principle in the lives of the Saints has [151]been made evident over and over again. Elder Samuel A. Woolley, associateof Joseph Smith, is an example. He had been ill in October of 1843. Herecords: "One afternoon in the month October, A.D. 1843, I think on aTuesday, about 2 o'clock, (I cannot explain just how I knew it was 2o'clock, but I knew it), found myself in the sitting room downstairs, andwalking 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 turnedaround, saw Mary, his wife, putting down the blinds of th windows in thesitting room. I stood and looked and wondered what was to be done. I sawtwo or three other persons there; and presently some others, includingPatriarch Hyrum Smith, came in. "The fireplace was in the north end of the room, and Hyrum sat downat the east end of the grate, with his face turned to the northwest.Presently I saw him take a paper out of his coat and, as he opened thepaper, I read, `A Revelation on Eternal Marriage and Plurality of Wives,'etc. He then commenced to read what is now known as the revelation onplural marriage. I also read it myself as fast as he did. He stopped andexplained as he went along. There was a sister present by the name ofGerman, who, when he had read to a certain point, went to the southwestwindow, raised the curtain, looked out, then turned around and said,`Brother Hyrum, don't read anymore, I am full up to here,' drawing herhand across her throat. It was there told me by the same power thatinformed me it was 2 o'clock, that that revelation was of God, and that noman 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 sametime. From this time I commenced to get well and did so very speedily."(1:24-25, 3:128) We add also the witness of Abraham Hunsaker, whose record is in theL.D.S. Biographical Encyclopedia by Andrew Jenson, Assistant ChurchHistorian (3:415-416): "When the law of celestial marriage was firstwhispered to him, he opposed it exclaiming, `It is of the devil,' but Godknew his heart and in open day a messenger from heaven with three womenclothed in white raiment stood before him several feet from the ground,and addressed him thus: `You never can receive a full and completesalvation in MY kingdom unless your garments are pure and white and youhave three counselors like me.' Thus he was convinced that principle wasright, and he subsequently married five [152] wives, two of whom survivedhim, and he became the father of 50 children." The command was reiterated by Joseph F. Smith in 1878: "It is a lawof the Gospel pertaining to the celestial kingdom, applicable to allgospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise, and neitheracceptable to God or binding on man unless given by commandment, not onlyso given in this dispensation, but particularly adapted to the conditionsand necessities thereof, and to the circumstances, responsibilities, andpersonal as well as vicarious duties of the people of God in this age ofthe world ...." (1:206) Apostle Samuel W. Richards also stated: "In ancient Israel, polygamywas regularly practiced in accordance with the Law of the Lord. If it werea true and righteous principle then, what renders it false and unrighteousnow? If it met God's approbation then, why should it not now? The JewishScriptures contain no record of His prohibiting it. Three or four thousandyears make no difference in the truth or validity of the eternal laws andinstitutions of God." (1:38) The Gods have become exalted on the basis ofthe same, unchanging eternal laws as are placed before us for ourrequirements. We turn to Orson Pratt in the matter of the commandment that has beenplaced before us: "... The Lord God who gave revelations to Mosesapprobating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day Saints, notonly approbating it, but commanding it." (1:183) Joseph F. Smith adds: "I understand the law of celestial marriage tomean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey andpractice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say Iunderstand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name ofJesus that it does mean that .... This law is in force upon theinhabitants of Zion, and he that is qualified to obey it cannot neglect ordisregard it with impunity." (1:214) Those among the Saints whose efforts are directed to sink theprinciple of plural marriage out of existence or to minimize its necessityas part of God's eternal plan, are in danger of losing all hope of eternalexaltation for their whitewashing, for their teachings are a delusion.

Heber C. Kimball said, "That which He revealed He designs to havecarried out by His people." (J.D. 5:203) The Lord will prevail despite theweaknesses of men. Apostle Daniel H. Well [153] made a significantprophecy: "If we as a people do not hold ourselves on the altar ready tobe used, He will pass on and get somebody else; because He will get apeople that will do it. I do not mean to say that He will pass on andleave this people; no, there will come up from the midst of this peoplethat people which has been talked so much about." (Des. News, Dec. 9,1882) Similarly, Heber C. Kimball said, "But the time will come when theLord will choose a people out of this people upon whom He will bestow Hischoicest blessings." (Des. News, Nov. 9, 1865) Other similar referencesare cited in the Summary. That the principle of celestial plural marriage would be hindered inits perpetuation because of contending Saints or because the Churchpresident would be placed under covenant to cease teaching it, was neverthe intention of the Lord or His prophets. To assume we cannot live all ofGod's restored laws because the Church president is handicapped, is notand was not the intent of the Lord. It is misinformation that isperpetrated upon the Saints in many forms. For this reason, we aredwelling upon it at length. The Lord God knows the end from the beginning. He was not foolishenough to establish a holy and exalting principle only to have to give into pressures and remove it from the earth. He was fully aware of theconditions into which the Church and its holy laws were moving. It isunlikely that the encroachment of a Manifesto took Him by surprise. God tells us He is the same unchanging God yesterday, today andforever, and that His word changeth not, neither doth it vary in the leastdegree. If some of the Saints are trying to sink plural marriage, one ofGod's holy laws, out of existence, it is our responsibility to stand firmfor truth. The hearts of the righteous yearn to obey God and become likeHim. And none but the righteous should have the privilege of having amarriage that continues for time and all eternity. And those who have aneternal marriage that continues forever, if they are righteous and theyhold God's Priesthood and are one with His prophet, they will be given theprivilege of living that law or will be commanded to live it. It issingular that those who seek so desperately to convince the Saints thatplural marriage is an "untouchable" right now and has been sunk out ofexistence, will find that for them, it is. Suppose that through tremendous pressure the president of the Churchand the Quorum of Twelve were put into the position where they had toabandon the work for the dead on pain of going [154] to jail and theconfiscation of their properties. They would also, of course, have tosuffer disfellowshipping or, more likely, excommunication and wearing thebrand of "unfit parents." Assume that the government was using thispressure as a means to stop the autocracy of the Church, the Church'saffairs in politics and its influence in Utah. The Church president holds

the keys of authority in the ordinance work for the dead. The majority ofChurch members petition the president to cease the work so theirprosecutions will be abated. The president then issues an edict that workfor the dead must cease in all the world. Under such circumstances, do we have a problem? Could the dead beredeemed and the Saints be relieved of the responsibility for that work?Or again, suppose baptism was the source of difficulty with the governmentand with our neighbors, and we are seized upon to cease performing theunpopular baptisms. Under the president's edict, would we therefore beobedient because he held the keys to the ordinance, and doing so, would webe justified before God? Would the Lord make no move to perpetuatebaptism? Could we receive the blessings predicated upon baptism and thelaying on of hands to enjoy the Gift of the Holy Ghost? Have we ever beenforbidden to stand up and claim our blessings, in righteousness? Does the color change in applying the same act to baptism that wehave so willingly accepted for plural marriage? Parley P. Pratt said thatthey might just as well pass a law against baptism and the laying on ofhands for the Holy Ghost as to do so against plural marriage. Why have theSaints embraced the delusion? What is our attitude with respect to baptisms into the Mormon Churchin other countries? Have we been hindered in most cases? We seem to urgeupon ourselves the obedience to the laws of our land, but have a differentmeasuring stick as to some laws of other lands. The "Forum" column in theSalt Lake Tribune spelled out instances where baptism was forbidden by lawin Germany during World War II, but our Elders went about, mostly bynight, performing the baptisms. The same has been done in Viet Nam. But westumble over plural marriage and think it is acceptable to do away withthat particular holy law, while we would never consider relinquishing theordinance of baptism. It is a conundrum more than passing strange. We sympathize with Orson Pratt's position: "If one portion of thedoctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If thedoctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, [155] is nottrue, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that camethrough Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them."(1:185) Consider Apostle John W. Taylor's case. He fell victim to Churchpressure. The President said that those who were living the principlewould have to be removed from their positions because it was embarrassingto the Church. (A strange stand to assume, inasmuch as he himself had fivewives.) So Apostle Taylor was unChurched, which was his position at hisdeath in 1916. We find on record of May 21, 1965, that under the directionof President Joseph Fielding Smith, acting on instruction from PresidentDavid O. McKay, with the consent of the Quorum of Twelve, that PresidentSmith "performed the ordinance of restoration" for John W. Taylor, Apostlein polygamy. He died branded an "apostate" in some quarters for living theprinciple of plural marriage. But he was reinstated later. Why? Is there

repentance in the grave? We would like to assume, as to reinstatement,that his case is more the rule than the exception. So important is the principle of plural marriage because of itsinherent design to ennoble and enlarge the character of man, thatPresident Joseph F. Smith told of a learned Jew who visited him on oneoccasion. The Jew told President Smith that he had, with the consent ofhis first wife, another wife, and that he was raising two families becausehe was justified in it, in those things which were written concerning theancient prophets. President Smith said that there was a man who didn'tknow the law of God, yet because of his largeness of heart and because ofhis acceptance of the ancient scriptures, which give us no prerogatives,he accepted that law and lived it. President Smith said he was going toget along and go farther than many of the Saints will today who will notlive the celestial law restored through Joseph. We have the warnings from the scriptures: "O ye pollutions, yehypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker,why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to takeupon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the valueof an endless happiness than the misery which never dies because of thepraise of the world?" (Mormon 8:38) "Why have ye transfigured the holyword of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls?" (Mormon 8:33)It is true that the holy word of God has been transfigured, and the Saintshave the praise of the world now. "Woe unto you, when all men shall speakwell of you!" (Luke 6:26)[156] Those who are inclined to dilute the law of plural marriage, willjoin the nation of the United States in the manner described by WilfordWoodruff: "The Congress of 1862 and the Supreme Judges of 1879, in their actsand decisions have taken a dangerous and fearful step; their acts will sapthe very foundation of our government and it will be rent asunder, and theGod of heaven will hold them responsible for these things .... TheConstitution once broken by the rulers of the land, there will be nostopping place until the nation is broken in pieces, and no power beneaththe heavens can save this nation from the consequences thereof." (Mill.Star, 41:243) A cloud hovers over our nation, and all is not well with the Saints.There are those among the Saints, however, who feel, in the quietude ofpeace with the world, that "All is well in Zion," who have the idea thatthey can get into the fulness of celestial glory by just paying theirtithing and attending their meetings. But Paul sounds the note pertainingto such a deception "... Because they received not the love of the truth,that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strongdelusion, that they should believe a lie." (II Thes. 2:10-11) Again in theBook of Mormon: "... For God hath taken away his plainness from them, anddelivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because theydesired it. And because they desired it, God hath done it, that they may

stumble." (Jacob 4:14) Many Saints are certain that all is well, and in sodoing, believe a lie. They are giving substance to Satan's deceptionperpetrated against the Saints of the Most High. All is not well in Zion. We are literally fulfilling prophecy.Everyone knows about II Nephi 28 in the Book of Mormon, but we tend toassume that it refers to another people, another time, another place. Itis not so. "Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naughtand revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth!"(II Ne 28:16) Plural marriage is sometimes considered of no worth, withthe United Order and the law of Consecration considered unsuccessfulepisodes of history long since laid to rest. The attitudes that havestolen upon us are widespread. But the issue is before us. "And otherswill he pacify and lull them away into carnal security, that they willsay: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus thedevil cheateth their souls and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.... Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo [157] be untohim that crieth: All is well! Yea, wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto theprecepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the HolyGhost! "Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need nomore! And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble, and are angry because ofthe truth of God! (Is this not typical?) For behold, he that is built uponthe rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandyfoundation trembleth lest he shall fall. Wo be unto him that shall say: Wehave received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, forwe have enough! ... for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and fromthem that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away eventhat which they have." (II Ne. 28:21, 24-30) Is this not a perfectdescription of many among us who have rejected the fulness of the gospeland who are content with the portion they have? How often we have heardfrom many friends those very words from the scripture in reference to thefulness of the gospel. Who, after all, is Zion? Heber C. Kimball was directed three times to practice plural marriageand then commanded in the name of the Lord that he obey. One canunderstand his reticence. Joseph the Prophet was finally commanded by anangel with a drawn sword on pain of destruction, to enter into thatprinciple. (1:210) It is the nature and disposition of a good man to notdo anything that would be offensive to the Lord or to himself because ofthe traditions of his parents and of the world. The good men in the Churchwho are honorable and who magnify their Priesthood would be reticent to goahead in this principle under the present circumstances. So it is notsought out generally. The leaders of the Church speak for the Church andtell them they do it under certainty of excommunication. It is a fearfulpronouncement. But we are definitely lulled away into carnal security upon thatbasis, feeling all is well in Zion, and we do not have to worry because

these things are upon the shoulders of our leaders. We are reminded of thefact that the 76th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants tells us that theTerrestrial world is made up of those who are not valiant on earth, whowere deceived by the craftiness of men. So if the honorable men of theearth can be deceived, it is just barely possible that the honorable menof the Church can be deceived also, if they have leaders who are tellingthem they don't have to live God's laws in order to receive the fulness ofHis blessings. It may partially be the responsibility of the leaders,[158] but it is your loss. Where are the latter-day souls who willseparate themselves from the multitude and seek the Master beyond Hisparables? A further significant scripture applies to our day: "The earth alsois defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressedthe laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." (Isaiah24:5) President Joseph Fielding Smith remarked on that passage: "Are wenot too much inclined to blame the generations that are past for thebreaking of the new and everlasting covenant, and to think it is becauseof the great apostasy which followed ... the Apostles in primitive times...? Perhaps we should wake up to the realization that it is because ofthe breaking of covenants, especially the new and everlasting covenantwhich is the fulness of the gospel that the world is to be consumed byfire and few men left. Since this punishment is to come at the time of thecleansing of the earth when Christ comes again, should not the Latter-daySaints take heed unto themselves? We have been given the new andeverlasting covenant, and many among us have broken it." (Des. News, Oct.17, 1936) The change of ordinances by our people has been noted and evenextolled, as we outlined in Sections Two and Nine. One other question that we must ask ourselves. Are the gifts of theSpirit of God more manifest among us since the Manifesto than they werebefore? The Book of Mormon promises further writings of the prophets forus to read and study. Have we received the rest of those works? Have wereceived the extension of all those things which were written concerningthe life of Christ upon this continent? Have we received the writings ofEnoch the Lord promised us in the Pearl of Great Price, to be restored inthese last days after we have proven ourselves? The only answer is that wehave not proven ourselves, or those records would now be among us for ouredification and instruction. Again, has the Lord appeared to the Saints asa body in the Rocky Mountains as Joseph said He would? So despite all ofthe justifying of ourselves in our position and saying all is well, thereis something very wrong. Why are not the gifts more apparent among us? Whyso little speaking in tongues, healing, prophesyings, the gifts of theHoly Ghost that were so manifest among the early Saints? Why are they notso evident now? It is true that they are about us in a limited way. But so are theyin certain degrees among the sectarian world, through faith. [159] We arenot the light that God wants us to be. The Lord says we should be as a

light on a hill that can be seen afar off, and men seeing it would be ledto glorify God. We might well have the miserable commendation that all menspeak well of us. There was never a people generally spoken of who aremore well spoken of than the Mormons today. That is not to our glorybefore God. It is an undeniable fact that if the Saints were walking inobedience to all of the commandments of God, the wicked would be fightingagainst Zion with all the power of their forces. We have shaken hands withthe world and are at peace. We were warned by Brigham Young. Though we are teaching the First Principles abroad in the land, ourlight is not shining as it should, and the condemnation spoken of in thescriptures is coming upon us because we have become very slothful. We areliterally in our day fulfilling the prophecies concerning the kind ofpeople who would be in Zion in the latter days, having lamps without theoil of righteousness, saying all is well. Another sad prophecy has come to pass and is fulfilled tooverflowing. Heber C. Kimball spoke to modern Israel: "You men and womenthat lift up your voices against that holy principle that has beenintroduced among this people, the time will come, when your daughters willwalk these streets as common harlots, and you cannot help yourselves." Apostle J. Golden Kimball said: "I think some have been guilty oflifting up their voices, and if there is any one thing that some peopleare glad and happy is done away with, it is that principle." (Des. News,Mar. 1, 1902) Soon after the comment of J. Golden Kimball, Matthias F. Cowley said:"You know President Kimball once prophesied to this people, and especiallyto the mothers, that if they spoke disrespectfully of a certain principleof the gospel and fought against it, the day would come when theirdaughters would turn aside and lose their virtue, and become objects ofimmorality upon the streets of Salt Lake City. I want to say that thatprediction, sorrowful though it may seem, has had its fulfillment." (Des.News, August 9, 1902) In 1902? How heartbroken would they be in viewingthe greatly worsened conditions of the present permissive day? It is critical to understand that every man must stand on his ownfeet and be responsible for his own doing. Seek the Lord. Seek His keyswithin the Church, and of necessity, independent [160] of its framework.We must know the truth for ourselves. When President Joseph F. Smith toldthe Saints in the Salt Lake Temple in 1909 to cease calling upon the armof flesh, no matter who they were, how much more plainly could the man ofGod encourage the Saints to seek out the truth for themselves? The Churchwas and is bound in these matters. We remind our readers of the Lord's words in D.&C., Section 84: "Andyour minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, andbecause you have treated lightly the things you have received. Whichvanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. Andthis condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And theyshall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the

new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which Ihave given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I havewritten. That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father's kingdom;otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon thechildren of Zion. For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holyland? Verily, I say unto you, Nay." (D.&C. 84:54-59) We encourage a secondreading of the above counsel, given to modern Israel. Finally, the words of Orson Pratt: "Now, if you want to get intodarkness, brethren and sisters, begin to oppose this revelation. Sisters,you begin to say before your husbands, or husbands you begin to say beforeyour wives, `I do not believe in the principle of polygamy, and I intendto instruct my children against it.' Oppose it in this way, and teach yourchildren to do the same, and if you do not become as dark as midnight,there is no truth in Mormonism." (1:187) We must forsake our vaintraditions if we are to come out into the light of the gospel of JesusChrist. We close this section on the above note of warning, because ourdecisions and our actions are so critical. That which we choose to do andto profess will echo throughout eternity. We wish to add that we know thatthe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's true Church uponthe earth. Our hearts are bound together forever in testimony of herrestoration and mission. We understand the feelings of the good people ofthe Church. They have a testimony of that Church, and since the Church istrue, how can anything independent of the Church be right? Many Saintshave wrestled with the question out of devotion and singleness of loyalty.But the Lord directs, and it does [161] not require divided loyalty toseek out and live all of God's laws. On the contrary, those who acceptpart of it and will not seek out or accept the fulness of the Gospel, arethose with divided loyalty. Our intent here is to encourage those with the Spirit of God who wishto know that the Lord has made provision for those who would travel thestraight and narrow way to His presence. We must go forward and make ourcalling and election sure. We wish to firmly establish that monogamy isnot God's "basic law of eternal marriage." God's basic law of eternalmarriage is plural marriage. We wish to make it clear that plural marriageis not a principle dependent upon the president of the Church forperpetuation, when conditions make that impossible. We wish also toestablish the fact that celestial plural marriage was given to thisdispensation by way of commandment, re-emphasized in 1886, and is binding"and in force upon the inhabitants of Zion." We also wish to add that wecannot take the right to Gospel law and ordinances to ourselves. But Godhas prepared a way. When the Church took the position that they would nolonger live the law, God's Priesthood took the position that it would belived, under God's direction through His Priesthood. Hear it, all Israel!The Priesthood did perpetuate the principle independent of the Church, andit is still being perpetuated independent of the Church. Any man who is

righteous, whose heart is right before God, can find out where those keysare. [162] [163] SECTION ELEVEN POLICY OF RETICENCE Have you ever been unexpectedly blessed by a spiritual experiencegiven to you by the Lord, and you were so thrilled with it and excitedabout it that you wanted to run right over and tell your friend next door?Maybe you did manage to stop long enough to think it over. You wondered ifthe sacredness of the experience would be diluted by the telling of it.But mostly, you wondered if your friend would believe you. "Sure he willbelieve me; we've been friends for years," and off you go. Your friendlistens to you and then looks at you and says, "Aw, come on, Joe, not you.Why, I've known you all of your life. Your family is just like mine; yourincome is the same as mine; your garage is a mess like mine. Come on, Joe.You've gotta be kidding!" And you wished you hadn't said anything. Many of us go through a similar uncomfortable experience before wefinally learn that there are some sacred things not to be generallyshared. It is also true with regard to the acts of Priesthood. Many thingsare secret because they are sacred, and many things are secret out ofsheer necessity for preservation. Since many of the Saints have had theirown personal experiences that are considered holy in nature, we canunderstand and accept that the Lord's Priesthood also has its own sacredprocesses. Such has always been the case. The Priesthood, as well asindividuals, is under solemn covenant: "It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; neverthelessthey are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart onlyaccording to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the childrenof men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him....." (Alma 12:9-11) This should develop in our minds an understanding of"the tradition of reticence." We call to mind the scripture which states,"He will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; andI will try you and prove you herewith." (D.&C. 98:12) Certainly the soundness of this process is unquestionable. The Lordis not concerned with giving us the highest teachings in one largepackage. The spirit is not too much different from the body, and we allknow what happens if we stuff our stomachs [164] with more than they canhold. This is a valid principle. In His wisdom the Lord grants unto Hischildren those things that can be accepted and understood and,importantly, that will lead them to the next step. Because we have been given the "fulness of the gospel," we become a

little too assured, thinking that all things are revealed and we need onlyto understand more deeply. But the Lord has revealed teachings that areneither written nor spoken, and which are available only to the earnestseeker after truth. The Priesthood has never moved completely openly forthe eyes of all to see. It is a delusion to believe otherwise. Thescriptures teach us, "And this greater Priesthood administereth the gospeland boldeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of theknowledge of God." (D.&C. 84:19) Simple, elementary reasoning will tell usthat the reason we have "mysteries" to unveil is because all is not known.Nor do we have the right to presume to tell the Priesthood that it must doall things before all men. We refer to the early Christian Church in the Lord's day. It becomesimmediately clear in our study that the Lord adhered to the "tradition ofreticence" (rationing of information) in His dealings with both theuninitiated and the initiated. To His disciples He said, "It is given untoyou to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is notgiven." (Matt. 13:10-15) Certainly the higher and holier a teaching is,the fewer there are who come under the qualifications to hear it. The Lorddiscussed the "mysteries of the kingdom" only with his disciples behindclosed doors, and selected only a few chosen Apostles to share in thestill greater mysteries. Secrecy in the Church was strictly adhered to. "In the Dead SeaScrolls the people of the community are instructed not to discuss theirdoctrines and doings with `the people of the pit,' i.d., the outsideworld; but aside from that they are put under specific oaths of secrecyregarding certain specific things." (Nibley, "Since Cumorah," p. 101) Sowe see that the most sublime and sacred teachings were kept from theunbelieving and the vulgar. "During the whole three months which He spentat Caesarea for the sake of teaching, whatever He discoursed of in thepresence of the people in the daytime, he explained more fully andperfectly in the night, in private, to us, as more faithful and approvedby Him." (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, III, 74) While "secrecy" is an unacceptable word in many circles, the earlyChristians did not use the word to bespeak a mystical air or [165] givethe impression of craftiness to delude or ensnare. There were thoseprinciples and ordinances of the gospel which simply were safeguarded andmade available only to those who sought for them, for those whosespiritual and mental processes resulted in the desire to seek, to ask.That was the condition attached. It is true today. The gospel is a holymatter, containing many pearls not to be "cast before swine" to betrampled, or to be given to those who would only be harmed by it, or whomight only turn and harm the giver. The "tradition of reticence" is also a vital part of the Latter-dayKingdom of God. It is just as necessary today. The Lord said, "Behold hereis the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because thatwhich was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them and they

receive not the light." (D.&C. 93:31) He said further, "A light shallbreak forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulnessof my gospel; But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light."(D.&C. 45:28-30) When a people give up a holy law and receive not thatlight, shall they expect to know the proceedings and designs of God andHis holy Priesthood? That the principle has been perpetuated and that ordinations havetaken place without general knowledge, is often disputed by reference toD&C 42:11: "Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to anyone togo forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he beordained by someone who has authority, and it is known to the church thathe has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of thechurch." The scripture is certainly true. That which is done on behalf of theChurch, should be known to the Church members. Those representing theChurch should be known to them and sustained by them. But we repeat thatthe Priesthood, with its acts under God's direction, is not accountable tothe Church and does not have obligation to submit itself to the vote ofthat body. There were Apostles and members of the Kingdom of Godorganization in the early days of the Church, unknown to the generalmembership. With regard to those ordinations into the Kingdom of God, BrighamYoung said: "The Prophet gave a full and complete organization of thiskingdom the spring before he was killed ... The Kingdom of God willprotect every person, every sect and all people upon the face of the wholeearth in their legal rights; I shall not tell you the names of the membersof this kingdom, [166] (Shall we tell President Young that he can't dothat?) neither shall I read to you its constitution, but the constitutionwas given by revelation ...." (J.D. 17:156-7) We have "secret" ordinationshere. Did the Church vote on those proceedings and those men? Was the actvalid? The action, the concept, the necessity, the privilege appliestoday. A further quotation referred to by the objectors is, "Surely the LordGod will do nothing but he reveal his secrets unto his servants theprophets." (Amos 3:7) The only trouble with that is that we insist uponbeing let in on all the secrets. President John Taylor was the Lord'sprophet. He acted under the Lord's direction in his capacity as theprophet of the Lord and president of Priesthood. The act of perpetuatingthe principle of plural marriage in the face of virile and viciousopposition met all of the requirements for doing so. The First Presidencyand others of the Twelve Apostles accepted the 1886 revelation andsupported the subsequent procedure. Men may froth at the idea of the eighthour meeting, but how do you do away with a revelation that is available,in the President's own handwriting, for all to read? It is such futilityto attempt to set aside the workings of the Lord. Ordinations to authority in "secret" are not unusual, whether they

were due to necessity or whether they were simply because there was a needfor secrecy. Joseph the Prophet said, "In the meantime we were forced tokeep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and ourhaving been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had alreadymanifested itself in the neighborhood." (Pearl of G.P., J.S. 2:74) WereJohn Taylor or Wilford Woodruff or Lorenzo Snow or Joseph F. Smith freefrom similar circumstances? They were not only hounded in the"Neighborhood," but in the entire United States. We have already mentioned in other pages the secret ordination of theProphet's cousin, George A. Smith, to the Apostleship. Counselor Heber C.Kimball of the First Presidency was himself unaware of that ordination forsome time. (Church News, Jan. 7, 1961, p. 16) But he didn't quit thePresidency for their secrecy. Nor did he set the scene for theirexcommunication. Further, Joseph the Prophet did not climb upon a hill and proclaimthe doctrine of celestial plural marriage to all the Church. He taught theprinciple secretly and quietly for a long time, not always teaching thesame thing. Note the following: Joseph said to William Marks, president of the Nauvoo Stake, asrecorded by Marks: "I met with Brother Joseph. He [167] said that hewanted to converse with me on the affairs of the church, and we retired byourselves. I will give his words verbatum, for they are indelibly stampedupon my mind. He said he had desired for a long time to have a talk withme on the subject of polygamy. He said it eventually would prove theoverthrow of the church, and we should soon be obliged to leave the UnitedStates, unless it could be speedily put down. He was satisfied that it wasa cursed doctrine, and that there must be every exertion made to put itdown. He said that he would go before the congregation and proclaimagainst those in transgression, and I must sever them from the churchunless they made ample satisfaction. There was much more said, but thiswas the substance. The mob commenced to gather about Carthage in a fewdays after, therefore there was nothing done concerning it." (Smith, WasJoseph Smith a Polygamist?, p. 15; 3:148) This was June of 1844. TheProphet had many wives at the time. These volumes of The Most HolyPrinciple record similar conversations by the Prophet to other men. Why? Joseph the Prophet, however, spoke much differently to others.Erastus Snow recorded in April of 1843: "The Prophet Joseph Smith firsttaught me the doctrine of celestial marriage, including a plurality ofwives, in Nauvoo, Ill., in April, 1843." (Hist. Rec. 6:232; 3:116) Thereare also many such examples on this side of the coin. The Prophet was simply following a wise policy of reticence, and wasnot making all things known to all people. He taught one thing in privateand another in public, which was the same policy followed by subsequentChurch presidents. The principle was not a part of the Church from 1830 until 1852. Itbecame openly taught in the Church from 1852 until 1890. From 1890 to the

present day, it went back into its former position, being perpetuated bythe Priesthood until the Savior comes again. John Taylor, in 1886,exercised the "tradition of reticence" pertaining to ordinations necessaryto keep the principle alive. In doing so, he was not accountable to theChurch. The need for caution and secrecy in those days was mentioned bySamuel W. Taylor in Family Kingdom: "To enter the Principle, seriousenough in the best of times, now promised in addition to its ordinarydemands a lifetime of subterfuge, secrecy, uncertainty and terror. TheMormons had based all their hopes on an appeal to the Supreme Court. Thataugust body soberly ruled that the Church was an organized rebellion, and[168] therefore any law, constitutional or not, was justified in curbingit. With the constitution thus neatly repealed, the Church met fire withfire by a policy of double-talk. It attempted to pacify the world bypretending that no more plural marriages would be performed. And itquietly passed the word to the faithful." (p. 35) Thus, not only has theprinciple been perpetuated, so has the need for caution and secrecy, whereand when necessary. If the sacred ceremonies within our Temples are not for the ears ofthe foolish of the world, we can safely assume that there are thosefurther sacred things withheld from the foolish among the Saints also.There are teachings "hidden from our view," even "treasures of knowledge"which the Lord has kept in reserve for those who qualify to learn. The Prophet Joseph said, "Brother Brigham, if I was to reveal to thispeople what the Lord has revealed to me, there is not a man or woman wouldstay with me." (J.D. 9:294) He also said, "Many men will say, `I willnever forsake you,' but the moment you teach them some of the mysteries ofthe kingdom of God that are retained in the heavens and are to be revealedto the children of men when they are prepared for them, they will be thefirst to stone you and put you to death." (D.H.C. 5:424) Was Joseph not killed because people "couldn't bear" his teachings?We are very presumptuous to choose to do away with a holy law of God, andthen insist that there are no "secret" ordinations or teachings. Therehave always been and there will always be, so long as there are "threedegrees" of mortals. It is not the Lord, but man who "walks in crooked paths" and "in theshadows." The Lord does not have to account to man or let the left handknow what the right hand is doing. But those who have ears to hear, willhear. For those who will not, Orson Pratt has these words: "There will be many who will not hearken, there will be the foolishamong the wise who will not receive the new and everlasting covenant infulness, and they never will attain to their exaltation, they never willbe counted worthy to hold the scepter of power over a numerous progeny,that shall multiply themselves without end, like the sand upon theseashore. (Mill. Star 15:31-32) We cannot tell the Priesthood that it must do things before the eyes

of all men, or before all Latter-day Saints. [169] SECTION TWELVE A "RAM IN THE THICKET" "And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him aram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram,and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son." (Gen.22:13) Great symbolism is attached to most events in the world's history.The offering of the ram was a prototype of things to come. The ram offeredhis life in the stead of Isaac. The Savior was a ram in offering His lifefor all mankind, that they might be saved. Similarly, the position of thePriesthood group who are living all of the laws of the restored gospel, isas a ram offering. We will explain that position as it involves the designs of the Lord.As expressed by Peter, "Be ready always to give an answer to every manthat asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you in meekness and fear."(I Pet. 3:15) In 1829, the Lord restored the Priesthood of God to the earth. JosephSmith became the man with the Priesthood in the last dispensation, throughPeter, James and John. A year later, the woman was taken from the side ofthe man, and the Church was organized. The scriptures refer to the Churchas the "woman," as in Revelations, Chapter 12. It was intended that thewoman be one with her husband--or the Church one with thePriesthood--though she had free agency to unite with her husband as muchor as little as she chose. In 1844, a manchild, the Kingdom of God, was born. The Kingdom is notthe Church. (See. B. Young, J.D. 17:154-157) The Kingdom comes out of theChurch as an issue or offspring, and is the Kingdom spoken of in Daniel2:44, and is "to stand forever." So we have the man (the Priesthood), thewoman (the Church), and the child (the Kingdom of God), the threecomprising the House of God. As we know, Joseph Smith prophesied that the child and his motherwould go into the West. (Also Rev. 12:6) So the Church and her son, theKingdom of God, fled into the desert where that child was to grow instrength and become a man in order to protect his mother. It is a factthat when the Prophet Joseph was killed, it was the Kingdom of Godorganization that brought the [170] Saints across the plains, not theauthority of the Church. It was the Priesthood authority in operation. Itwas the political body of the Kingdom of God that organized tens andfifties, etc., and brought the Saints across the plains. It was in the West that Brigham Young brought plural marriage outinto the open, and he really got after the Saints to accept it. But the

prophecy that they would not receive the light came to pass, Brigham Youngwas not successful, and most of the Saints rejected the fulness of thegospel. It was a tragedy, for when the Lord gives us a law particularlysuited for our times and designed to give us exaltation, He expects us tolive it. We next come to John Taylor's day, and the government is hoveringover the Church to crush it. President Taylor, rather than relinquish holylaw, went into the "underground" in 1885, as we have outlined in previouspages. In 1886, he set men apart to continue the principle of pluralmarriage in a private way, the commission at the time being quiescent innature. They were to hold the authority until the Church gave theprinciple up. It was not until President Joseph F. Smith's tenure thatJohn and Lorin Woolley were called to function in the calling they hadreceived under the hands of John Taylor, Joseph Smith, and the Savior.There was close association between President Smith and the Woolleys.Later, Joseph W. Musser took direction from Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F.Smith, and he honored them. It should be very clear in our minds that when the Lord gives Hisword upon a true principle, it is established as true regardless offavorable or popular sentiment. A law of the Priesthood must be obeyed bythose who preside over the Priesthood. "For it is not meet that men whowill not abide my law shall preside over my Priesthood." (Rev. of 1882,Section Four) Priesthood laws are obligatory upon those who bear thatPriesthood and honor it. Common consent or democratic vote will neverchange such a law. If men revolt at anything which comes from God, thedevil takes power. The Church, in conference assembled, revolted in 1890. We have to make moral judgments in our lives. We have to makedecisions. We must decide whether we're going to accept the gospel or not,whether we're going to live it or not. Whatever our choice, the work ofGod will not stand still. God will get a people who will live His laws andaccomplish His works. Orson Pratt had this in mind when he said, "I do notknow but that it would be an utter impossibility to commence and carry outsome [171] principles pertaining to Zion right in the midst of thispeople. They have strayed so far that to get a people who would conform toheavenly laws, it may be needful to lead some from the midst of thispeople and commence anew somewhere in the regions round about in thesemountains." (J.D. 15:361) From Brigham Young: "God will preserve a portion of this people, ofthe meek and the humble, to bear off the Kingdom to the inhabitants of theearth, and will defend his Priesthood; for it is the last time, the lastgathering time." (Contributor 10:362) It is a poor defense of thePriesthood to be living only a portion of the laws restored by "thus saiththe Lord." One has a price to pay when going contrary to policy or law. But someof the Saints believe that the price for not obeying God's laws is farhigher and more lasting than the price exacted for obeying them,, which

price pertains only to this world. Whatever the consequences, God's holylaws must be embraced by those who would honor the Lord. Lorenzo Snowvoiced the standard in 1901: "Those of you who intend to continue livingin plural marriage, there is no sin in it, but you will have to carry yourown burdens. The church can do nothing for you." We recall John Taylor's prophecy in 1886: "Some of you will behandled and ostracized and cast out from the Church by your brethrenbecause of your faithfulness and integrity to this principle, and some ofyou may have to surrender your lives because of the same, but woe, woe,unto those who shall bring these troubles upon you." (4:42) It is not becoming to any servant of God to annoy or harrass or topersecute. The people of God cannot be held guiltless if they troublethose living the commandments. While it is true that these offenses mustcome, "woe unto them through whom they come." (Luke 17:2) As the Saintsreceive of the holy Spirit of God, they receive also an increase in thehostility of the world. Those who persecute and imprison or even takelives will think they are doing God a service. Witness: "These things haveI spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you outof your synagogues; yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you willthink that he doeth God a service. And these things will they do unto you,because they have not known the Father, nor me." (John 16:1-3) These wordsof John have come to settle upon the latter days. We are appreciative of the words of the writer Roger Williams: "TheChristian Church doth not persecute no more [172] than a lily doth scratchthe thorns, or a lamb pursue and tear the wolves, or a turtledove hunt thehawks and eagles." The good man, Gamaliel, comes to mind. "Ye men of Israel, take heedto yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men .... Refrain fromthese men and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men,it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lesthaply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:35, 38-39) If any suppose that the Kingdom of God in the last days is to beestablished with less difficulty than formerly, they are quite mistaken.If we do not endure the things that have and that shall come to pass, wewill not be prepared to stand before the Son of Man. The mightieststruggle against the powers of evil is yet to come. The trial of our faithand patience will be an absolute necessity to prepare us for thesanctification of our lives before God. Said the Lord, "Therefore, be notafraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord,that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in mycovenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. For if ye willnot abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." (D.&C. 98:14) We mustabide in His covenant, no matter the cost. Therefore, we cannot give up principle. The Saints should be able tosay with Paul, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it isthe power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." (Rom. 1:16)

No Saint should be ashamed of plural marriage. It is the life our HeavenlyFather lives. Not one of us on earth is a descendant of any other form ofmarriage. Without that holy principle made available in the Lord'sinfinite kindness to God's children, we cannot expect to be exalted to thehighest realms of Celestial glory. As we have stated, those of the Saints who are living authoritativelythe principle of celestial plural marriage are fully aware that they arefully amenable to the punishment that is affixed for having broken a ruleof the Church. They know that no man is justified before heaven forbreaking a law, unless in doing so he is obeying a higher law. And eventhough he is obeying a higher law and will receive the reward accompanyingit, he is also liable or subject to the penalty affixed to breaking thelesser law. Witness Father Adam being driven from the Garden as hispenalty, though he broke a lesser law involving the forbidden fruit tolive the higher law of multiplying to replenish the earth. Some Saintsfeel they cannot obey the law of man in [173] preference to the law ofGod. But all those who will choose to live God's law are fully aware ofthe Church's action toward them. There is no antagonism for the Churchamong those who understand. President Woodruff is sustained in the signingof the Manifesto as a necessity, in view of the persecutions andprosecutions heaped upon the Saints, who had had enough. But this does not alter what God expects the Saints to do, which isto keep alive the fulness of the Gospel as He restored it. It must bedone. Even as the scriptures laud the three Hebrews and Daniel for theirrefusal to obey the law of the land and do not condemn Israel, neither dowe condemn the Saints who will not live the principle, while we laud thosewho will. These Volumes are to establish as clearly as possible the reasonfor the position of the Priesthood group living God's laws. Vindication isin the hands of the Lord. If God sees fit to deliver us at times fromunrighteous men, so be it. If He does not, then we must go ahead and servethe Lord anyway. We do not wish to bring reproach upon the Church, but wewish to keep the gospel alive in its fulness. We are under covenant toobey God at any cost. So we will have to bear our own burdens. The Churchcan do nothing for us. It may take action against us, but our Father inHeaven has not rejected the Church, and as children of the Church, wecannot reject our "mother," the Church, any more than our Father has. Sowe sustain the Church in its righteousness. It is true that the majority of the people in the Church do not andwould not want the celestial law, and it is not our position to urge itupon the people. The leadership of the Church today is very well awarethat the average Latter-day Saint does not want these things, and they areacting very properly when they do not give them more than what that peoplechoose to accept. Further, they ought to cease worrying about whether there is morethan one prophet upon the earth. (See Section Ten) Of course there is. InJeremiah's day there were three or four different prophets. The Book of

Mormon tells us that. All through the history of Israel there have beenmany prophets at the same time. They are not necessarily linear. Sometimesthey are co-linear. And that is our present situation. We cannot say toGod, "You can't do that!" because He has. We have outlined that President John Taylor, under command of theLord and Joseph, gave the Apostleship to several men whom he called in1886, not to exalt them, not to appoint them to set the House of God inorder, not to be critical of the [174] Church, but to have sufficientPriesthood to administer the ordinances of the gospel where the Churchgave them up. With that calling and Priesthood authority, the Church couldnot pressure the work out of existence. The men called to perpetuate theprinciple and the authority to do so, were not set up as a competitivebody. When the Savior comes, those men who are leading the work today willbe more than happy to lay down their commission before the Lord and say,"We have done our work " and they will be prepared to re-enter into theframework of the Church. They have been called to bear the burden of thePriesthood group and of the Church, not to be lifted up themselves. Thisspecial calling was inaugurated to save the Church from its digression, toprovide a scapegoat that would receive the `reproach and save the Church,to provide a ram in the thicket. It might be an ungrateful Church at thepresent time, but one which we sustain in its righteousness as God's trueChurch upon the earth. The fact of the matter is that the Church cannot besaved unless we are living saving principles, the fulness of God's laws.That is why He gave them. That is our calling and position. The day will come when the Church will be glad to have those livingplural marriage back into the Church, together with their records, for thereason that they will have maintained saving and true principles. From thebiography of Joseph W. Musser: "We refer to Church Bulletin No. 222, in which children of parentsexcommunicated for living in plural marriage are denied baptism until theyare old enough to and do repudiate the principle that gave them birth, andwhich instructions in a communication from the Presiding Bishopric underdate of August 1, 1939, were extended and made also to apply to theblessing of children. Under ordinary circumstances these orders may appearharsh measures, but the Lord evidently anticipated the difficulty andamply provided for the emergency. "The writer recalls instructions given at the close of a prayercircle meeting held in the Salt Lake Temple in the early part of 1902.President Anthon H. Lund, a counselor in the First Presidency, wasPresident of the Circle. We asked President Lund for a private audienceafter the close of prayer. Among those remaining were George M. Cannon,John M. Cannon, James Hendry, myself and a few others whose names I do notnow recall. All these brethren, it was understood, were involved inentering into and living the principle of plural marriage since [175] theManifesto. "We made known to President Lund that children were being born to

some of the Saints in the plural marriage relation and that they were notbeing recognized by the Church. We asked what should be done in suchcases. His instructions came clear and emphatic: "`Brethren, you hold the Priesthood and stand at the head of yourfamilies. As your children are born, you should give them a father'sblessing and a name. When they reach the proper age for baptism, youshould baptize them, confirm them members of the Church and confer theHoly Ghost in the usual manner. Be sure and keep the record, and when theChurch will receive it, hand it in.'" We wish to make note of the fact that the Church's covenant with thegovernment was in fulfillment of scripture. Our modern day was welldefined by Isaiah. Speaking of the last days, he said: "As for my people,children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, theywhich lead thee, cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."(Is. 3:12) Who can dispute his accuracy? As to the covenant with the government: "Woe to the crown of pride,to the drunkards of Ephraim whose glorious beauty is a fading flower,which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome withwine! "But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink areout of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strongdrink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way throughstrong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment." The erring vision and judgment is described in the next verse:"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hellare we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, itshall not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and underfalsehood have we hid ourselves: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for afoundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a surefoundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will Ilay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shallsweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hidingplace." The Lord will override the covenant: "And your covenant with deathshall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell [176] shall not stand;when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be troddendown by it." (Is. 28:1, 7, 15-18) Though Ephraim through erring vision and judgment would make a badcovenant, the prophecy states that the act would be disannulled. The Lordworked through President Taylor. Heber Bennion has an interesting observation: "When men are cut offthe Church for wickedness, they become reprobate and go from bad to worse.But when cut off without good cause, the Lord will not forsake them.Nothing but our own sins can cut us off, or come between us and the Lord.The Priesthood has no power in unrighteousness.

"Therefore, cutting people off the Church for believing thatPresident Woodruff fulfilled the prediction of Isaiah regarding thecovenant `with death and hell,' with the Manifesto, is equal to cuttingpeople off the Church for believing that Joseph Smith fulfilled prophecy,and sinned, by letting Martin Harris have the 116 pages of manuscript ofthe Book of Mormon. As well cut people off for believing Adam sinned inlistening to the pleadings of his wife. The cases are parallel. As Martinpersuaded Joseph to do wrong, so drunken Ephraim persuaded PresidentWoodruff to sign that document." (Gosp. Prob., p. 45-46) Heber Bennion, wenote, died in the 1930's in good standing and full fellowship in theChurch. Despite the pronouncement of the Manifesto, reinforced by some of theSaints, despite the brilliant books and articles expounding the reasoningof men, the vital question after all is not what man has said, but whathas God said? That is the heart of the matter. He has marked the course,and He has not changed. It is absurd to suppose that the Lord would command men to lay asidetheir opportunity for exaltation. He has not done so, for it was He whodeclared our day to be the last. The Manifesto was the work of men, andthey have surely perpetuated that document far better than they everperpetuated the law of plural marriage. Having done so, this decree fallsupon their shoulders: "The Priesthood in the last days has to be manifested in sufficientpower to bear off the Kingdom of God triumphant, that all Israel may begathered and saved. If all Israel will not be sanctified by the law whichtheir Moses first offers them, they will peradventure receive a law ofordinances administered to them, NOT according to the power of endlesslife. Men will be saved in the last days, as in former days, according totheir faith [177] and willingness, to receive the Word of God AND WALK INIT." (Mill. Star 16:36) It was the Biblical Peter who said: "For it had been better for themnot to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it,to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." (2 Peter 2:21) We turn also to Albert E. Bowen, latter-day Apostle: "That which isright does not become wrong merely because it may be deserted by themajority .... Principles cannot be changed by nor accommodate themselvesto the vagaries of popular sentiment." (Conference Report, April 5, 1941) It seems noteworthy to consider that Lucifer was one who was veryhigh in celestial realms before this world. He was the first who tried tochange an everlasting covenant. He fell. So if the obedient can be boundby the act or vote of the disobedient, then fallen Lucifer can bindChrist. Said President Joseph F. Smith: "No one of these commandments of God,these gifts that have been bestowed, these keys of knowledge and ofprinciple that have been restored and revealed unto us, through the gospelof Jesus Christ and its ordinances, should be violated in the least by the

Latter-day Saints .... And by neglecting, slighting, and putting themaside, by turning away from the course which the Lord has marked out forus to pursue, we weaken ourselves of the light needed to make us moreefficient in the discharge of our duties as the children of God." (3:401) Again, "And there are none that doeth good except those who are readyto receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto thisgeneration." (D.&C. 35:12) It is a strange thing to change covenants and ordinances, abandoningsome entirely, and still, years later, urging that it cannot be done. "Thegospel is divine truth, it is all truth existent from eternity toeternity. The laws contained in the gospel are God's laws. They are not tobe changed or modified to suit the whims of individuals and are designedto develop our inward souls through proper observance of and respecttherefor." (H.B. Lee, Des. News, Jan. 13, 1945) From the Deseret News: "One of the most important things we may learnabout our religion is that God is unchangeable, the same yesterday, todayand forever. By this we may know that the principles of salvation willalways remain the same, and that we need not be disturbed by `new ideas'or `modern innovations' [178] in the Gospel which may come our way. "The heaven we hope to achieve is eternal and unchangeable.Therefore, to bring the same human nature to the same goal, regardless ofthe time in which a person lives, requires the same steps and procedures.For that reason the saving principles must ever be the same. They cannever change." (Des. News, June 5, 1965) It ought to give us pause. When we break a law of the land, we are criminals. When we break theConstitutional law which is the highest law of the land, it makes uscriminals of the highest order. But when we break a law of God, ....! The Lord declared, "And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by theprinciples of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receiveher unto myself." (D.&C. 105:5) Since an understanding of that principle is paramount to our study,we quote a section of a discourse delivered by Apostle Orson Pratt in1874: "Now, why is it, Latter-day Saints, that we have been tossed to andfro and smitten and persecuted for these many years? It is because we havedisobeyed the law of heaven, we have not kept the commandments of the MostHigh God, we have not fulfilled his law; we have disobeyed the word whichhe gave through his servant Joseph, and hence the Lord has suffered us tobe smitten and afflicted under the hands of our enemies. "Shall we ever return to the law of God? Yes. When? Why, when wewill. We are agents; we can abide his law or reject it, just as long as weplease, for God has not taken away your agency nor mine. But I will try togive you some information in regard to the time. God said, in the year1832, before we were driven out of Jackson County, in a revelation whichyou will find here in this book, that before that generation should allpass away, a house of the Lord should be built in that County (Jackson

County), `upon the consecrated spot, as I have appointed; and the glory ofGod, even a cloud by day and a pillar of flaming fire by night shall restupon the same.' In another place, in the same revelation, speaking of thePriesthood, he says that the sons of Moses and the sons of Aaron, thosewho had received the two Priesthoods, should be filled with the glory ofGod upon Mount Zion, in the Lord's house, and should receive a renewing oftheir bodies, and the blessings of the Most High should be poured out uponthem in great abundance. "This was given forty-two years ago. The generation then [179] livingwas not only to commence a house of God in Jackson County, Missouri, butwas actually to complete the same, and when it is completed, the glory ofGod should rest upon it. "Now, do you Latter-day Saints believe that? I do, and if you believein these revelations you just as much expect the fulfillment of thatrevelation as of any one that God has ever given in these latter times, orin former ages. We look just as much for this to take place, according tothe word of the Lord, as the Jews look to return to Palestine, and torebuild Jerusalem upon the place where it formerly stood. They expect tobuild a temple there, and that the glory of God will enter into it; solikewise do we Latter-day Saints expect to return to Jackson County and tobuild a temple there before the generation that was living forty-two yearsago has all passed away. Well then, the time must be pretty near when weshall begin that work. "Now can we be permitted to return and build up the waste places ofZion, establish the great central city of Zion in Jackson County,Missouri, and build a temple on which the glory of God will abide by dayand by night, unless we return, not to the `new order,' but to that lawwhich was given in the beginning of the work? Let me answer the questionby quoting one of these revelations again, a revelation given in 1834. TheLord, speaking of the return of his people, and referring to those whowere driven from Jackson County, says--`They that remain shall return,they and their children with them to receive their inheritances in theland of Zion, with songs of everlasting joy upon their heads.' There willbe a few that the Lord will spare to go back there, because they were notall transgressors. There were only two that the Lord spared among Israelduring their forty years' travel--Caleb and Joshua. They were all thatwere spared, out of some twenty-five hundred thousand people from twentyyears old and upwards, to go into the land of promise. There may be threein our day, or a half dozen or a dozen spared that were once on that landwho will be permitted to return with their children, grandchildren andgreat-grandchildren unto the waste places of Zion and build them up withsongs of everlasting joy. "But will they return after the old order of things that exists amongthe Gentiles--every man for himself, this individualism in regard toproperty? No, never, never while the world stands. If you would have theserevelations fulfilled, you must comply with the conditions thereof. The

Lord said, concerning the building up [180] of Zion when we do return,`Except Zion be built according to the law of the celestial kingdom, Icannot receive her unto myself.' If we should be permitted, this presentyear, 1874, to go back to that county and should undertake to build up acity of Zion upon the consecrated spot, after the order that we have beenliving in during the last forty years, we should be cast out again, theLord would not acknowledge us as His people, neither would He acknowledgethe works of our hands in the building of a city. If we would go backthen, we must comply with the celestial law, the law of consecration, thelaw of oneness, which the Lord has spoken of from the beginning. Exceptyou are one you are not mine. Query, if we are not the Lord's--who in theworld or out of the world do we belong to? Here is a question for us allto consider. There is no other way for us to become one but by keeping thelaw of heaven, and when we do this we shall become sanctified before God,and never before. "Talk about sanctification, we do not believe in the kind ofsanctification taught by the sectarian religion--that they were sanctifiedat such a minute and such an hour and at such a place while they werepraying in secret. We believe in the sanctification that comes bycontinued obedience to the law of heaven. I do not know of any othersanctification that the Scriptures tell about, of any other sanctificationthat is worth the consideration of rational beings. If we would besanctified then, we must begin today, or whenever the Lord points out, toobey his laws just as far as we possibly can; and by obedience to theselaws we continually gain more and more favor from heaven, more and more ofthe Spirit of God, and thus will be fulfilled a revelation, given in 1834,which says that before Zion is redeemed, let the armies of Israel becomevery great, let them become sanctified before me, that they may be as fairas the sun, clear as the moon, and that their banners may be terrible untoall the nations of the earth. Not terrible by reason of numbers, butterrible because of the sanctification they will receive through obedienceto the law of God. Why was Enoch, and why were the inhabitants of the Zionbuilt up before the flood terrible to all the nations around about? It wasbecause, through a long number of years, they observed the law of God, andwhen their enemies came up to fight against them, Enoch being filled withthe power of the Holy Ghost, and speaking the word of God in power and infaith, the very heavens trembled and shook, and the earth quaked, andmountains were thrown down, rivers of water were [181] turned out of theircourse, and all nations feared greatly because of the power of God, andthe terror of his might that were upon his people. "We have this account of ancient Zion in one of the revelations thatGod has given. What was it that made their banners terrible to thenations? It was not their numbers. If, then, Zion must become great itwill be because of her sanctification. When shall we, being Latter-daySaints, to carry out the law of God, and enter upon the process necessaryto our sanctification? We are told by the highest authority that God has

upon the earth that now is the accepted time and now is the day ofsalvation, so far as entering into this order which God has pointed out isconcerned. Shall we do it? Or shall we say no? Shall there be divisionamong the people, those who are on the Lord's side come out and those whoare against the law of God come out? I hope this division will not be itpresent. I hope that we shall take hold with one heart and with one mind.The time of the division will come soon enough. It will be in the greatday of the Lord's power, when his face shall be unveiled in yonderheavens, and when he shall come in his glory and in his might. Then theheavens will be shaken and the earth will reel to and fro like a drunkenman. `Then,' saith the Lord, `I will send forth mine angels to gather outof my kingdom all things that offend and that do iniquity.' That will betime enough for this great division. Let us not be divided now, Latter-daySaints, but let us manifest our willingness to comply with the word andlaw of the Most High, and be prepared for the blessings which he has instore for us. Amen." (Des. News, July 21, 1874, Vol. 9, No. 50) Every word and admonition is equally valid to the Latter-day Saintsof the present day. Zion (Jackson County) cannot be built up unless theSaints are living celestial law. Therefore, it is not up to the Church tosteady the Ark, with regard to those Saints who are willing to live thefulness of the gospel. Similarly, it is not up to those living the fulnessof the gospel to steady the Ark with regard to the Church. There are manywho are inspired in their work and missions in the Church. There are alsomany who are inspired in their work and mission in the fulness of thegospel, who know that the Lord has made intervention in their lives tomake that privilege possible, and who is blessing them beyond measure forit. Plural marriage is holy. It was designed to bless the home. We inserta paragraph from John J. Stewart's Glory of Mor-[182]monism: "Pluralmarriage is a pattern of marriage designed by God as part of His plan ofeternal progress to further His kingdom and exalt His children. It ismarriage characterized by pure love for God and pure love between a manand his wives, and among his wives. Plural marriage is the pattern ofmarriage which, lived under the approval and blessing of God, and with adetermination to do His will and glorify His name, can most fully developin men, women and their children those attributes of charity, virtue,humility, patience, selflessness, brotherly and sisterly kindness, andother divine traits to help them qualify as candidates for the CelestialKingdom, on the road to godhood and goddesshood. "This then is the sacred order of marriage revealed by God to thegreat latter-day prophet, Joseph Smith, as an integral doctrine of theDispensation of the Fulness of Times, in which was to be `a restoration ofall things.' This is the order of marriage which the Prophet Joseph taughtand lived, and for which he died. This is the doctrine against whichapostates and other ungodly men and women have most viciously fought,under the evil goadings of Satan, the father of all lies, because darkness

can never endure light; because plural marriage is the diametric oppositeof all the cheapness, tawdriness, hypocrisy, filth and perversion ofsexual relationship which exist and always have existed throughout theworld generally." (p. 102) That is well said. The experiences of love, harmony, spiritualblessings, faith and devotion to God and His Priesthood and Church, arenot the marks of apostates. It remains true that the fulness of thegospel, not merely one facet only, is not for the doubting or faithless.Ogden Kraut states, "Truth is a pursuit too difficult for most men toaccept, and the sacrificial demands at its altar will almost extinguishtheir numbers." (Prin. or Pers., p. 239) We can sanctify our lives, we must sanctify our lives and prepare tobuild a sanctified city, through observance of the vital laws andordinances of the gospel, without exception. We cannot be caught withoutthe oil of righteousness in our lamps when the Savior comes among men. Allmen may know for themselves the proper course to pursue to please God: "Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, ifit be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember howmerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation ofAdam even down unto the [183] time that ye shall receive these things, andponder it in your hearts. "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that yewould ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these thingsare not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent,having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by thepower of the Holy Ghost. "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of allthings." (Moroni 10:3-5) We truly need to be as familiar with these words in our actions andefforts, as we are with our ears. We conclude with the issue set forth at the beginning of thisSection. Those called by the Priesthood who are permitted to live thefulness of the restored gospel, are "the ram in the thicket." The Churchmust keep the covenant into which it entered with the government. TheChurch cannot relieve itself of that agreement. Ultimately, it will take ahigher authority than the Church to relieve it of that covenant. God gave the Church opportunity to live certain principles havinglife in them. They were rejected, and a group of people from within theChurch were chosen to keep and obey all of the gospel. It is theirresponsibility to save the Church from its digression, or the Church wouldbe utterly rejected of God for having turned from His high and holy laws. We hope we have been clear as to the position of lawful polygamistsin contemporary times. In order to perpetuate a principle that wasoffensive to the nation and to many Saints, those chosen people acceptedthe position of becoming unpopular and of bearing the responsibility ofdoing that which is, unpopular. They assume the position of "ram in the

thicket" to the Church. For whenever God reveals a principle and it isrejected, that people or Church or nation who reject God's laws will bedamned. They will also find that invariably a delusion in some formfollows that rejection. The Church would come to an end were it not for the "ram." Christ wasa scapegoat for the world in order to save the world. Those living thefulness of the gospel under proper authority are the scapegoat for theChurch, so that the Church might be redeemed by bringing the rejectedprinciples back to the Church. The principles have been kept alive bythose willing to take that responsibility. Since there is order in allthings, that position was probably agreed to before the foundation of theworld.[184] Christ did not sin in being the scapegoat for the sins of the world.The Priesthood group living the fulness of the gospel has not sinned in sodoing. But they are willing to be called "apostate" and take uponthemselves the burden that the Church should have shouldered so that theChurch might be redeemed. Monogamy and monogamists will not save the Church. Monogamy is notGod's law. Orson Pratt makes a pertinent statement. He quotes Isaiah 7,"seven women shall take hold of one man," and states: "Now will thisprophecy ever be fulfilled, unless this great restoration or restitutionshall take place? It cannot. If this great restitution does not takeplace, Jesus will never come, for it is written in the New Testament, inthe 3rd Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that `the heavens mustreceive Jesus Christ until the times of the restitution of all thingswhich God has spoken by the mouths of his holy prophets since the worldbegan.' Jesus will have to stay a long time in the heavens providing thatmonogamist principles are the only principles that will be introduced; infact he never can come, for the Scriptures say the heavens must retain himuntil all things are restored." (J.D. 17:221) It is important tounderstand that fact. George Q. Cannon gave inspiring counsel to the Saints. It is thetruth: "There is one thing that I wish to refer to; it is a delicatesubject, still I feel to touch upon it. The idea was suggested to me ashort time ago, while in conversation with one or two of the brethren whowere speaking about the influence that is now being brought against theChurch, how fortunate it was that there were some who had not obeyed thelaw of God in regard to plural marriage. "There was, as I thought, a spirit of self-gratulation among some whohave not obeyed that law, because they could now act as they appeared tothink, in some sort, as saviors to the people. I hope there never willenter the minds of the Latter-day Saints, a feeling of that kind, ordivision of feeling upon this point. I believe there are very excellent,very worthy, very true and very faithful Latter-day Saints of both sexeswho have not entered into the practice of plural marriage; and it is not

for me to cast reflections upon any of my brethren or sisters about nothaving obeyed that principle, unless there has been positive,disobedience. It is not for me to judge the circumstances, the feelingsand the motives, and the hearts of men and women, my brethren and [185]sisters in the Church. God will do this; that is his province. "But, on the other hand, I hope there never will be a feeling grow upin the midst of the Latter-day Saints to congratulate themselves becauseof their reluctance, or their refusal, to obey the command of God, and tothink that they have done more wisely in refraining from obeying thatcommand, and that their position is a better one because of their lack ofobedience; or, because circumstances have been such that they have notobeyed or been required to obey that law. I hope, I say, that no suchfeeling will ever be known among us--to judge each other and to commentupon each other, and to indulge in self-gratulation because of anything ofthis kind, "The Lord has said: `Again I say unto you, if ye observe to dowhatsoever I command you, I the Lord will turn away all wrath andindignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. "Now, I want to say for myself personally, if I had not obeyed thatcommand of God, concerning plural marriage, I believe that I would havebeen damned. That is my position; but I do not judge any other man .... DoI believe that God will bear those out who have thus embraced thatprinciple; do I believe that He will sustain them? I know that He willsustain those who have obeyed it; I know that He will sustain this people.... "Whatever men's laws may be we cannot deny the truth of God, therevelations of God. I cannot do it, I would be damned and go to hell if Iwere to do it. There is no alternative for me but to suffer all thepenalties that man may inflict upon me; and I cannot evade them only asGod shall preserve me. That is my position today. Whatever man may do, Imust be, I hope to be, true to myself and to my convictions, and to myGod. I must endure all things; I cannot evade them. And there are hundredsin the same position, hundreds of men, hundreds of women .... "Now, my brethren and sisters, you who have not entered into thiscovenant, do not imagine, do not let the adversary instill into yourhearts that you are now saviors to the Latter-day Saints. Do not do it.Let me warn you against it; it is a dangerous thought. You will find itdelusive, for it is not true." If we may interject a thought here, we have mentioned that when wegive up God's laws or reject His word in any way, that act is usuallyfollowed by a delusion. President Cannon states a prime example above, formany Saints do indeed feel that they as monogamists will save thePriesthood and the Saints, looking [186] upon polygamists as a sort ofrare breed apostates. It is not true.' It is delusive. Here is a key: TheLord will not allow a person to be deceived unless he has previouslyrejected a truth offered to him. If we reject a truth, we are asking for a

delusion to fill the void. The Lord has said that He will send them.(4:156) The Lord will let us be tried and proven in life--many times. ButSatan cannot touch our testimony or deceive us unless we have previouslyrejected a truth. We tend to believe that if we live the law of tithingquite well, we can some day live the law of consecration. We believe thatif we live a good monogamous life, some day the Lord will let us livepolygamy. This is a deception. We ought to be able to discern that, fromthe history of the world and its prophets since Father Adam. So if we haverejected a truth sometime in our lives, we are then under the power ofdeception and must study and change our lives so that we can have theLord's Spirit with us. We might also mention here that the Prophet Isaiah promises those whohave been "cast out": "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at hisword; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake,said, Let the Lord be glorified; but He shall appear to your joy, and theyshall be ashamed." (Is. 66:5) To conclude with President Cannon's remarks: "If God saves thispeople, as I firmly believe he will, it will be through those men andthrough those women whom men have placed under a ban; whom men have saidshall have no power because of the laws that are enacted against them. Itell you, the salvation that will come to this people, will be through thefaithfulness of the men of God and the women of God who, in the face ofopposing world, contrary to their traditions, to their education, to theirpreconceived notions and to the popular prejudices of the day who have inthe midst of all this, stepped forward in the vanguard and obeyed thecommand of God, and have dared to endure all the consequences, and beenwilling to endure all the penalties. "Mark it. It is true." (J.D. 23:278-280) [187] SECTION THIRTEEN "LABOR TO OBTAIN THE SPIRIT" On the front of the Nicholas Murray Butler Library at ColumbusUniversity appear the words, "It depends upon him who passes by, whether Ibe tomb or treasure house, whether I speak or remain silent; it is up toyou alone, friend, enter not without desire." The words are beautifully true. Upon searching the scriptures toobtain more of the Spirit of the Lord, we can find either a tomb or atreasure house, depending entirely upon our desires. "Yea, even if ye canno more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until yebelieve in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words."(Alma 32:27) If we would enter the house of sanctification, if we would mingleforever with the holy ones in the house of God in eternity, we must set

our hearts upon obtaining the Spirit of God while in mortality, ourdesires must become single, whole-souled, purified. God requires a whole heart, for exaltation is not a leisure timeproject. We obtain the Spirit of God increasingly as we labor to know andaccept all of the laws of heaven. The Lord cannot cleanse a soul thatrebels against the law, for without law there would have been no life.Through a divine portion of faith we yearn toward godly things and nevercease laboring to perfect ourselves in righteousness. Righteous men yearnfor more righteousness. That is the operation of their agency. Before man can obtain a concentration of the Holy Ghost to reveal tohim the peaceable things of God, he must cast off every wickedness, everyabomination, every tendency toward fear or rebellion. These are not ofGod; they offend the Spirit. When men fully obey and fasten their desiresto Christ, harmonizing their will with that of God, then their heartsyearn with power for the Holy Ghost. They cannot rest until they areblessed of heaven, that they may, in turn, glorify God. This is our prayer for all of God's children, that they labor toobtain the Spirit of God. It will purify the flesh, throw open theshutters, and help them to grow heavenward. They will become clean,because through the expanding of love as it is enriched by [188] theSpirit, men become humble, and they recognize truth. President Wilford Woodruff has spoken well on this subject: "Onemorning, while we were at Winter Quarters, Brother Brigham Young said tome and the brethren that he had had a visitation the night previous fromJoseph Smith. I asked him what he said to him. He replied that Joseph hadtold him to tell the people to labor to obtain the Spirit of God; thatthey needed that to sustain them and to give them power to go throughtheir work in the earth. "Now I will give you a little of my experience in this line. JosephSmith visited me a great deal after his death, and taught me manyimportant principles. The last time he visited me was while I was in astorm at sea. I was going on my last mission to preside in England. Mycompanions were Brother Leonard W. Hardy, Brother Milton Holmes, BrotherDan Jones and another brother and my wife and two other women. We had beentraveling three days and nights in a heavy gale and were being drivenbackwards. Finally I asked my companions to come into the cabin with me,and I told them to pray that the Lord would change the wind. I had nofears of being lost; but I did not like the idea of being driven back toNew York, as I wanted to go on my journey. We all offered the same prayer,both men and women; and when we got through we stepped on to the deck andin less than a minute it was as though a man had taken a sword and cutthat gale through, and you might have thrown a muslin handkerchief out andit would not have moved it. The night following this, Joseph and Hyrumvisited me, and the Prophet laid before me a great many things. Amongother things he told me what the Twelve apostles would be called to gothrough on the earth before the coming of the Son of Man, and what the

reward of their labors would be; but all that was taken from me for somereason. Nevertheless I know it was most glorious, although much would berequired at our hands. "Joseph Smith continued visiting myself and others up to a certaintime, and then it stopped. The last time I saw him was in heaven. In thenight vision I saw him at the door of the temple in heaven. He came andspoke to me. He said he could not stop to talk with me because he was in ahurry. The next man I met was Father Smith; he could not talk with mebecause he was in a hurry. I met a half a dozen brethren who had held highpositions on earth and none of them could stop to talk with me becausethey were in a hurry. I was much astonished. By and by I saw the [189]Prophet again, and I got the privilege to ask him a question. `Now,' saidI, `I want to know why you are in a hurry. I have been in a hurry allthrough my life but I expected my hurry would be over when I got into thekingdom of heaven, if I ever did.' Joseph said, `I will tell you, BrotherWoodruff, every dispensation that has had the Priesthood on the earth andhas gone into the celestial kingdom, has had a certain amount of work todo to prepare to go to the earth with the Savior when He goes to reign onthe earth. Each dispensation has had ample time to do this work. We havenot. We are the last dispensation, and so much work has to be done and weneed to be in a hurry in order to accomplish it.' Of course, that wassatisfactory with me, but it was a new doctrine to me. "Brigham Young also visited me after his death. On one occasion heand Brother Heber C. Kimball came in a splendid chariot, with fine whitehorses, and accompanied me to a conference that I was going to attend.When I got there I asked Brother Brigham if he would take charge of theconference. `No,' said he, `I have done my work here. I have come to seewhat you are doing and what you are teaching the people.' And he told mewhat Joseph Smith had taught him in Winter Quarters, to teach the peopleto get the Spirit of God. He said, `I want you to teach the people to getthe Spirit of God. You cannot build up the Kingdom of God without that.' "That is what I want to say to the brethren and sisters here today.Every man and woman in this Church should labor to get that Spirit. We aresurrounded by those evil spirits that are at war against God and againsteverything looking to the building up of the kingdom of God; and we needthis Holy Spirit to enable us to overcome these influences. I have had theHoly Ghost in my travels. Every man has that who, has gone out into thevineyard and labored faithfully for the cause of God. I have referred tothe administration of angels to myself. What did those angels do? One ofthem taught me some things relating to the signs that should precede thecoming of the Son of Man. Others came and saved my life. What then? Theyturned and left me. But how is it with the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost doesnot leave me if I do my duty. It does not leave any man who does his duty.We have known this all the way through. Joseph Smith told Brother JohnTaylor on one occasion to labor to get the Spirit of God, and to followits dictation, and it would become a principle of revelation within him.

God has blessed me with that, and everything I have [190] done since Ihave been in this Church has been done upon that principle. The Spirit ofGod has told me what to do, and I have had to follow that .... "... I refer to these things because I want you to get the sameSpirit. All the Elders of Israel, whether abroad or at home, need thatSpirit. When I was on my way east at one time I drove into a man's yard inIndiana. Brother Orson Hyde had driven in and set his wagon on thedooryard, and I set mine by the side of it. I turned my mules and tiedthem up to an oak tree. I had my wife and two children with me in mycarriage. We went to lie down, and the Holy Spirit told me to get up andmove my carriage. I got right up. My wife asked me what I was going to do.I said I was going to move the carriage. She wanted to know what for. Itold her I did not know. I moved the carriage about fifteen rods, lookedaround, and then went to bed again. The Spirit told me to get up again andmove my mules. I did so. In twenty minutes there came up a whirlwind thatblew that oak tree down and laid it right across where my carriage hadbeen. By listening to that Spirit our lives were saved. "Now, it was not an angel that pointed out these things to me; it wasthe Holy Ghost. This is the Spirit that we must have to carry out thepurposes of God on the earth. We need that more than any other gift. Ifelt impressed yesterday to teach this principle to the Latter-day Saints.We are in the midst of enemies, in the midst of darkness and temptation,and we need to be guided by the Spirit of God. We should pray to the Lorduntil we get the Comforter. That is what is promised to us when we arebaptized. It is the spirit of light, of truth and of revelation, and canbe with all of us at the same time. "Brethren and sisters, God bless you. I am glad to meet with you.There are very few of you as old as I am. How long I shall tarry in thiscountry I do not know; but while I do stay I want to do what good I can.These are principles that have rested a great deal upon my mind. If welabor for this Spirit, we will have no quarrelling and no difficulty, solong as that is dwelling within us. God bless you. Amen." (Des. News,November 7, 1896, Vol. 53, No. 21) Two scriptures come to mind for inclusion, because they cause us tolook upward: "Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger andstronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ,unto the filling their souls with joy and [191] consolation, yea, even tothe purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctificationcometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God." (Hela. 3:35) "And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall befilled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that bodywhich is filled with light comprehendeth all things. Therefore, sanctifyyourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will comethat you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shallbe in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will."

(D.&C. 88:67-68) [192] May 1898, B.H. Roberts: "Therefore, I conclude that since God did approve of the pluralmarriage custom of the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and kings of Israel,it is not at all to be wondered at that, in the dispensation of thefulness of times, in which He has promised restitution of all things, thatGod should again establish that system of marriage. And the fact of God'sapproval of plural marriage in ancient times is a complete defence of therighteousness of the marriage system introduced by revelation through theProphet Joseph Smith. "Joseph Smith received a commandment from the Lord to introduce thatorder of marriage into the church, and on the strength of that revelation,and not by reason of anything that is written in the Jewish scriptures,the Latter-day Saints practice plural marriage. "Polygamy is not adultery, for were it so considered, then Abraham,Jacob, and the prophets who practiced it would not be allowed aninheritance in the kingdom of heaven, and if polygamy is not adultery,then it can not be classed as a sin at all. It appears to the writer thatmodern Christians must either learn to tolerate polygamy or give upforever the glorious hope of resting in Abraham's bosom. That which heapproves, must be not only not bad, but positively good, pure, and holy."(3:282, Imp. Era, May 1898) [193] SUMMARY In summation, we wish to draw from the crux of the previous pages andfocus for a moment upon the basic issue. While the following may appear tobe an ambitious intent to highlight a single aspect of the principle ofcelestial plural marriage, and while redundancy seems obvious in thiscommentary, it is purely and wholly intentional. One comes up with neither definition nor application of, say, theprinciple of Faith, with just one or two references from the Scriptures.Faith, cast through the magnificent prismatic structure of the Scriptures,is broken into many component parts scattered throughout the whole.Compiled and studied, Faith then becomes more easily understandable andapplicable to life and motivation. Similarly, that celestial plural marriage was restored through theProphet Joseph Smith, never again to be taken away, nor held in abeyance,nor frightened into obscurity, becomes more clearly apparent as anoverview of nearly all statements concerning this particular aspect of thequestion is made available. This is really the crux of the whole issue.Therefore, little restraint was employed in the use of available commentsfrom those in unquestionable positions to know the mind and will of the

Lord. The reader is invited to search out the sources and read entirespeeches. Even the semi-alert, when made aware of the following, view theprinciple of plural marriage in a richer light than the gray-toned, "...an incident but never an essential." Said the Prophet Joseph's secretary, William Clayton, "From him(Joseph) I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage isthe most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth,and that without obedience to that principle, no man can ever attain tothe fulness of exaltation in celestial glory." (1:12-13) This statementwith its obvious, numerous ramifications, ought to stir the most benumbed. The road to Godhood is strait, narrow, highly conditional. But all ofthe ingredients for achieving that exalted state have been outlined andrestored through Joseph the Prophet, perpet-[194]uated through Divineprovision and by Divine command. Fully understanding the importance of theprinciple of celestial plural marriage, Brigham Young stated, "Without thedoctrine that this revelation (D.&C. Section 132) reveals, no man on earthever could be exalted to be a God." (1:35) If it were true that pluralmarriage has been removed, the Saints ought to be on their knees night andday, without ceasing in prayer to God, for the privilege and opportunityto live every law the ancients lived. And for the same reason. Further,one is struck by overtones more than casual in Brigham Young's one-liner,"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enterinto polygamy." (1:160) These are significant statements. The principle of plural marriage,and the living of it, can never be considered a "nonessential." It was nota casual attitude that caused Joseph himself to remark, "We have got toobserve it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandmentand not by way of instruction." (1:26-7, 3:137) Nowhere is the intimationfound that this "most holy principle" was to fulfill its eternal purposeand exhaust itself in approximately 40 years. For God's intent will beaccomplished as He purposes in Himself, and His gospel in all its fulnesswas restored for the last time in the Dispensation of the Fulness ofTimes. Plural marriage is an integral part of the whole, and that must beremembered. A. Milton Musser was rather outspoken in this very direction: "If theMormons were ever so unwilling to become polygamists, they have no choicein the matter. God has commanded and they must obey. If there was not asingle word or example to be found in the Bible in its favor, still theymust observe its practice. It is in no sense optional with them. It is asmuch an integral part of their faith as baptism for the remission of sins,or the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost. It holdsprecisely the same relation to the gospel plan of salvation, redemptionand exaltation ... as the arms and legs sustain to the human body."(1:198) It is probable that one would never accept the situation were weconstrained to relinquish baptism to the demands of the government and

persecuted Saints. But should we relax in comfort at giving up any portionof the restored gospel? Why should celestial plural marriage be theacceptable exception? If it is as much a part of the gospel as arms andlegs are to the body, then we have to admit to having a maimed gospel inour midst with the absence of plural marriage [195] or any otherprinciple. In other words, in terms of perfection, can one jot of principle orordinance be abandoned? One can lose a finger and have adequate bodyfunction. But in terms of perfection, is the finger less important thanthe leg? Abandoning celestial plural marriage, were God to have allowedit, would be tantamount to lopping off one's head. In terms of perfection,or a fulness, everything must be represented and functioning. The ProphetJoseph Smith and the Lord Himself have designated our day as the fulnessof times. And they do not lie. Samuel W. Richards caught the vision: "And the principle of pluralityof wives, in connexion with the eternity of the marriage covenant by theseal of the Lord, is one of the greatest and most important, enobling andsublime doctrines that has emanated from the heavens, elevating man toDiety." (1:36) One cannot honestly feel passive when contemplating such asublime statement. Attempt is obviously being made here to focus briefly first of all onthe eternal weight and merit of the principle of plural marriage itself.(That it is to be within the confines of divine law as restored throughJoseph the Prophet, is assumed.) Yet not so much focus that the intent ofthis Summary is obscured. Our desire here is to uncover a pictureunmistakable in its message: celestial plural marriage was restored, notto experience cessation even unto the second coming of the Lord. And theprophets knew it. Resuming, Joseph F. Smith also placed the principle in enlightenedperspective, saying that it was, "... particularly adapted to theconditions of this dispensation, to its necessities, and circumstances,responsibilities, and personal as well as vicarious duties of the peopleof God in this age of the world." (1:206. See pp. 4-14 for fulldiscourse.) To this may be added the similar understanding taught byWilford Woodruff: "The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannotadvance without the Patriarchal Order of Marriage is that it belongs tothis dispensation just as baptism for the dead does, or any law orordinance that belongs to a dispensation. Without it the Church cannotprogress." (1:312, 318) Here we have a doctrine absolutely essential to man's exaltation,belonging specifically to, this dispensation, but it appears to be nolonger true after 1890. That seems to put God on the spot. Consider thedilemma: As all informed people know, the [196] Church leaders, accordingto their own testimonies, continued to live in plural marriages well afterthe 1890 Manifesto. Does this give the Lord a calendar problem? ShallSaint and sinner be judged on the basis of date, some guilty after such

and such a date when it was suddenly no longer essential to thisdispensation, and others not guilty who fell under the right time zone?And all having lived the same principle in its last restoration. It is anabsurdity. The nation and its government did not put something over on theLord and His Prophets, whose declarations were specific. Wilford Woodruff seemed unaware of any future calendar problem: "God,our heavenly Father, knowing that this was the only law ordained by theGods of eternity that would exalt immortal beings to Kingdoms ... to afulness of celestial glory, I say, the God of Israel knowing these things,commanded Joseph Smith the prophet, and the Latter-day Saints, to obeythis law, `or you shall be damned,' saith the Lord." (1:225) Nor was John Taylor considering the calendar: "It was a revelationgiven unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants.... 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 couldnot 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 themif they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent ofopposition that would come in consequence of it, the Keys of the Kingdomwould be taken from them." (1:155) So we have Wilford Woodruff stating that the Church cannot progresswithout the principle, reaffirmed by John Taylor who says without it, keyswould be lost. Even the most casual thinking leads to the conclusion thatall is not well in Zion. Opposition to the principle was certainlyoft-anticipated. The torrent of opposition could have been stemmed throughfaith in the Lord's promises, rather than accepting the substitute of alesser law for a higher, exalting law. The Petition to the governmentstands self-condemnatory. One would actually have inclinations to berather embarrassed, if the heart of the matter weren't so deeplysignificant--the voting away of eternal exaltation by those whose handsmay not have signed, but whose hearts did. It was government pottage.Freedom never ceases to be a heavy responsibility. Meanwhile, to return to our focus on the perpetuation of the [197]holy law, we find Samuel Woolley in harmony with those already mentioned:"That revelation (D.&C. Section 132) was of God and no man could or wouldreceive a fulness of celestial glory and eternal life except he obeyedthat law and had more than one living wife at the same time." (1:24-5,3:128) "More than one living wife" is a phrase over which many becomequite distraught. To some, a succession of marriages and deaths qualifiesthem as having lived the law. Not so. That was not the revelation nor theintent of the principle, as those living it have been well aware. JohnTaylor said, "This law pertains more particularly to the living." (1:315)We cannot point out any other way than that which the Lord has revealed.There is a gate to all blessings, blessings which are missed by going overor under the fence, however choice the scenery. Having dead women sealed to living men, or living women sealed to

dead men and assuming this to be celestial plural marriage, enshrouds theheart of the matter: "This revelation, which God gave to Joseph, was forthe express purpose of providing a channel for the organization oftabernacles, for those spirits to occupy who have been reserved to comeforth in the Kingdom of God, and that they might not be obliged to taketabernacles out of the Kingdom of God." (B. Young, J.D. 3:264-6) Luciferhas many polluted ways to gain the souls of men. The Lord has but one--thepurity of the holy marriage covenant for time and all eternity. Pluralmarriage has a high and holy purpose in this one dimension alone, which,of course, leads one to the obvious question: Was this purpose no longernecessary in the sight of the Lord after the calendar year 1890? One hascause to wonder at the inconsistency. Heber C. Kimball reaffirms: "Plurality is a law which God establishedfor His elect before the world was formed, for a continuation of seedsforever." (1:154) One cannot help suspecting that the principle wasrestored with full intent that it was to stay, that the Lord would see toit, considering its great importance to the children of men. It is folly,then, to question if the Lord made provision to perpetuate the principle.Rather, one is led to question, how. Continuing, John Taylor stated, "It is part of the `EverlastingCovenant' which God has given to man." (1:166) If so important a part ofthe covenant was removed, then we must consider ourselves casting our lotwith a fragmented covenant holding forth partial hope of exaltation atbest. One could not call [198] our day the Dispensation of the Fulness ofTimes, and sleep well. Francis M. Lyman voiced his witness, if something of anunderstatement: "It is a principle of vital importance in the plan ofsalvation." (1:447) Shall we say that the plan has changed? That a tenetof vital importance is no longer vital? Or important? That the minority isat the mercy of the majority? There were many among the thousands ofMormons in 1890 who had the heart of a Daniel. The holy and exaltingprinciple of plural marriage was restored in its proper time and place,not to be given up until Christ shall come. Assuming that the essentiality of living the principle since it wasrestored has been more than intimated at by our Prophets, let us leavethat portion of this examination with this comment from Joseph F. Smith:"But he (Joseph Smith) did not falter, although it was not until an angelof God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he shouldenter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterlydestroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish thatdoctrine." (1:210; 4:10) The next portion of this treatise will deal with those teachingsgiven by the Prophets which amplify the concept that celestial pluralmarriage was restored to stay. Were it not so, the angel with the drawnsword who gave command to Joseph Smith, performed a short, if notinsignificant, mission, the Lord didn't mean what He said as to a full and

last restoration, and Joseph shed his blood for naught. It might gentlyand a bit pointedly be inserted here, that statement occurring in the132nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants: "For all those who have thislaw revealed unto them must obey the same." The voices of the Prophets blend as one, merging into one universalwhole as to the design of the Father. The decrees of God are firm andimmovable. His doctrines are not elastic. The voice of the people is notthe voice of God, and His words will all be fulfilled, even though it bethrough a faithful handful. This was taught in message form to the saintsby the First Presidency on October 6, 1885: "Well-meaning friends of ourshave said that our refusal to renounce the principle of celestial marriageinvites destruction. They warn us and implore us to yield. But theyperceive not the hand of the Almighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, whohas made promises to us and who has never failed to fulfill all His words.We cannot withdraw or renounce it. God has revealed it, and He haspromised to maintain it, and to bless [199] those who obey it ...." (Mill.Star 47:707) It is our witness that these prophets were correct and that the Lorddid not change His mind just five years after the significant message fromthe First Presidency. Surely their prophetic ability would extend justfive years into the future. It is much more consistent with reason tosuppose that they knew whereof they spoke and that the Lord did indeedprovide the way for those who would be faithful. We sometimes demonstrate a facile ability to shield our lives behindblinds. We proclaim clearly and determinedly that our free agency gives usevery right to choose to sin as completely as we wish, partake of any andevery sin if we so elect. But it becomes another matter to say we haveequal freedom and opportunity to partake of every righteous law andblessing. We are free to sin, but not free to live all law. That ratesabout 100% on the nonsense scale. We can sin to our heart's content, butwe cannot sanctify our lives. This is a delusion. We have Joseph F. Smith giving a positive declaration, delivered atthe funeral of William Clayton: "This doctrine ... of plural marriage, isone of the most important doctrines ever revealed to man in any age of theworld. Without it man would come to a full stop; ... There are, however,enough witnesses to these principles to establish them upon the earth insuch a manner that they never can be forgotten or stamped out. For theywill live; they are destined to live, and also to grow and spread abroadupon the face of the earth, to be received and accepted ... ; they arebound to prevail, because they are true principles." (J.D. 21:10) He wasnot in error. The principle of plural marriage was not only bound toprevail, it has prevailed and will continue along the path and upon thecourse set forth by the Lord and taught by His servants. The mills of thegods grind slowly, though inexorably. One is tempted at this point to remove the burr that is commonlyunder the saddle, the one that says plural marriage will again be lived in

the Millennium. The thought is less than profound. For if you have notlived the Celestial law here, to what, then, will you be resurrected?Shall our leaders be to blame for minimizing any focus on plural marriage?Possibly. But you will surely share in the problem for worlds without end,you will never be blessed for a law you have not lived. The situation ison our own shoulders, and the Millennium will not be a panacea. God doesnot bang heads with mortals. He provides the way for us, [200] and we mustseek and find. When people seek to counsel the Lord, they will haveManifestos to their heart's content. A discussion of the Manifesto is found in Section Five. We wish tokeep our aim singular here, slightly touching on the Manifesto in afollowing paragraph or two. But the Manifesto of 1890 might be kept inmind as the skids are put under it by the teachings of the Prophets. Brigham Young is decisive: "The principle spoken upon by BrotherPratt this morning, we believe in. And I tell you--for I know it--it willsail over, and ride triumphantly above all the prejudices and priestcraftof the day; it will be fostered and believed in by the more intelligentportions of the world, as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to anypeople." (1:34, 3:208) This tends to be a becalming statement. It might benoted that all faithful Saints are invited to join the intelligentsia, thecourse for doing so being fairly clear. At any rate, President Young'sremarks, together with those following, serve to bog down the mostdedicated crusade, past and present, to sink the principle out ofexistence. Heber C. Kimball stated, "The principle of plurality of wives neverwill be done away." (1:125) Some hasten to agree that the principle isstill here; but the practice of it has ceased, which is about like sayingthe water is here, but we don't baptize. Brother Kimball becomes more definite: "You might as well denyMormonism and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Letthe Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all theauthorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose thatdoctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing itfor? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of thehuman family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this ourdispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out byhis people." (1:130) The roots of the 1890 Manifesto as being a revelationfrom God are in soil too shallow to stand. Brother Kimball again: "It would be as easy for the United States tobuild a tower to remove the sun, as to remove polygamy or the Church andKingdom of God." (1:154) The prophets seemed to have complete assurance inthis matter. If the Lord had planned to soon remove the principle ofplural marriage, His representatives on earth were not in on the program. "The doctrine of polygamy with the Mormons is not ... an item ofdoctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system [201] remain.`Mormonism' is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which is

invalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one ofits leading principles is acknowledged to be false, or such as God willnot sustain in practice against the entire world." (Mill. Star 27:673) Howmuch more need be said to realize the consistent direction of that whichthe brethren said over many years' time? The principle of plural marriage,along with all others restored, would not be overruled by man orgovernment, principality or power. God has stood by His word. It is agreat delusion to suppose that provision was not made for the smallminority who would give their all to their God in living all of Hisrestored law. The best blood in the Church kept the holy principle aliveso long as they lived, and made proper provision for others to carry onafter them. This was in accord with Divine edict. Informed people are well aware of the testimonies given by leadingChurch brethren in 1904, at the time of the Smoot Hearings in Washington.It is a matter of Congressional record. President Joseph F. Smith, amongothers, stated publicly that while the Church was keeping the ruleregarding the cessation of plural marriage and cohabitation, that he wasnot, that he had 11 children born to him after the Manifesto by fivewives, that he was living in defiance of the "rule of the Church" in thatmatter, and that he preferred to stand his chances against the law.(3:346) He was willing, like the ancients, to face the fiery furnace. Hewas not a lone Daniel among men, however. There were others. AnotherPresident paid a $100.00 fine in 1899. (3:309-11) The Salt Lake Tribune ofOctober 8, 1901, listed at least five Apostles, as well as 200 othernames, who were living the principle of plural marriage. (3:418-21) If theLord halted plural marriage by His Priesthood, He forgot to tell somesignificant people, and we are nose to nose again with a calendar problem.John Taylor and others were hounded and were in hiding. One surely cannothelp but wonder if they would be hounded and excommunicated and bedeclared unfit parents today. It is significantly clear that if the 1890 Manifesto is the word ofGod to His Priesthood and Church, the Saints so declaring it brand theirformer Priesthood leaders as false prophets, adulterers, and asdisobedient in speech and action. It is a fearsome thing to not knowwhereof we speak. But many have so structured resistance to the principle,that strange designs have been painted over the Lord's truths.[202] A very fine statement was made by Lorenzo Snow in J.D. 19:345. (SeeSection One) He spoke of the Book of Mormon people as having the Mosaiclaw, but who sought out and lived the fulness of the Gospel. He says, "Doyou suppose it would have been wrong to search out the fulness of theGospel, while living under the Mosaic law?" He asked if they thought thatwould displease God. Obviously, this must presuppose that the fulness wasthere, along with proper authority. And so it is today. The present inmany instances is but a reflection of history. To continue emphasis on the restoration being full and final, thisfrom Brigham Young: "It is written in the Bible, `and in that day seven

women shall take hold of one man ....' The government of the United Statesdoes not intend that that prophecy shall be fulfilled, and the LordAlmighty means that it shall. Do you not think that the Lord will conquer?I think He will, and we are helping Him." (1:161) So are many faithfulSaints today. Possessing an understanding of the situation, some earlyMormons tried to incorporate the principle into their states' rights in1901. The Manifesto didn't curtail their effort. Wilford Woodruff expresses the feelings of many of like mind: "Wewould be ashamed to deny the faith to accommodate our enemies, then meetthe prophets and apostles in the spirit world." (1:228) This puts theManifesto and Petition For Amnesty under glass. At least, inquiring mindsmight be encouraged to sort out the facts motivating the issuance of theManifesto, rather than accepting it as a blanket to cover the pluralmarriage headache. The blood of Ephraim is also apparent here: "The United States stoodas good a chance to kick the stars from the sky, as to make the Latter-daySaints forsake what the Lord revealed to them." (John Taylor, 1:252) Tosay, as some do, that these teachings died when the Prophets died, is totax the credulity of the least exercised mind. Being creatures who courtsecurity, shall we tremble when a present leader dies for fear their wordswill be dismissed or superceded? The fact of the matter simply is thattruth is always true, in any era. God is unchanging, and all of His wordsthrough His Prophets will be fulfilled. The Lord did not quickly removeplural marriage from the scene when the government began to rattle itssabers. President Taylor also said, "Polygamy is a divine institution. It hasbeen handed down direct from God. The United States cannot abolish it. Nonation on earth can prevent it, nor all the [203] nations of the earthcombined!" (1:251) One has to admit, no matter his leanings, that this isa stout comment. He, along with all the others, was correct. But anyonecan see that the Manifesto does get in the way. To justify it, however,would be to excuse a government of its unconstitutional acts and to excusemany fearful saints who, instead of letting the Lord fight their battlesas He promised, pressured Him to make life easier. The Manifesto cameAlong to ease their burden, while the Lord was busy taking care of His ownpurposes with or without the Manifesto. An in-depth study of the 1890 Manifesto, which is not being attemptedhere, unavoidably brings one face to face with the workings of the Lord.It might be timely to insert at this point a statement made by George Q.Cannon at the time of the issuance of the Manifesto. He said in GeneralConference, "... you will see things that perhaps you cannot see andunderstand at the present time." He added, "... the devil is not pleasedwith what we have done." (2:488) The sixty-four dollar question is, whywould the devil not be pleased at the supposed cancellation of pluralmarriage? What, then, were the workings of the Lord? Wilford Woodruff atthe same meeting said, after counselling the Saints to ask the Lord about

the action taken, "When you get through you will understand many thingsthat you do not today." (2:492) President Woodruff stated again later,"The Lord is at work with us. He is doing things here that you do notcomprehend." (2:547) The same counsel would apply to us today, as toseeking out the workings of the Lord. Those comments delivered in 1890 harmonize with the earlier statementmade by John Taylor: "But one thing I can assure all men, in the name ofIsrael's God, neither this nation nor any other nation, can do anythingagainst the truth, but for the truth." (1:236) The same impression was held by George Q. Cannon: I tell you in thename of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no power upon the earth or in hellthat can disturb the peace, the quietude, the propriety and success ofthis people or interrupt the progress of this great and glorious work ofour God .... God has stretched forth his hand to accomplish a work, andthat work will roll forth." (1:299) That plural marriage or any otherprinciple would suffer cessation or extinction simply has no place in ourthinking. The 1890 Manifesto had a place and a purpose, though basicallyless than divine. It was a fine cloak, well worn by some and shunned byothers. All effort against God's work serves but to [204] propel itforward. The Lord never surrenders. John Taylor is clear in this assurance: "If God has introducedsomething for our glory and exaltation, we are not going to have thatkicked over by any improper influence either inside or outside of theChurch of the living God." (1:336) The truth is either spoken here, or theLord hadn't gotten His change of plans through to President Taylor. Hesaid further, "If we are interrupted by men who do not know about ourprinciples, that is all right, it will not impede the work of God or stopthe performance of ordinances." (1:345) Which, much to the nervousness ofsome, is an understatement. George Teasdale's testimony: "I bear my solemn testimony that pluralmarriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from theheavens. I bear my testimony that it is a necessity, and that the Churchof Christ in its fulness never existed without it. Where you have theeternity of marriage, you are bound to have plural marriage; bound to; andit is one of the marks of the Church of Jesus Christ in its sealingordinances." (1:328) It would be completely debilitating to think that ifwe have a fragmented gospel, that would also be the level of ourblessings. If a small Dutch boy can save his town by plugging the hole inthe dike with his finger, one can rest assured of the Lord's capability todo the same thing--on a far grander scale. The Lord is consistent. Truth is consistent with itself in any age ofthe world. It is singular that it was not until after Sarah gave Hagar toAbraham in plural marriage, that the chosen seed appeared. Let us give space to Charles W. Penrose: "What would be necessary tobring about the result nearest the hearts of the opponents of Mormonism.... Simply to renounce, abrogate or apostatize from the new and

everlasting covenant of marriage in its fulness. Were the Church to dothat as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body. The authorityof the Priesthood would be withdrawn .... The heavens would permanentlywithdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up another people of greatervalor and stability, for his work must ... go forward." (1:377. SeeSection Five for full editorial) These are frightening penalties. But theChurch is assuredly not rejected of God. The Church has Priesthood.Therefore the simplest of reasoning must bring us to conclude that thesacred principle of celestial plural marriage is fulfilling its missionand must be of force and in effect in the earth since its restoration. Andthose fulfilling their sacred [205] covenants in this mission to whichthey are called, must love the Church with all their hearts, withunderstanding of her position and her holy mission among men. A kinship of spirit is exhibited by Lorenzo Snow: "We have nooccasion for fear or cause for trembling--the purpose of God will beaccomplished--what He has recommenced will be consummated though thecombined armies of the earth should rise up and oppose .... Better suffera thousand deaths than succumb to the force of persecution by promising todiscard a single principle which God has revealed for our glory andexaltation." (1:404, 406) This, too, joins the others in the repeatedassurance that the principle was here to stay. He said one month later,"Though I go to prison, God will not change His law of celestial marriage.But the man, the people, the nation, that oppose and fight against thisdoctrine and the Church of God will be overthrown." (1:410) In an overallcontemplation of these teachings, the opponents of plural marriage arehard pressed. We cannot hold to the supposition that God was prematurewith the doctrine and had to withdraw it. He does not trade an eternalprinciple for political expediency. Those whose hearts are linked with theancients' cannot accept the thought. Abraham H. Cannon echoes the eternal declaration: "As God lives, theprinciple will not be driven from the earth." (2:4) The scriptures are clear that all men are saved by obedience to thesame principles and ordinances. We walk the same path to arrive at thesame goal. Said Joseph F. Smith, "The rites of the Priesthood of theChurch, as the Lord has revealed them, and the principles that underliethe organization of the Church of Jesus Christ, are irrevocable,unchanging and unchangeable." (Gosp. Doc. p. 14) So we are all in the sameboat, rowing with the same oars. Truths are hard for some to receive, andthey must be led to them by degrees. The glad tidings of the gospel aresometimes too glad for some of us to bear. The Millennial Star reported, "We cannot be married for eternitywithout subscribing to the law that admits a plurality of wives." (Mill.Star 5:15) While this may be discomforting news to some, it will bringgreat joy to others. A "temple marriage" fills the law only in part. (J.D.20:24-31. See Section One for full discourse) The fulness of the law ofcelestial marriage is plural marriage. A monogamous relationship cannot

fill the law. Plural marriage as Joseph the Prophet restored it may be outof sight, but there seems to be ample evidence that it is not out of [206]existence. The Saints will one day rejoice because of that fact. The "ramin the thicket" will then have newer and broader significance for them.(See Section Twelve) Let us close this portion of our examination by a final statementfound in the Fall 1971 edition of the Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 39,No. 4, p. 359. It states: "President Woodruff was quoted by Smith (JohnHenry) as stating at a meeting in the Manti Temple in May of 1888 that,`We won't quit practising Plural Marriage until Christ shall come.'" Foundalso in John Henry Smith Journal under date 17 May 1888. The affairs of men are known to the Lord from the beginning of theworld. In His infinite wisdom, He set forth His order and will concerningcelestial plural marriage in a revelation to John Taylor in September of1886. (See page 34) The revelation concludes with, "I have not revokedthis law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter intomy glory must obey the conditions thereof." (1:442-3, 3:230) This wasgiven when the fires under the principle were hot. Statements from theLord rarely leave excuse for conjecture. It is preposterous to think toquibble with God, and it is preposterous to think He changed His mind.Rather, all the statements of the Prophets with reference to this holyprinciple are in complete harmony with this stand taken by the Lord. Therevelation states, "It is more pleasing to me that men should use theirfree agency in regard to these matters." And that is squarely where thematter stands today. Plural marriage is not an item for proselyting. Noris it on the back of the Church for carrying and perpetuating. The loadwas shifted. A revelation was given to Wilford Woodruff in 1880. (See SectionFour, page 25) It includes a paragraph that says, "And I say again, woeunto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people fromobeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham, which leadeth to celestial glory,which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servantJoseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned ...." (1:253) Oneis again embarrassed to suppose God would be rendered helpless by acts ofmen and nations to perpetuate a holy principle. The 1882 revelation to John Taylor (See Section Four) calls GeorgeTeasdale and Heber J. Grant to the Quorum of Twelve, and Seymour B. Younginto the Quorum of Seventies. (1:309) Seymour B. Young was thereininstructed to enter into the principle. One gets the feeling that the Lordwas not too [207] concerned about the law of the land, which had long beenclamoring for the heads of the polygamists. Nephi might be appropriatelyquoted here, "I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded,for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men,save He shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thingwhich He commandeth them." (1 Ne. 3:7) Because of pressures to make concession to the courts on polygamy,

Wilford Woodruff inquired of the Lord in 1889, and received anotherrevelation, (See Section Four) part of which states, "Let not my servantswho are called to the Presidency of my Church deny my word or my law,which concerns the salvation of the children of men." (2:223) They werefurther instructed to make no pledges from the Priesthood to theirenemies. This was in 1889. Was the Lord to change His mind one year later?All four of these last mentioned revelations were given after the SupremeCourt of the United States declared the anti-polygamy law constitutional.It is one matter for the Lord to forget the Supreme Court had spoken, andquite another for man to forget that the Lord had spoken. Manifesto enthusiasts didn't take the Lord by surprise. He knew ifSatan could succeed in getting the Saints to lay aside one singleprinciple that God had restored to the earth in these last days, the worldwould chortle at the Church, the Saints would be considerably weakened,God's representatives would have to assume the responsibility forforfeiting a holy principle, the works of God would be thwarted, and allHell would rejoice. Plural marriage was not a lonely target. If Satan andhis emissaries in the flesh were successful in getting the Church to turnfrom one principle, it would be a classic precedent, and the Church wouldlikely turn from others, until the Priesthood itself would be forfeitedand taken from the earth. Destruction of the Priesthood was at the heartof the matter. The severity of the situation was expressed by George Teasdale: "TheSaints in general are less firmly united on this principle than on manyothers belonging to the Gospel, and it is hoped by our enemies that thiscircumstance will conduce largely, if not successfully, to bring about itsrenunciation by the people in a Church capacity. Such an act would betantamount to an apostacy, and the consequent destruction of the power andauthority of the Priesthood would be consummated. This is a great objectaimed at." (2:94) This is mentioned to show that the [208] absence ofplural marriage in our day would bring about the fulfillment of suchstatements as this. What are we left to conclude? The Manifesto was a necessity, a blind to the government, an escapeopportunity to the fearful and tired among the Saints themselves, afrustration to Satan and his skullduggery. It was offered to the world asa disinfectant for Mormonism. It was offered, along with the unfortunatePetition For Amnesty, "to be at peace with the government." Daniel wouldrather have gone to the lions. But to say that the 1890 Manifesto stopped plural marriage is aswholly true as saying that the crickets ate the seagulls. It is aninteresting exercise in credulity to examine the wording of the Manifesto.Great chinks are left in its superstructure, which is not a mark of God'srevelations. Manifesto supporters say plural marriage has stopped. Forthem it has. The Lord kept His word and provided the way for others not"bowing down to the golden image." Viewed in the true light of historical occurrence, the 1890 Manifesto

was a bit late. The giving up of plural marriage within the Churchstructure was not because of a sudden moment of capitulation. It was aslow process of yielding up the practice, the Manifesto being a clearparallel to closing the barn door after the horse was out. If one is to decide whether the Manifesto was a good covenant or abad one, it is of some help to consider the actions of the Church leadersafter 1890. There is little question as to their course. If God cannotrevoke an everlasting law upon which an everlasting blessing ispredicated, can man? Charles W. Penrose again: "If the doctrine of plural marriage wasrepudiated, so must be the glorious principle of marriage for eternity,the two being indissolubly interwoven with each other." (1:423) Theprinciple belongs to the Priesthood of God, if one will accept a key, andto none other. It is not sought to extend it to the world nor to introduceit to other people. It is confined to the Priesthood, and if polygamy is adead issue, the whole religion must of necessity be in a state of demise. While the Manifesto is not itself a revelation, it is the result of arevelation showing forth the sacrifices necessary in order to maintain theprinciple of plural marriage in a wicked world. If the early Saints tookthe urgent matter into their own hands, one surely cannot deny the Lordthe right to take the matter into His. [209] One cannot help but bereminded of Lorenzo Snow's corroborative statement: "The severestprosecutions have never been followed by revelations changing a divinelaw, obedience to which brought imprisonment or martyrdom." (1:410) In concluding this examination on the theme that celestial pluralmarriage was restored with full intent of its perpetuation, one or twoobvious thoughts might be considered. It is, for example, interesting tonote that the Lord prepares in advance for impending eventualities. Beforeany step was ever taken in Adam's fall, the atonement was worked out inadvance of the fan. This is a pattern throughout history. Before the worldwas washed through the flood, an Ark was prepared. Before Martin Harrislost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript, a double history wasrecorded and therefore available. If one didn't know it, it would be safeto merely assume that an advanced preparation would have assuredperpetuating plural marriage before the umpteen Manifestos made theirappearance. A holy, exalting, necessary principle was at stake. Some view their position today much as the sons of the Ammonites inHelaman's day. The Anti-Nephi-Lehites, gathered out from among theLamanites, covenanted to lay down their swords and never take up armsagain. When the Lamanites fell upon them, slaying the Nephites anddestroying their cities, it was the sons of the Ammonites, not under suchcovenant, who took up arms to defend the lands and people. They were underno condemnation. There are many Saints today who entered into no suchcovenant against plural marriage that presently pins the Church togovernment demand. They have taken up the work, under the direction of theLord and His servants, and they, too, are under no condemnation, so long

as they prove faithful. The situation in our day would come as no surprise to Apostle DanielH. Wells: "Many will doubtless make shipwreck of their faith and will beled away by the allurements of sin into and by forbidden paths; yet theKingdom will not be taken from this people and given to another. But apeople will come forth from among us, who will be zealous of good works,willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in His ways andwho will walk in His paths." (Des. News 11/6/1876) Heber C. Kimball foresaw the same thing: "But the time will come whenthe Lord will choose a people out of this people upon whom He will bestowHis choicest blessings." (Des. News 11/9/1865) He continues the theme:"Many of this people have [210] broken their covenants ... by findingfault with the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence.But you cannot do that, for God will cut you off and raise up anotherpeople that will carry out his purposes (J.D. 4:108) Turning to Apostle Orson F. Whitney: "But I know that there is apeople, in the heart's core of this people, that will arise in theirmajesty in a day that is near at hand, and push spiritual things to thefront, a people who will stand up for God, fearing not man nor what mancan do." (Des. Wkly -/11/1889) Lastly, from the Millennial Star 42:584, 1880: "Before the great dayof the Lord shall come, and the day of righteousness and peace dawn uponthis fair creation, two potent cleansing processes shall be in activeoperation. The first of these is the preparation of a choice people,purified by an application of their lives, as individuals,and a community,of the principles of the Gospel of peace. Such a body will evolve fromthose called Latter-day Saints, who as a church possess the fulness andpower of the pure plan of salvation. Out of this community at present inthe merely incipient stages of development, and from the remnant of thewhole house of Israel, will emanate the nucleous or foundation from whichwill spring the righteous Millennial population of our globe." TheseSaints hold the unfading and unfaltering assurance that the cause forwhich they are ready to endure all things shall yet prevail over all theearth. The Prophets certainly seem to concur. The principle of pluralityof wives in the Mormon faith is not a principle of mere inclination andindulgence, but of Divine command to achieve holy ends. Celestial plural marriage is not for everyone. Neither is the Churchitself, since exaltation is forced upon no man. It is a pursuit and aprocess and requires rare devotion. It is a paralyzed man who hangs hishat on a principle believed to be suspended. If the mere acquiring of apiano doesn't make a persona musician, neither does having a law on thebooks make a person holy. Plural marriage is just as "fulfilled" as isbaptism or the laying on of hands or the need for the Holy Ghost. In the light of Matthias F. Cowley's comment, "None of therevelations of the prophets either past or present have been repealed ....These revelations received by our prophets and seers are all of God, and

we cannot repeal or disannul them without making God out a liar, and Godcannot lie." (Smoot Inv. 1:8, 1901), one has cause for second thought intrying to pit Joseph Smith's revelation on plural marriage against thepur-[211]ported revelation called "Manifesto." Is the Lord cancelling outHimself? It isn't too difficult to untangle the situation. Most peopleknow the Manifesto handicapped the Lord's program only in giving it atemporary geographical restriction. B.H. Roberts aims at the heart of the matter: "The truth remains. Theaction of the Church has not affected it in the least. The truth remainsjust as true as if the Church had accepted it. Its action simplydetermines the relationship of the members to that truth; and if theyreject it, the truth still remains; and it is my opinion that they wouldnot make further progress until they accepted the rejected truth ...."(Imp. Era 8:363) No amount of going around corners or crowding behind aManifesto will quench the flame of Section 132 in the Doctrine andCovenants. In passing, it is interesting to note that those who conceded theprinciple in the first place were those of the majority not living it. Soit is only reasonable to say that if the 97% not, living the principleshould not have to suffer for what the 3% were doing, does it not followthat the 3% should not have to suffer for what the 97% chose to do? Thatseems to be as rarely considered as the situation where the smoker insistsupon smoking in the presence of non-smokers because it's a free country.To whom? It is not in the heart of God to say the few cannot sanctifytheir lives because the majority is confused. Perhaps the best conclusion to this Summary could be best stated bythe Prophet Joseph Smith. There is a sure way to all knowledge andunderstanding, to an outline of the course each should pursue in order toplease God. His words stand as a standard for all men: "Search the scriptures, search the revelations which we publish, andask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, to manifestthe truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye single to His glory,nothing doubting, He will answer you by the power of His Holy Spirit. Youwill then know for yourselves and not for another .... You stand then inthese last days, as all have stood before you, agents unto yourselves, tobe judged according to your works." (T.P.J.S. 11-12) Whatever Joseph Smith established and gave his life for, cannot becompromised. [211a] ADDENDUM As this Fourth Volume goes to press, we take note of a recentpublication entitled "That Manifesto", by Gilbert A. Fulton, undercopyright 1974. We have reviewed its contents and feel it appropriate tomake comment relative to several issues contained therein, inasmuch as

these issues have direct bearing upon the same subject matter in thisvolume. It may be of interest to the reader to know that the specifictitle, "That Manifesto", was the caption used by the Salt Lake Tribune fora series of articles in September of 1890. We have read Mr. Fulton's book and have carefully examined hiscommentary and point of view relative to the Woodruff Manifesto of 1890.We are appreciative of the scholarly effort evidenced in its research andorganization. Although we can concur with part of the position assumed bythe author in his analysis of the Manifesto, there are one or two conceptstreated in his work that bear further consideration. With one or twoexceptions, these are matters of extension rather than of divergence. Butthey are of sufficient significance that we wish to make note of thesematters for the consideration of the reader in his attempt to view theManifesto in its historical and modern settings. The author's basic premise carried throughout the book is that theManifesto, rather than being a major pivotal issue, was merely a publicdeclaration of an already ongoing internal Church policy. While this iscorrect within its proper limit, it does not disclose the full policyassumed and activated by the Church leaders in 1890 and for some timeprevious. The issue is significant. To stop and go no further with theconcept that the Manifesto was but a timely public disclosure of analready established Church policy, is to give the impression that theprinciple [211b] and practice of plural marriage among the membership ofthe Church was in its death throes en toto. This is not correct. ThePriesthood leaders were not working behind the scenes prior to the 1890Manifesto either to abolish a practice they knew to be essential to theirexaltation, or to put it under anesthesia. The testimonies and lives ofJoseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, B.H. Roberts, Heber J. Grant and manyothers, substantiate this position. Pages 188-196 of "That Manifesto"cover one case in point. Detailed evidence can be found throughout thevolumes of "The Most Holy Principle". It is true that the organization of the Church yielded up theteaching and practice of plural marriage. The Manifesto made publicdeclaration of that portion of a previously assumed policy. But thatpolicy was not the result of the Edmunds-Tucker legislation of 1887.Rather, it was the result of the 1886 revelation to President John Taylor,instructing the Priesthood to shoulder the responsibility of perpetuatingthat principle, predicated upon the free agency and choice of everyindividual. Part of that on-going policy meant that living the principleof plural marriage was up to the individual, and the word for so doing was"underground". They knew that the responsibility for accepting the law wasupon their own shoulders; the Church could do nothing for them. Theprinciple was again under the jurisdiction of the Priesthood, as it was in

the days of Joseph Smith and up to the year 1852. The Manifesto renderedunto Cesaer that which Cesaer unconstitutionally demanded, but the work ofGod was to go on in its uninterrupted fulness. So when we discuss an"on-going policy," it cannot be assumed that the policy which wasdisclosed to the public via a Manifesto covers the whole picture. ThePriesthood had no intention of abolishing the teaching and living of God'slaw. Under the circumstances, the Church could rightly say they hadnothing to [211c] do with it, because they didn't. The Lord had made otherprovision. It is stated that the Manifesto was not a directive to the Churchand, basically, did not concern them. (pgs. 98, 104, 135, etc) Again,there are circumstances involved in this issue that go beyond that stand.In the kindness of the Lord, the Manifesto was held out to many Saints asan offering and was, by many, enthusiastically received. The only oneswhom it did not concern were those who went on living the commandment ofGod and kept the principle alive as the Lord intended, which individualsincluded a great portion of the Priesthood-bearing Church leadersthemselves. It is our position that the Manifesto had a very direct concern uponthe Church membership and served to cause quite a stir on all levels. Theannouncement of the Manifesto, the call in General Conference for a votefrom the people, President Woodruff's statement that it was intended to"apply to the Church in every nation and country," the counsel to theChurch in the last two paragraphs of that document, served to rattle a fewtestimonies. However, the basic Church involvement with the Manifesto wasin the form of embracing it as a rescue ship for the 97% who were anxiousto climb aboard. The Lord will always provide a lesser law for those whowill not abide a higher law, deeming the lower law preferable todestroying the half-hearted or the disobedient. This is specifically borne out by President Joseph Fielding Smith. In1909 the Reorganized Church was bringing issues to bear against the UtahChurch. Under the direction of his father, Joseph Fielding Smith respondedto the charges. The Reorganites took the position through amisconstruction of scripture that the Lord had rejected the Mormons inUtah as well as the Church which the Pro-[211d]phet established, with allher dead. They did not believe in temple work. They argued further thatthere were no secrets in God's work, that the Prophet Joseph never didanything that was secret. Joseph Fielding Smith took the position that God, true to His word,did reveal to the Prophet Joseph all things pertaining to the temple andin the fulness of Priesthood that he, Joseph, conferred these things uponthe Twelve and others, that it was God's specific intent that Joseph Smith

receive the fulness of Priesthood outside of the temple, that the Churchreceive it inside the temple. Why so? Because the Church members hadhardened their hearts and would not receive all of the gospel. PresidentSmith quotes Alma 12 and other scriptures to show that the Lord wouldoffer His gospel to the people, that they in their agency would decidewhat portion of it they wanted, and if they rejected the fulness of thegospel, the Lord would give them something less. He states that many things pertaining to the Kingdom of God would notbe published abroad, but those who were worthy only of the lesser portionwould have it promulgated and made available to them. President JosephFielding Smith understood this principle in 1909 and knew that it would benecessary for us to live all of the gospel or we would not please theLord, we would not enter into the Church of the Firstborn in the Celestialkingdom nor meet in communion therewith. He said that there is a portionof the gospel reserved for the faithful. We have cited Dr. Hugh Nibley'srecent enlargement upon this theme. It is as old as the world. The godshave reserved the sacred mysteries of the Kingdom of God for the faithful.This position taken by Joseph Fielding Smith can be found in the pamphlet,"The Origin of the Reorganized Church," by Joseph Fielding Smith. Theargument that President Smith took with [211e] the Reorganites is theidentical stand that we have taken, for it is correct. Continuing, the Manifesto of 1890 became a rescue ship for those whowanted to climb aboard. The higher law, nevertheless, remained available.The Manifesto, which the Lord permitted to materialize, offeredopportunity for those who wanted to make that choice in the Church, aswell as providing the government with the statement for which it waspressing. We make note of another issue in Mr. Fulton's book. That the Saintsfrom 1862 to 1890 were put-upon by the government in its unrelentingpressures, is true. But as we have mentioned; there are other workingsbehind the scene. Another front was moving along among the Saints,rippling the waters. Young and aspiring Mormons, most of whom were notliving the principle, were increasingly vocal in their dissatisfactionwith the conditions which imposed restrictions upon them in political andeconomic circles. They were directly affected by the taint upon theMormons and their religion. Additionally, prominent Mormon businessmenwere urging the Church authorities to yield the practice of pluralmarriage because of talk of heavy personal losses due to confiscation oftheir own holdings along with the already seized Church property. A greatrift in Mormon unity had developed, and the Church leaders were heavilypressured from within to give up the cause. We are reminded of the factthat the drivings of the Saints in Missouri were not solely the fault ofthe Missourians.

Considering more than one side, the Manifesto materialized not onlybecause of a government employing unconstitutional demands, but alsobecause of the changing attitude of the Saints themselves. The Manifestorepresented a lesser law, that of monogamy, to a large number of Saintsand provided the op-[211f]portunity for which they were clamoring, sincethat was their hope and desire. Rather than being a fairly simpledisclosure with a fairly simple intent, the Policy of the Church combineda five-fold intent at least, not consisting solely of a declaration of anon-going policy as the book would have it appear: 1) Issue a Manifesto, 2)Make it binding upon the church, leaving the Priesthood to actindependently of it, particularly outside of the United States, 3) Freethe Church to fill its mission to the world, while relieving the pressureof plural marriage on those Saints not desiring it, 4) obtain statehoodand thereby self-government, and 5) Pass legislation favorable to pluralmarriage afterward. Later, however, the formulation of restrictive clausesin the State Constitution, created by Mormons, foiled the plans. So we cansee that the issues covered in the book were more complex than they appearfrom a partial picture only. In a departure from the author's posture that the Manifesto was arevelation (iii, 140), it is our position that the Manifesto was not arevelation "dictated by God." In this particular matter, the Salt LakeTribune was more astute in its analysis of the Manifesto and itsramifications than were many of the Saints. The document was written byseveral men, revised, rewritten and finally submitted for PresidentWoodruff's signature. On several occasions he spoke of his reasons for"signing" the Manifesto. Revelations from God do not require signatures.That the document is to be found in the Doctrine and Covenants at all is amarvel. It was not until years later in 1911, through Gentile persistence,that the Manifesto finally landed in the back of the Doctrine andCovenants. President Joseph Fielding Smith said in July of 1936, that theManifesto was not a revelation and was never presented to the Church as arevelation. The Manifesto is, ad-[211g]mittedly, the result ofinspiration. President Woodruff saw in vision the trials and calamitiesthat would come upon the people. But this issue must include the fact thatthe Saints had not been obedient to God's command and had not put theirtrust in Him to fight their battles as He had promised. They receivedtheir Manifesto, and it was a negative offering in the same sense that thesecond set of tablets given to Moses inherently carried a lesserpossibility of achieving exaltation for those who accepted that level ofoffering. This is illustrated by an incident similar in principle in theOld Testament. The Lord sent the prophet Samuel to His people. But thepeople insisted upon having a king. The God of Israel allowed them their

desire. The people got their king and all the trouble that went with it.Similarly, Joseph the prophet of the latter days troubled the Lord to givethe 116 translated pages of the Book of Mormon to Martin Harris. The Lordlet him have his wish, and he also fell heir to much trouble. Many of theSaints in the latter 1800's pled for plural marriage to be shelved. Forthem it was. But it was not a directive from God, nor was the Manifestorevealed or dictated by Him. He permitted the people to receive the endsof their demands. God had nothing to do with it, only insofar as Hepermitted the people to use their own agency in accepting or rejecting theresponsibility of His holy law. The Saints severally made their choice,and it becomes double-talk to say that the Church was not anti-polygamy,it was pro-monogamy. (p. 40) However, the will of the Lord has been revealed in this matter, andit has not varied in the least degree. He said in 1880, "Woe unto thatnation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying thePatriarchal Law of Abraham." He said in 1882 that Seymour B. Young "mustconform to my law" before his appointment to the Seventies could beacceptable. He said in 1886, "I [211h] have not revoked this law, nor willI." He said again in 1889, "I cannot deny my words. Make no furtherpledges." It is inconceivable that one year later He would "dictate"another pledge to the government to revoke a law He said He wouldn'trevoke. He had not given a commandment impossible to obey, a lawimpossible to live. The Saints could have succeeded. And the Saints shouldhave succeeded. In this connection, Apostle Matthias F. Cowley said in 1901: "I wish to remind you of a certain revelation (1882) given you through President Taylor. The command was given to set our quorums and houses in order, and the promise was that if we should obey the command, God would fight our battles for us; but we did not obey the command, so God did not fight our battles for us. If we had obeyed that command and revelation given through President Taylor, there would have been no Manifesto." (Smoot Hearing 1:8) So when it is stated that the Manifesto had to come and wasunavoidable, we must take the position that it was avoidable. The kingmodern Israel wanted was monogamy, and they have it, a lesser law givennot according to the power of eternal lives. However, it must beremembered that the Apostleship embraces the right to the perpetuation ofall the revealed word of God, independent of the Church organization, andall of the revealed word of God is available to anyone who seeks to findthe keys. Relative to the author's concept of the Church as a corporate entity,

as well as its relationship to the United States government and the law ofthe land, (1-10) our own point of view is not so generous in accordingcer-[211i]tain powers to the government. The government, all of the way tothe Supreme Court, woefully overstepped its bounds. Whenever such actionsare permitted by the people of the United States, significant chinks aremade in the armor of the U. S. Constitution. If the government can swoopdown and dictate as to doctrine or religious belief in my Church, it cando the same in your Church. We read in "That Manifesto" that the Church as a corporate structuremust obey governmental decree. one becomes uncomfortable with some obviousramifications attached to that unconditional view. The Church wasorganized in Payette, New York, under God, in 1830, and became a legalcorporate entity thereafter. In receiving recognition from the governmentas a corporation, the Church was not given its identity by the government.God gave the Church its identity and its Priesthood. It is true that theChurch is bound and accountable to the government for that portion whichthe government created, not the part that God created. In other words, aDeed is accepted and recorded under the laws of a state or county. Thisputs the public on notice of a fact. But the government did not create theland to which the Deed refers. On this premise the early Church leaders fought governmental action.They did so within their rights and upon proper ground. The Church was notcreated by the government but by God and is accountable to God. Thegovernment was responsible for the creation of a legal entity, thecorporate body, and it is in this area that the corporation in itsbusiness dealings is accountable to the government. In other words, agovernment does not create a religion or its beliefs, but it permits thecorporation to be recorded so that the public is on notice as to itsstatus, with all of its liabilities and immunities. The Church isaccountable to the law of the land as to buying and selling properties.Being the custodian [211j] of the wealth of the Priesthood, the Church isaccountable as to legally owning property. In this area a corporate bodyhas laws to obey, but not as to its faith, items of doctrine or matters ofconscience relative to God. The U.S. Constitution is explicit on thatmatter, prohibiting government from getting into domestic affairs orreligion. That is tho issue. It is one not so simple as the book outlines. A significant statement was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1885: "If some one outside of the religious professor has the power to prescribe what his religion shall consist of, all pretensions to the existence of religious liberty are a delusion and a snare, and a hollow and meaningless mockery. The only line of demarcation over which the exercise of religion must not step is that which divides

its practice from the domain of the rights of others. It has never been shown, nor is it susceptible of exhibition, that the peculiar marital institution interferes with the rights and privileges of any, under the Constitution. Nobody outside of the relationship are injured, and therefore have no reason for complaint, neither has any power the right of interference." (Des. Eve. News 1885) If a government is allowed to punish a Church upon judgment of itsbeliefs and religious practices when it is not infringing upon the rightsof others, then we are under a formidable dictatorship, and man's law hasbecome higher than the law of God. The Constitution was framed to prohibitthis very possibility. The acts of the government and the anti-Mormonfaction in the 1800's were on unconstitutional grounds and in disobediencebefore the highest law of the land. [211k] We are attempting to make it clear that a corporation did not breakthe law. A corporation cannot marry. If an incorporator or a man withinthat corporation breaks a law or in this specific case lives pluralmarriage according to the free exercise of his conscience, then thegovernment should punish the man, not dissolve a corporation. If thegovernment had the right to dissolve the corporate Mormon Church andconfiscate its properties because a minority of its members was livingpolygamy, it also, has the obligation to dissolve churches wherein murderor robbery or adultery or treason or the degraded, immoral practices ofdevil worship are committed. The principle is the same. Such an unlawful position should not be tolerated and certainly notembraced. But that which many Saints formerly fought, many Saintspresently accept. The lines of governmental limitations were drawn muchmore clearly formerly than they are now. If the American people continueto be fuzzy in their understanding that government dominion is rapidlyspreading, then the government will continue to be fuzzy about itsencroachment upon the rights of a free people. The acts of the government led President Wilford Woodruff to declare: "The Congress of 1862 and the Supreme Judges of 1879, in their acts and decisions have taken a dangerous and fearful step; their acts will sap the very foundation of our government and it will be rent asunder, and the God of heaven will hold them responsible for these things.... The Constitution once broken by the rulers of the land, there will be no stopping place until the nation is broken in pieces, and no power beneath the heavens can save this nation from the consequences thereof." (Mill. Star, 1879, 41:243) [211l] The book makes issue that the Saints must be subject to the law of

the land, citing reference Doctrine and Covenants 58:21-23. But it wasGod's law that was to be kept upon the land, and Section 98:4-15 definesthe law of the land as being that which is constitutional. Should lawsappear upon the books making abortion mandatory after having two children,how shall we adjust our conscience? Similarly, shall the governmentregulate marriage in opposition to the outline given by God? Initially, American law was patterned after English Common Law.English Common Law encompasses a procedure by which legal or commondecisions were based upon precedent, or decisions predicated upon eventsand/or decisions formerly established. The English people area compositeof different branches of God's Church, comprising the remnants of theTribes of Israel as they migrated to the British Isles. They brought withthem their laws and revelations from God. (See "Joseph Smith and OurDestiny", pub. by Earl W. Harmer, S.L.C.) English Common Law had the Bibleas its foundation. Their tradition held that God is Supreme. American lawin the 1880's and 1890's was patterned after English Common Law, againrelying upon the Bible as its basis and precedent. The Constitution of theUnited States was framed as a guarantee that certain accepted rights andprivileges would be held inviolate in God's people. In the matter of marriage, plural marriage has always been found withGod's people. God has always commanded His people to live a certain way,incorporating into those commandments such detail as that which should orshould not be eaten. The practice of polygamy in the 1800's was acceptedin about 4/5ths of the nations of the world, with the Bible as itsfoundation. God set the precedent Himself, traceable from Adam to Noah toAbraham and on down through the Prophet Joseph Smith when the gospel wasrestored in the latter days. Po-[211m]lygamy is no more a "blight onMormonism" than it was on Abraham or Isaac or Jacob. Governmentrepresentatives in 1890 admitted that the provisions against polygamyground out in the legislative hoppers, were passed specifically for thepeople in Utah. By Constitutional standards, this made it discriminatoryin its nature and certainly not according to the intent of our FoundingFathers. Further, disfranchising the Mormons because the government didnot agree with their religious beliefs, served to give the non-Mormonscomplete control in civil matters. It denied the majority of the peoplewho were residents in the area the right of self-determination, the rightto choose who would represent them, inalienable rights guaranteed by theConstitution. The efforts of the out-of-order Utah Commission in 1890 canbe summed up in their own statement, "Churches and creeds are subject tolaws of evolution, and Mormonism must yield to the inexorable logic ofcivilization." (p.44) But it is the "logic of civilization" that has ledthe world to its present state of moral and spiritual famine. TheCommission thrust that "logic of civilization" attitude upon the Saints,assuming that since the Church had a corporate identity, it fell under

government dominion and must do as the government bid regarding itsreligious faith. The Mormons wrestled with the matter, holding that God'slaw is supreme and the government must be subordinate to God's laws in allrespects, and plural marriage is God's law. Our belief in that is part ofour inherent and inalienable right. It is our birthright. President Joseph F. Smith explained the matter very clearly: (After quoting D.&C. 58:21 on keeping the law of the land, he said:) We are told here that no man need break the laws of the land who will keep the laws of God. But this is [211n] further defined by the passage which I read afterwards - the law of the land, which all have no need to break, is that law which is the constitutional law of the land, and that is as God himself has defined it. "I ask myself, what law have you broken? What constitutional law have you not observed? I am bound not only by allegiance to the government of the United States but by the actual command of God Almighty, to observe and obey every constitutional law of the land, and without hesitancy I declare to this congregation that I have never violated nor transgressed any law...." It is well known, of course, that President Smith lived the principleof plural marriage despite the laws of the land and the rule of the Churchto the contrary, and so testified. He continues: "The Lord Almighty requires this people to observe the laws of the land, to be subject to `the powers that be,' so far as they abide by the fundamental principles of good government. But he will hold them responsible if they pass unconstitutional measures and frame unjust and proscriptive laws, as did Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in relation to the three Hebrews and Daniel. If lawmakers have a mind to violate their oath, break their covenants and their faith with the people and depart from the provisions of the Constitution, where is the law, human or divine, which binds me, as an individual, to outwardly and openly proclaim my acceptance of their acts? ... We intend to continue to be law-abiding so far [211o] as the constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequence of our obedience to the laws and commandments of God, like men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed upon this subject." (Gosp. Doc. p. 406-7) God restored the principle of plural marriage when it was against thelaw of the land. He encouraged its perpetuation against the law in Hisrevelations to His Church, as we have amply cited in preceding pages. Hemade provision through His prophets to guarantee its perpetuation until He

comes again, because it is a holy law, and God overrides all other law. Ifobeying the law in this matter was of singular importance to the SaintsBefore 1890, they had at least 25 years to obey the law when Territoriallaws were pressed through. The Utah Commission organized and pressured for8 years until the Manifesto was issued, but that does not give stature tothe unconstitutional laws regulating marriage. We must not graduallyembrace the position assumed by the government and fought by the earlySaints. Actually, the real issue has yet to be decided. The issue focusesitself into whether or not the Constitution is strong enough to guaranteethe Saints the right to worship according to the dictates of theirconscience. Some believe the Supreme Court settled it. But has the SupremeCourt the right to go against a higher law and a higher court? WilfordWoodruff and others have held the nation responsible before God for itsacts and judgments in this matter. Those men and women who are keepingplural marriage alive believe they are upholding and sustaining theConstitution and the freedoms of future generations, when others havecapitulated and even embraced the government position. Those men and womenare keeping the keys of this ordinance on the earth so that God's law andHis word may be fulfilled. [211p] We concur with the author of "That Manifesto" that the Manifesto,as it related to practicing plural marriage, was more in the area of anoutward form than one constituting a major issue. For if plural marriageswere not bogus marriages in the eyes of the Priesthood prior to theissuance of the Manifesto, they were not bogus marriages afterward. It istrue that they were and are illegal and invalid from the Church standpointof rule and policy. But the leaders of the Church went on with thebusiness of keeping the commandments of God and perpetuating His law.Obviously the Manifesto and other forms of suppression from men did notoverrule their commitment to God and conscience. The real issue in 1890, we may be sure, was not polygamy. The targetwas the entire Church and its theocratic economy which interfered with thespread of capitalistic institutions and its supposed control of politicallife. Rather than any single item of doctrine, the real thorn was theall-pervasive power of the Church. In order to topple the entirestructure, the government chipped away at its foundation. The idea was todemolish Mormonism entirely by "persuading" it to abrogate principle afterprinciple, and the Church would be shorn of its strength temporally andspiritually. So the real issue is not plural marriage. It is God orLucifer. We are appreciative of the merits of the book, "That Manifesto". Wealso feel it incumbent upon us to highlight the truths of God, the

workings of God among His people, rather than those controversies whichinevitably mushroom around those revealed truths. [212] [213] APPENDIX BRIGHAM YOUNG: "You often hear people desiring more of the knowledge of God, more ofthe wisdom of God, more of the power of God. They want more revelation, toknow more about the Kingdom of Heaven, in heaven and on the earth, andthey wish to learn and increase. "There is one principle that I wish the people would understand andlay to heart. Just as fast as you will prove before your God that you areworthy to receive the mysteries, if you please to call them so, of theKingdom of Heaven--that you are full of confidence in God--that you willnever betray a thing that God tells you--that you will never reveal toyour neighbour that which you ought not to reveal, as quick as you prepareto be entrusted with the things of God, there is an eternity of them tobestow upon you. Instead of pleading with the Lord to bestow more uponyou, plead with yourselves to have confidence in yourselves, and know whento speak and what to speak, what to reveal, and how to carry yourselvesand walk before the Lord. "And just as fast as you prove to Him that you will preserveeverything secret that ought to be--that you will deal out to yourneighbours all which you ought, and no more, and learn how to dispenseyour knowledge to your families, friends, neighbours, and brethren, theLord will bestow upon you, and give to you, and bestow upon you, untilfinally He will say to you, `You shall never fall; your salvation issealed unto you; you are sealed up unto eternal life and salvation,through your integrity.'" (J.D. 4:371-372) The revelation on plural marriage (D.&C. 132) was received by JosephSmith as early as 1831, but was not reduced to writing in its present formuntil July 12, 1843. The principle was made Public and published to theworld through Church channels after August, 1852. Joseph was living theprinciple long before the Church at large knew about it, possibly as earlyas 1831. * * * [214]WILLIAM CLAYTON: "From him (Joseph Smith) I learned that the doctrine of plural and

celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealedto man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle, no mancan ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in Celestial glory." (Hist.Rec. 6:225-7, Feb. 1843) * * * Why Plural Marriage? JOHN TAYLOR: "Joseph Smith told others, he told me and I can bear witness of it,`that if this principle was not introduced, the Church and kingdom couldnot proceed. When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, andso far binding upon the elders of this Church, that it was told them ifthey were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent ofopposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdomwould be taken from them.'" (J.D. 11:221) JOHN TAYLOR: "Concerning the Patriarchal order of marriage, President Taylor said:`If we do not embrace that principle soon, the keys will be turned againstus. If we do not keep the same law that our Heavenly Father has kept wecannot go with Him. A man obeying a lower law [monogamy] is not qualifiedto preside over those who keep a higher law.'" (Life of Wilford Woodruff,p. 542) WILFORD WOODRUFF: "The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance withoutthe Patriarchal order of marriage, is that it belongs to thisdispensation, just as baptism for the dead does.... Without it the Churchcannot progress. The leading men of Israel who are presiding over Stakeswill have to obey the law of Abraham or they will have to resign!" (Lifeof Wilford Woodruff, p. 542; Oct. 14, 1882, after 1882 Revelation) [215]BRIGHAM YOUNG: "Hear it ye Elders of Israel and mark it down in your log-book, thefulness of the gospel is the united order and plural marriage, and I fearthat when I am gone this people will give up these two principles which weprize so highly, and if they do this, the Church cannot advance as Godwishes for it to advance." (Sermon at Dedication of St. George Temple) GEORGE Q. CANNON:

"What would be necessary to bring about the result nearest the heartsof the opponents of Mormonism, or properly termed the Gospel of the Son ofGod? Simply to renounce, abrogate, or apostatize from the New andEverlasting Covenant of Marriage in its fulness. Were the Church to dothat as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body, the authorityof the Priesthood would be withdrawn, with its gifts and powers and therewould be no more heavenly recognition of the administrations among thepeople, the heavens would permanently withdraw themselves and the Lordwould raise up another people of greater valor and stability...." (Des.News Editorial, April 23, 1885) MILLENNIAL STAR, Vol. 5, p. 15: "We cannot be married ... for eternity without subscribing to the lawthat admits a plurality of wives." BRIGHAM YOUNG: "The only men who become Gods, even sons of God, are those who enterinto polygamy." (J.D. 11:268-9) CONTRIBUTOR, Vol. 6: "God himself gave unto David a plurality of wives, thus becoming aparty to evil, if polygamy is sinful." [216]JOSEPH F. SMITH: "But he (Joseph Smith) did not falter, although it was not until anangel of God with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that heshould enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterlydestroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish thatdoctrine.... Patriarchal marriage involves conditions, responsibilitiesand obligations which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessingsattached to the faithful observance of that law, if viewed only uponnatural principles, which must so far exceed those of monogamy as theconditions, responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is myview and testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrinethat should be taught and understood." (J.D. 20:29, 30) JOSEPH SMITH: "All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs of Jesus Christ willhave to receive the fulness of the ordinances of His Kingdom; and those

who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness ofthat glory, if they do not lose the whole." (D.H.C. 5:424; Mill. Star65:627) ORSON SPENCER: "When God sets up any portion of His kingdom upon the earth, it ispatterned after his own order in the heavens. When He gives to man apattern of family organization on the earth, that pattern will be justlike His own family organization in the heavens. The family of Abraham wasa transcript of a celestial pattern .... It is the only order practiced inthe celestial heavens, and the only peaceful, united and prosperous orderthat will endure, while man invented orders and devices [monogamy, freelove, etc.] will utterly deceive and perish, with the using." (SpencerLetters, p. 192, 193) HEBER C. KIMBALL: "Plurality is a law which God established for his elect before theworld was formed, for a continuation of seeds forever." (Mill. Star28:190) [217]BRIGHAM YOUNG: "Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? because the Lordintroduced it to His servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, andthe Lord's servants have always practiced it. And is that religion popularin heaven? It is the only popular religion there, for this is the religionof Abraham, and unless we do the works of Abraham, we are not Abraham'sseed and heirs according to promise." (J.D. 9:322) GEORGE TEASDALE: "I bear my solemn testimony that plural marriage is as true as anyprinciple that has been revealed from the heavens. I bear my testimonythat it is a necessity, and that the Church of Christ in its fulness,never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of marriage you arebound to have plural marriage, bound to; and it is one of the marks of theChurch of Jesus Christ, in its sealing ordinances." (J.D. 25:21) ERASTUS SNOW: "Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus spoke of that the manwho had one talent and hid it in the earth was the man who had but onewife and would not take another, would have her taken from him and given

to one who had more." (Jrnl of W. Woodruff, Oct. 14, 1882 meeting: See B.F. Johnson, 3:117) (Zechariah 5:7 says: "And behold, there was lifted up a talent oflead: and this is a women that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.") Common Arguments Against Plural Marriage: JAMES E. TALMAGE: "The Latter-day Saints were long regarded as a polygamous people.That plural marriage has been practiced by a limited portion of the peopleunder sanction of Church ordinance, has [218] never since the introductionof the system been denied. But that plural marriage is a vital tenet ofthe Church is not true. What the Latter-day Saints call Celestial Marriageis characteristic of the Church and is in very general practice. But ofCelestial Marriage, plurality of wives was an incident, never anessential." (Story and Philosophy of Mormonism, p. 89) Never an essential? Consider the following: WILFORD WOODRUFF: Said the 132 Section revelation was the law for this dispensation, inan 1883 statement. (Life of Wilford Woodruff, p. 542) JOHN TAYLOR: On January 19, 1883, said this revelation pertains to the living. SECTION 132: Verse 3: "Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey theinstructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who havethis law revealed unto them must obey the same." Verse 4: "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlastingcovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned." Verse 6: "And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, itwas instituted for the fulness of my glory; and be that receiveth afulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saiththe Lord God." MILLENNIAL STAR, Vol. 5, p. 27, October 1865: "The doctrine of celestial marriage with the Mormons is not one ofthat kind that can in the religious world be classed with non-essentials.

It is not an item of doctrine that can be yielded and faith in the systemremain. Mormonism is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which isinvalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one ofits leading principles is acknowledged to be false, or such as God willnot sustain in practice against the entire world." [219]ORSON PRATT: "It is well known to the congregation before me, that the Latter-daySaints have embraced the doctrine of a plurality of wives as a part oftheir religious faith. But, says the objector, we cannot see how thisdoctrine can be embraced as a matter of religion and faith .... In replywe will show that it is incorporated as part of our religion and necessaryfor our exaltation to the fulness of the Lord's glory in the eternalworld." (statement when Section 132 was presented to the body of theChurch on August 28-29, 1852, Mill. Star Suppl., Vol. 15) JOSEPH F. SMITH: "Man cannot receive the fulness of the blessings unless he fulfillsthe law .... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that everyman in this Church who has the ability to obey and practice it inrighteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to meanthis and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it doesmean that." (J.D. 20:28) Never an essential? WILFORD WOODRUFF: "The law of the Patriarchal order of marriage belongs to thisdispensation, and after it was revealed to the Prophet Joseph, he wascommanded to receive it. If he and the people had rejected it, the Churchand Kingdom of God would have advanced no further and God would have takenit from them and given it to another people." (Life of Wilford Woodruff,p. 546) JOSEPH SMITH: "The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me andstrengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment oncelestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. Hesaid to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it,I, together with [220] my people would be damned and cut off from thistime henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and

was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction."(Contributor 5:259) GEORGE Q. CANNON: "The Latter-day Saints practice it ... because God, Our HeavenlyFather has revealed it unto us. If there were no record of its practice tobe found and if the Bible, Book of Mormon and Book of D.&C. were totallysilent in respect to this doctrine, it would nevertheless be binding uponus as a people, God himself having given a revelation for us to practiceit at the present time." (J.D. 13:197) Not an "incident," but a commandment. Argument: Temple marriages are celestial marriages and one man withone wife sealed for eternity will attain to exaltation and eternal lives. 1. The Church's official position in its "Official Statement" of June17, 1933: "Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time andeternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms.Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples inaccordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church arecelestial marriages." (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark.) 2. Melvin J. Ballard, on July 21, 1934 said: "I do maintain that thenew and everlasting covenant of marriage is not plural marriage but is theeternal union of a man and a woman.... To say that those who in the pasthave or in the future will enter into plural marriage will be the onlyones who shall attain Celestial Glory is stating that which is not true." If 1 and 2 are true, what do we do with the following: MILLENNIAL STAR, Vol. 5, p. 15: "We cannot be married ... for eternity without subscribing to the lawthat admits a plurality of wives." [221]JOSEPH F. SMITH: "Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was asort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation of mankind. In otherwords, 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 hepossibly could with more than one. I wish here to enter my solemn protest

against this idea, for I know it is false. The marriage of one woman to aman for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law ofGod is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part ... But thisis only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoeverhas imagined that he could obtain the fulness of the blessing pertainingto this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions,has deceived himself. He cannot do it." (J.D. 20:28) BRIGHAM YOUNG: "The only men who become Gods, even sons of God, are those who enterinto polygamy." (J.D. 11:268-9) BRIGHAM YOUNG: "Now, where a man in this Church says, `I don't want but one wife, Iwill have my religion with one,' he will perhaps be saved in the CelestialKingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession ofany wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will comeforward 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 betaken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, andhe will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single foreverand ever." (J.D. 16:166) BISHOP SAMUEL WOOLLEY: "The spirit told me ... that that revelation was of God and that noman could or would receive a fulness of the Celestial Glory and eternallife except he obeyed that law and had more than one living wife at thesame time." (Hist. Rec. 6:231) [222]JOSEPH W. MUSSER: "A tradition has grown among the Latter-day Saints that celestialmarriage may be comprehended either in the monogamous or patriarchal form,when the ceremony is performed under the authority of the MelchizedekPriesthood, and by one so authorized. True, a marriage performed for timeand eternity, by an authorized servant of the Lord and sealed by the HolySpirit of Promise, is of a celestial nature as it is intended to extendinto the celestial sphere; But it is equally true that the full andcomplete act of celestial marriage comprehends a plurality of wives andcannot be complete in the monogamic form. The title first given to therevelation on celestial marriage was, `A Revelation on the PatriarchalOrder of Matrimony, including Plurality of Wives.' (Pratt, The Seer, p. 7)

Patriarchal marriage means the kind of marriage entered into anciently bysuch Patriarchs as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and others and hasreference to a plurality of wives." BRIGHAM YOUNG: "It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all theworld, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessingswhich Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists--at least in your faith,or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory whichAbraham has obtained." (J.D. 11:268-9) Finally, if celestial marriage and plural marriage are not synonymousterms, what do we do with: GEORGE TEASDALE: "Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have pluralmarriage; bound to; and it is one of the marks of the Church of JesusChrist in its sealing ordinances." (J.D. 25:21) JOSEPH SMITH: "...(said) It was a doctrine which pertained to celestial order andglory." (William Clayton, Hist. Rec. 6:225-7) Argument: Book of Mormon: Jacob 2:23-27. "Wherefore.... [223] Forthere shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubineshe shall have none." Previous verses indicate the Lord is chastising the people of thattime for their much wickedness. They were not worthy to be living thehigher Law of plural marriage. Verse 30 states: "For if I will, saith theLord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwisethey shall hearken unto these things." The Book of Mormon clearly indicates elsewhere that plural marriagewas practiced at proper times: See Alma 10:11. "For behold, he hath blessed mine house, he hath blessed me, and my women, and my children, and my father and my kinsfolk ......" See Ether 1:41. "Go to and gather together ... and thy families; and also Jared thy brother and his family ......

See Ether 6:20. "... Now the number of the sons and the daughters of the Brother of Jared were twenty and two souls; and the number of sons and daughters of Jared were twelve...." The Brother of Jared conversed with the Lord and received revelationsbecause he was living a higher law than was Jared. Also, the Jacob scripture was between 544 and 421 B.C. Over 400 yearslater, 82 B.C., Amulek proclaimed how the Lord had blessed his women. Joseph F. Smith while testifying in the Reed Smoot case before theCommittee on Privileges and Elections in the U.S. Senate, March 9, 1904,said of the Jacob scripture at that time: "All you need to do, sir, is to read the whole thing and it explainsitself. The revelation to Joseph Smith does not repeal this. It is simplya commandment of the Lord unto him, and received by him and accepted byhim, to enter into plural marriage by His law and by His commandment andnot by their own volition." [224] Then it becomes a matter of commandment. Were we commanded to livethe law in this dispensation of the fulness of times? Note the following: ORSON PRATT: "Why, then, do Latter-day Saints practice polygamy? ... It is becausewe believe ... that the Lord God, who gave revelations to Mosesapprobating polygamy, has given revelations to the Latter-day Saints, notonly approbating it, but commanding it, as He commanded Israel in ancienttimes." (J.D. 17:223) WILFORD WOODRUFF: "Again, this testament which Joseph Smith left contains a revelationand commandment from God, out of heaven, concerning the patriarchal orderof marriage ... And God, our Heavenly Father, knowing that this was theonly law ordained by the gods of eternity, that would exalt immortalbeings to kingdoms ... to a fulness of Celestial glory, I say, the God ofIsrael, knowing these things, commanded Joseph Smith to obey this law `oryou shall be damned,' saith the Lord." (Mill. Star 41:242-3) JOSEPH SMITH: "... We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and wasgiven by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (Contributor

5:259) Argument: The New Testament says, "A Bishop and a Deacon shall eachbe the husband of one wife." (1 Tim. 3:2) Then the inference must be that others, laymen, elders, seventies,high priests, etc., may have more than one, since no injunction is made asapplying to others than deacons and bishops. Might the meaning more realistically be that these men should bemarried to properly fill their offices, and to at least one wife? [225] What does the Bible teach in regard to plural marriage? Did not allthe prophets live it and verily were commanded to do so in some instances?Where is one scripture to be found that condemns plural marriage? Thepeople were reproved for many evils but never a word against pluralmarriage. Why was it never included? GEORGE A. SMITH, 1869: "We interpret it to mean, a bishop should be blameless, the husbandof one wife at least.... Now this passage does not prove that a man shouldhave but one wife. It only proves that a bishop should be a married man."(J.D. 13:39) BRIGHAM YOUNG, 1854: "Instead of my believing for a moment that Paul wished to signify toTimothy that he must select a man to fill the office of a Bishop thatwould have but one wife, I believe directly the reverse; ... He did notsay, `but one wife;' it does not read so; but he must have one to beginwith ...." (J.D. 2:88, 89) * * * * Argument: D.&C. 58:21. "Let no man break the laws of the land, for hethat keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land." 1. Joseph and all others broke the law wherever they were living, to wit: Vermont in 1805 Law of 1797 on statutes New York 1815-1830 Law of 1788 Ohio in 1831 Law of 1824 Missouri in 1831 Law of 1825 Illinois in 1839 Law of 1833

2. Read D.&C. 98:4-9, which outlines the law of the land to be that which is constitutional. 3. Instances of breaking the law of the land as revealed in Scripture: [226] The Three Hebrews refused to bow down to the golden image of King Nebuchadnezzar and were cast into the fiery furnace. All the rest of Israel bowed down. And all bow down today to the golden image of monogamy--except a few. Daniel refused to cease his prayers according to the decree of King Darius, and was thrown into the lions' den. Abraham refused to worship at the shrine of his apostate father. 4. The Lord virtually commanded disobedience to the Saints when, for example, He commanded plural marriage by His Servants three years after the Morrill Law (1879) was enacted, when Seymour B. Young entered polygamy. (In the 1882 revelation to John Taylor) That 1882 revelation was published by the Church in early Europeaneditions of the D.&C., also in the Life of John Taylor, p. 349, also inthe Life of Wilford Woodruff," p. 542. Note that this revelation andcommand from the Lord was given 20 years after the anti-polygamy law waspassed by Congress in 1862, and 3 years after the law was declaredconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (in 1879), also 7 months afterthe Edmunds Law (1882), which was designed to give strength to the 1862Law. And the 1886 revelation was 18 months after the Edmunds Law. JOSEPH F. SMITH: (After quoting D.&C. 58:21) "We are told here that no man need breakthe laws of the land who will keep the laws of God. But this is furtherdefined by the passage which I read afterwards, the law of the land, whichall have no need to break, is that law which is the constitutional law ofthe land, and that is as God himself has defined it. (D.&C. 101:77-80) ...The Lord Almighty requires this people to observe the laws of the land, tobe subject to `the powers that be,' so far as they abide by the [227]fundamental principles of good government, but he will hold themresponsible if they will pass unconstitutional measures and frame unjustand proscriptive laws, as did Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in relation to thethree Hebrews and Daniel. If lawmakers have a mind to violate their oath,break their covenants and their faith with the people and depart from the

provisions of the constitution, where is the law, human or divine, whichbinds me, as an individual, to outwardly and openly proclaim my acceptanceof their acts? ... We intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as theconstitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet theconsequence of our obedience to the laws and commandments of God, likemen. These are my sentiments briefly expressed upon this subject." (GospelDoctrine, p. 510-511) BRIGHAM YOUNG: "Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of theeconomy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the foundersof the Roman Empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber bywandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it wasevident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power withtheir neighbors, depended on introducing females into their body politic,so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbors. The scarcityof women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Romebecame the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamywherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamous order of marriageso esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divineinstitution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers."(J.D. 9:322) The first public law in the Roman Empire against polygamy was at thelatter end of the 4th Century, about the year 393, by the EmperorTheodosius. Plural marriage was always God's law. Man-made laws against it areunconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." [228] Polygamy with the Mormon people is strictly a religious rite and notsubject to legislative interpretation or judicial curtailment. And thisposition was maintained by leading Senators, Congressmen, Jurists andPublicists of the United States during the years when the subject wasreceiving legislative attention by the Federal Government. Witness the following by statesmen and prophets: ABRAHAM LINCOLN: "Think if you can of a single instance in which a plainly writtenprovision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force

of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly writtenconstitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justifyrevolution: certainly would if such a right was a vital one." (FirstInaugural Address) THOMAS JEFFERSON: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit; weare answerable for them to our God." BLACKSTONE (the English Jurist): "If ever the laws of God and men are at variance, the former are tobe obeyed in derogation of the latter. JOSEPH F. SMITH: Testified in the Smoot case, 1:335-6, that he was living in openviolation of the "rules of the Church;" so did Francis M. Lyman; so did B.H. Roberts and others of the presiding brethren. GEORGE TEASDALE: "I believe in plural marriage as a part of the gospel just as believein repentance for the remission of sins. I do not fear the face of man asI fear the face of God." (J.D. 25:21) LETTER FROM CATHOLIC BISHOPS: [229] "But when the laws of the state conflict with the natural laws andGod's commands, then God must be obeyed more than man." Peter was commanded by the High Priests of his day to cease theirdoctrines. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, "Whether it beright in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judgeye." Also, "We ought to obey God rather than man." WILFORD WOODRUFF: "The Congress of 1862 (Lincoln was Pres.) and the Supreme Judges of1879, in their acts and decisions have taken a dangerous and fearful step;their acts will sap the very foundation of our government and it will berent asunder, and the God of heaven will hold them responsible for thesethings... The Constitution once broken by the rules of the land, therewill be no stopping place until the nation is broken in pieces, and nopower beneath the heavens can save this nation from the consequences

thereof:" (Mill. Star 41:243, April 21, 1879) GEORGE Q. CANNON: "... I admit that those raising children by plural wives are notcomplying with man-made laws, but in the sight of God they are notsinning, as there is no sin in it." (Sanpete Stake Conference, Sept. 1899) RUDGER CLAWSON: "Your honor, I have only this to say why judgment should not bepassed upon me; I very much regret that the laws of my country should comein conflict with the laws of God: but whenever they do I shall invariablychoose to obey the latter." (November 3, 1884, sentenced to statepenitentiary) WILFORD WOODRUFF: "God ... commanded Joseph Smith the Prophet and all Latter-day Saintsto obey this law, `or you shall be damned,' saith the Lord. Now, havingobeyed the law for many years, the Congress of the United States and thesupreme judges of the nation, stand [230] forth and say, `You shall bedamned if you do obey it.' Now, Latter-day Saints, what are we going to dounder the circumstances? God says we shall be damned if we do not obey thelaw, Congress says we shall be damned if we do. It places us in preciselythe same position that it did the Hebrews in the fiery furnace and Danielin the den of lions. The enemies of Daniel counciled together and said,`We cannot find any occasion against Daniel, except we find it against himconcerning the law of God.' Our enemies have pursued the same course. Andmade it a law of offense to obey the laws of God. Now who shall we obey,God or man? My voice is that we obey God..." (Mill. Star, April 21, 1879,p.242) HEBER BENNION: "Hundreds of L.D.S. have gone to prison because they would not do it(obey the law of the land). President John Taylor died a martyr in exilerather than do it, and men were dropped from their positions in the Churchbecause they promised to obey the law of the land. Joseph F. Smith wouldnot do it, but went on the underground for years, and had eleven childrenborn after the Manifesto by five mothers." JOHN TAYLOR: "When they enact tyrannical laws, forbidding us the free exercise ofour religion, we cannot submit, God is greater than the United States. And

when the Government conflicts with Heaven, we will be ranged under thebanner of Heaven, and against the government. The U.S. says we cannotmarry more than one wife. God says different .... Polygamy is a divineinstitution. It has been handed down direct from God. The U.S. cannotabolish it. No nation on earth can prevent it, nor all the nations of theearth combined. I defy the United States. I will obey God." (S.L. Tribune,Jan. 6, 1880) Argument: Marriage sealings for time and eternity must be performedin the Temples. BRIGHAM YOUNG: "There are many of the ordinances of the house of God that [231] mustbe performed in a Temple that is erected expressly for that purpose. Thereare other ordinances that we can administer without a Temple ... We alsohave the privilege of sealing women to men, without a Temple ... but whenwe come to other sealing ordinances, ordinances pertaining to the holyPriesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from father Adam untilnow, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for ourforefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a Temple. But we can sealwomen to men, but not men to men, without a Temple." (J.D. 16:186) JOHN TAYLOR: "I was asked if certain ordinances could be performed in differentplaces. I told them, yes, under certain circumstances. `Where,' I wasasked--`Anywhere besides in temples?' Yes. Anywhere besides the EndowmentHouse?' Yes. `Where, in some other house?' In another house or out ofdoors, as the circumstances might be. Why did I say that? ... It is theauthority of the Priesthood, not the place that validates and sanctifiesthe ordinance. I was asked if people could be sealed outside. Yes. I couldhave told them I was sealed outside, and lots of others .... I will saythat man was not made for temples, but temples were made for man ... Thetemples are places that are appropriated for a great many ordinances, andamong these ordinances that of marriage; but, then, if we are interruptedby men who do not know about our principles, that is all right, it willnot impede the work of God, or stop the performance of ordinances. Letthem do their work, and we will try and do ours." (J.D. 25:355-356) Argument: D.&C. 124:49-- "... When I give a commandment to any of thesons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with alltheir might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease nottheir diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them fromperforming that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no moreat the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings."

CHARLES W. PENROSE: "... Quotations sometimes referred to by the weakbacked who need aramrod fastened parallel with their spinal column..." [232](Refers to the above quotation and states:) "It is a little singular that some people will persistently refuse tosee the difference between a certain special work and a principle or law.The consistency of the Lord relieving a people from any such obligation asthe building of a house when prevented by enemies from accomplishing it isself-evident. When it comes to the abrogation of a law, a principle, atruth, the matter is entirely different. The revelation does not applyeven remotely...." (Des. Eve. News, editorial, June 5,1885) Argument: Plural Marriage is fine for the men, but not for the women. Someone should have counselled the Lord about that several billionyears ago. When will the Lord ever reveal a principle that will harm women? Ormake them second-class citizens? Jesus said, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of thedoctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17) Thousands of women know the doctrine to be of God. And rejoice in it. MARION ROSS PRATT: "I have been in polygamy 25 years and have never seen the hour when Ihave regretted that I was in it. I would not change my position foranything earthly, no matter how grand and gorgeous it might be; even wereit for the throne of a queen. LUCY W. KIMBALL: "I poured out my heart's contents before God. I at once became calmand composed; a feeling of happiness took posses-[233]sion of me and atthe same time I received a powerful and irresistable testimony of thetruth of plural marriage, which testimony has abided with me ever since." DR. ELLIS R. SHIPP:

"We are accused of being down-trodden and oppressed. We deny thecharge! For we know there cannot be found a class of women upon the earthwho occupy a more elevated position in the hearts of their husbands, orwhose most delicate and refined feelings are so respected as here in Utah.True we practice plural marriage, not however because we are compelled to,but because we are convinced that it is a divine revelation, and we findin this principle satisfaction, contentment and more happiness than we canobtain in any other relationship." ELIZA R. SNOW: "This, one of the most important events of my life, I have never hadcause to regret. The more I comprehend the pure and ennobling principle ofplural marriage, the more I appreciate it. It is a necessity in thesalvation of the human family--a necessity in redeeming woman from thecurse, and the world from its corruptions." BATHSHEBA W. SMITH: "Joseph Smith counseled the sisters not to trouble themselves inconsequence of it, that all would be right, and the result would be fortheir glory and exaltation." (All from Tullidge, Women of Mormondom) ELLA WHEELER WILCOX: "In Salt Lake City the men and women born of polygamous mothers inthe upper classes of Salt Lake City, are superior in Physique and inmental endowments to the same members selected at random in other cities Ihave seen. A little investigation will prove the truth of my statement. "Before we cast any more stones at their ancestors, let us weed fromthe ranks of our own churches and our own fashionable society all theunwelcome and fatherless children, all the [234] deserted, betrayed girls,and stand them in a row, and practice upon them as targets, in order thatwe may have a surer aim when we stone the polygamists again." (New YorkJournal) JAMES CAMPBELL, Minister, 1869: "Now polygamy is either right, or it is wrong. If it is wrong, it iscontrary to the will of God. If it is contrary to the will of God now, italways has been, ever since the fall of man, for God has not changed,human nature has not changed, and the mutual relation of the sexes has notchanged. If it is contrary to the divine will, God would certainly haveexpressed decided disapprobation of it in his work, and denounced thosewho practiced it. But on the contrary, it was, by the Mosaic law,expressly sanctioned, and under certain circumstances, expressly

commanded." * * * * Argument: We can live it during the Millennium. It is not for now. 1. People have said since the beginning of time, "It's not for now. Let's wait." Shall we wait for the magical Millennium to fulfill a mortal covenant to raise up a choice seed unto God? 2. Can we receive Baptism during the Millennium instead of now? The laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost? Can we have someone living plural marriage for us by proxy? Are blessings retroactive? 3. Zion, prior to the Millennium, must be built up on principles of Celestial law--the United Order and Patriarchal Marriage--according to D.&C. 105:5. The millennium is too late. 4. How do you become exalted if you haven't lived the laws designed to exalt? The righteous will be resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium. We are resurrected to the degree of glory for which we have lived and whose laws we have obeyed. Do we live plural marriage by proxy? [235] 5. "...And when we obtain any blessing, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." 6. D.&C. 132:5--"For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing..." "During the Millennium" was not included in the verse. WILFORD WOODRUFF: "The reason why the Church and Kingdom of God cannot advance withoutthe Patriarchal order of marriage, is that it belongs to this dispensation...." (Life of W. Woodruff--p. 542) If it cannot be lived now, then you have to admit that the faithfulare bound by the wishes of the unfaithful--that in very deed, Satan hassucceeded in binding Jesus Christ. * * * * Argument: Only one man on earth at a time can hold the keys.

All of the Apostles hold all of the keys and are sustained asprophets, seers and revelators. But they go to the worthy senior HighPriest Apostle, who presides, for permission in administering theordinances. In Joseph Smith's day he wanted his brother, Hyrum, to be presidentof the Church (with full authority), while he, the Prophet, was presidentof the Priesthood. That is the case today. Spencer W. Kimball is one whopresides over the Church and has full keys to do so and to perform thefull function of that calling. But if you want to look for a man who holds all the keys, you mustlook for the man who has received all of the ordinances and is living allof the restored laws. Again, the one man at a time who holds all of thekeys must be a man who has received all of the ordinances. For example, ifa man had not received the Priesthood, he could not confer it on tosomeone else; therefore, he wouldn't hold the key to that ordinance. It isalso the same [236] with marriage, and endowment, plural marriage andreceiving inheritance by consecration, etc. There is no quarrel with putting Spencer W. Kimball at the head ofthe Church. But does this put the Church at the head of the Priesthood? Orahead of God's laws when they not only can vote some of them away, butdid? If the Lord had two sons and He told them both they must keep all ofHis law if they wanted all of the blessings, and subsequently one of thesons said I will keep all of your laws, the other saying I will keep partof the law and I will be in control because I have many on my side andwill cut my brother off if he does all you say, which do you suppose wasmore favored of the Father? And would He not make provision for the fewerbut more faithful? The Church and the Kingdom of God are not the same. The Church canvote on the law and if they choose to support the man as God's mouthpiece.But the Kingdom of God has no vote to what constitutes God's law. They canonly administer the law--and they must accept the man at the headappointed by God as well as all of God's law, because this must beadministered as God chooses and not as man votes. This organization isunder the man chosen by God with or without the people's vote. As a mental exercise read Section 101:43--etc., the parable of thevineyard. 1) vineyard is the Church or the Lord's people. 2) hedge is theordinances of the gospel with the gate symbolizing baptism. 3) twelveolive trees are the twelve Apostles, and 4) tower is the fulness of thegospel. The vineyard is the choice ground (the Church) that the Lord causedto be plowed. The servants of God set up a hedge round about(ordinances--gate is baptism). Then they were commanded to build a tower(plural marriage) or the higher ordinances, and to put a watchman upon it,signifying having the Spirit of the Lord to discern the enemies of God

that they could discern the enemy from afar off. They did begin to buildthe tower, or to live the plural marriage law and the higher ordinances,but they became slothful when pressures came upon them, and they claimedthat they did not need this tower (or higher ordinances). So they did awaywith it. And the enemy came upon them. And the servants fled. A classicparable of events around 1890? They did not stand their ground. And the Lord came among them andsaid, what great evil is this? Ought ye not to have done even as Icommanded? He then spoke to one of His servants [237] (Joseph Smith--seeSec. 103:21 and 90:16), that he was to gather together the residue of theservants and break down the towers of the enemy and reclaim the vineyard.They were to start anew and build the vineyard, and then again build atower, that they might see the enemy from afar off and be ready for him.This took place partially when Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ appeared toJohn Taylor in 1886, and commanded them to set men apart to keep thefulness of the gospel alive, and empowered them with the keys to set othermen apart, to see that this ordinance was never taken from the earth, eventhough the Church did vote it away. These men comprehend the organization to preside over the Kingdom ofGod organization in its unorganized condition until it can be fullyorganized at the time when Zion will be redeemed in power, spoken of inSec. 101. The continuation and consummation of this gathering will be whenZion is redeemed in power--see Sec. 105:4-6--Zion cannot be built upexcept upon Celestial laws. These men need not have any permissionwhatsoever, nor sanction, nor vote of the people or of any other prophetsubsequent to John Taylor, to carry on what John Taylor, Joseph Smith andJesus Christ himself commissioned them to do. The president of the Church does have the keys to do what he has beencalled to do. The Church is a missionary Church with the primaryobligation to offer the gospel to the world, to bring people in andbaptize them and give them the Holy Ghost as a gift. President Kimball ispresently the man who holds the keys as president of the Church; that is,the one of the Apostles who presides, as they all have the keys. The Church has refused, or voted away giving certain ordinances tothe people. Therefore, the Church is no longer the custodian of theseordinances and the necessary keys. Question: What would happen if a mancame who was definitely worthy of an ordinance and requested it be givento him, and the man in charge of the keys to that ordinance refused togive it to him? God said he would be removed out of his place and anotherman put in who would give the children of men what they were worthy of.This did in reality happen in 1890, meaning the Church, not WilfordWoodruff, because the Church voted these things out. Wilford Woodruff didnot lose the keys, but the Lord through him made provision for carryingout the ordinances desired by the worthy few at a later time, so thatworthy seekers could progress whether other Church members chose to ornot.

[238] So, one man at a time does preside over all the keys, but it doesn'thave to be the President of the Church, as Joseph Smith made plain in hisday, (suggested he be the President of the Priesthood while Hyrum bePresident of the Church.) BRIGHAM YOUNG: "Does a man's being a Prophet in this Church prove that he shall bethe President of it? I answer, no! A man may be a Prophet, Seer, andRevelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being the President ofthe Church. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of theChurch? The keys of the Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build upthe Kingdom of God on the earth, and were not to be taken from him in timeor in eternity; but when he was called to preside over the Church, it wasby the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the Priesthood,independent of their voice." (J.D. 1:133) J. REUBEN CLARK: "The Priesthood is essential to the Church, but the Church is notessential to the Priesthood." (Imp. Era, p. 134, March, 1936) GEORGE Q. CANNON: "We are asked, is the Church of God, and the Kingdom of God the sameorganization? And we are informed that some of the brethren hold that theyare separate. This is the correct view to take. The Kingdom of God is aseparate organization from the Church of God. There may be men acting asofficers in the Kingdom of God who will not be members of the Church ofJ.C. of L.D.S." (Hist. of the Ch. 7:382) B.H. ROBERTS: "Joseph Smith when speaking strictly recognized a distinction betweenthe Church of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God, and not only adistinction but a separation of one from the other. (Rise & Fall ofNauvoo, p. 180) [239]BRIGHAM YOUNG: "The Prophet gave a full and complete organization of this kingdomthe spring before he was killed.... The Kingdom of God will protect everyperson, every sect and all people upon the face of the whole earth in

their legal rights; I shall not tell you the names of the members of thisKingdom, neither shall I read to you its Constitution, but theConstitution was given by revelation. The day will come when it will beorganized in strength and power." (J.D. 17:156) Argument: The Keys for sealing plural marriages have been temporarilysuspended. 1. How do you suspend keys and have a "Fulness of Times"? 2. What do we do with D.&C. 112:30? "For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this Priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times." 3. If the Keys have been suspended since 1890, how can keys be held, let alone passed on, by someone who hasn't received the ordinance? 4. It would take another Dispensation to restore them, and this couldn't be the Dispensation of the fulness of Times. 5. Will it not be a tried and proven people who have lived the principle who will be called to build Jackson County? Problems and responsibilities at that time will be great enough without everyone having to take time out to figure out how to live plural marriage. * * * * Argument: My grandfather was a righteous and studious man, holdinghigh positions in the Church. Surely he won't receive a lesser rewardbecause he didn't know about plural marriage. He was nearly perfect. [240]JOSEPH F. SMITH: "... But if he remain faithful with only the one wife, observing theconditions of so much of the law as pertains to the eternity of themarriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the benefits, blessingsand power appertaining to the second or more faithful and fullerobservance of the law, he never will receive, for he cannot. "... But what will become of him that cannot abide it? He that iswithout understanding is not under the law, and it remains for God to dealwith him according to His own wisdom. if a man acknowledges that he isincapable, or disqualified by a lack of knowledge, wisdom or understandingto obey this law, then it remains with God to deal with him according to

those principles of justice which are written, or are yet to be revealed.It is not likely however, that he will take his seat with Abraham, Isaacand Jacob, or share in their promised blessings." (J.D. 20:24-31) Would this also apply to those who hold the Manifesto of 1890 up as ashield and claim immunity? The Manifesto pleased the Utah Commission and97% of the Saints; provision for continuing patriarchal marriage pleasedGod. * * * * Argument: You can't live anything the Church doesn't accept by thevote of the people. 1. Someone should have told Joseph Smith that. And many others. They lived it for many years before the Church at large knew anything about it. 2. It was from the beginning and now is, a law of the Priesthood and never was voted into acceptance by the Church. The Church, rather, was invited to participate. The Church in 1890 voted it out, but the 1886 Revelation had already made it a matter of man's free agency and the principle of plural marriage continued as a matter of Priesthood Law, independent of the Church. The Manifesto was a matter of necessity to appease the government and never was a real issue. It doesn't take a revelation to know the Manifesto was not only not a revelation, a [241] revelation wasn't even needed. The 97% negative votes was all the revelation necessary! The Priesthood presides over the Church, not the other way around. In the revelation on patriarchal marriage: D.&C. 132:18--"I am the Lord thy God and will give unto thee the lawof my Holy Priesthood." Verse 58--"Now as touching the law of the Priesthood..." Verse 61--"And again, as pertaining to the law of the Priesthood..." The Church voted plural marriage out, the president of the Churchsigned the Manifesto, making it binding upon the Church. Not upon thePriesthood. * * * *

Argument: The Church leaders would never be found making misleadingstatements. 1. This has always been necessary, because of the wickedness and unbelief of the people. Dr. Hugh Nibley in a series of articles published in the Improvement Era on Secrecy in the New Testament Church states: Quoting from Tertullian: "We believe that the Apostles were ignorant of nothing, but that they did not transmit everything they knew and were not willing to reveal everything to everybody. They did not preach everywhere nor promiscuously ... but taught one thing about the nature of Christ in public and another in secret ...." (Imp. Era, May 1965, p. 407; 444) 2. John Taylor: Apostle Taylor first took the Gospel to France and after quoting a statement of the Church on [242] monogamy, (Times and Seasons 3:940) stated in part: "We are accused here of polygamy and actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief .... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage... `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.'" (July 1850, Orson Pratt's Works, p. 8 of Public Disc.) 3. Joseph Smith also published denials more than once when situations warranted: "As we have lately been credibly informed, that an elder of the church, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines, 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, Times & Seasons 5:423, Feb. 1, 1844) (Joseph Smith was living the principle at that time.) 4. Thus prompting President Joseph F. Smith to state: "Let all the Latter-day Saints know that Joseph Smith ... and his brother Hyrum did practice the doctrine (of plural marriage) 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 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." (Hist. Rec. 6:219-220, Des. News, May 20, 1886) [243] "In the sense for which they were designed" covers the reason formany misleading statements made by leaders of the Church through all ages. 5. Paul in II Thess. 2:10, 11 reminded the Saints that because men "Received not the love of the truth ... God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie." 6. There are numerous instances of grossly misleading statements made by President Joseph F. Smith and others, testifying before the United States during the Reed Smoot Investigations in 1904: Chairman: "Is the sealing for eternity ever performed between two living mortals?" Smith: "I have heard of one or two instances of that kind." Chairman: "According to the doctrines of your church, did that carry with it the right of earthly cohabitation?" Smith: "It was not so understood. It does not carry that right." Chairman: "Was it practiced, do you know?" Smith: "Not that I know of." Chairman: "This manifesto suspending polygamy, I understand, was a revelation and a direction to the church?" Smith: "I understand it, Mr. Chairman, just as it is stated there by Pres. Woodruff himself. Pres. Woodruff makes his own statement. I cannot add to nor take anything from that statement." Chairman: "Do you understand that it was a revelation the same as other revelations?" Smith: I understand personally that Pres. Woodruff was [244] inspired to put forth that manifesto." Chairman: "And in that sense it was a revelation?"

Smith: "Well, it was a revelation to me." And so on ... * * * * Argument: The "one mighty and strong" spoken of in the 85th Sectionof the D.&C. is not--Joseph Smith but Edward Partridge. President Joseph F. Smith is oft quoted as substantiation for thisargument. Pertinent portions of his speech as follows: "But that (Bishop Edward Partridge) was the man so threatened in thatrevelation (verse 8), there can be no question; ... Also Orson Pratt ...publicly declared from the pulpit ... that the man referred to in thatpassage of revelation in question was Bishop Edward Partridge. "Now as to the `one mighty and strong,' who shall be sent of God ...Who is he? What position will he hold in the Church? In what manner willhe come to his calling? We draw attention first of all to the fact thatthis whole letter to William W. Phelps, as well as the part afterwardsaccepted as the word of the Lord, related to the affairs of the Church inZion, Independence, Jackson Co., Missouri. And as through his repentanceand sacrifices and suffering, Bishop Partridge undoubtedly obtained amitigation of the threatened judgment affixed, ... so the occasion forsending another to fill his station "one mighty and strong to set in orderthe house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of theSaints"--may also be considered as having passed away and the wholeincident of the prophecy closed." However, it would seem that President Smith himself didn't considerthe prophecy closed. He goes on to give us another choice: "If, however, there are those who will still insist that the prophecyconcerning the coming of `one mighty and strong' is still [245] to beregarded as relating to the future, let the Latter-day Saints know that hewill be a future Bishop of the Church who will be with the Saints in Zion,Jackson, County, Missouri, when the Lord shall establish them in thatland; and he will be so blessed with the spirit and power of his callingthat he will be able to set in order the house of God, pertaining to thedepartment of the work under his jurisdiction; ... This future Bishop willalso be called and appointed of God as Aaron of old, and as EdwardPartridge was." (Imp. Era, Oct. 1907) Why bring this latter part up if Bishop Partridge ended the matter? 1. Is it unreasonable to think that the "future Bishop" spoken of by

Pres. Smith would be acting under the direction of Joseph Smith? 2. Verse 8 may refer to Bishop Partridge, but verse 7--"holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God," seems a rather exalted description for Bishop Partridge. 3. D.&C. 90:16 is referring to Joseph Smith: "And this shall be your business and mission in all your lives, to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom." 4. A reminder again of Brigham Young's statement: "Brethren, this Church will be led onto the very brink of hell by the leaders of this people. Then God will raise up the one mighty and strong spoken of in the 85th Section of the D.&C., to save and redeem this Church." This was stated in 1867, about 35 years after Bishop Edward Partridge. And Brigham Young's statement matches Isaiah 3:12 and 28:2. [246] 5. Have the Saints received their inheritances by consecration, so that the issue can be closed? 6. Where is the Book of Remembrance, the Book of the Law? 7. Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt: "Concerning the death of Joseph Smith, he prayed, O Lord! in the name of Jesus Christ I pray thee, show me what these things mean, and what I shall say to thy people? On a sudden the Spirit of God came upon me and filled my heart with joy and gladness indescribably, and while the spirit of revelation glowed in my bosom with as visible a warmth and gladness as if it were fire, the Spirit said unto me: Lift up your head and rejoice, for behold! it is well with my servants Joseph and Hyrum. My servant Joseph still holds the keys of my kingdom in this dispensation, and he shall stand in due time on the earth, in the flesh, and fulfill that to which he is appointed...." (p. 333) (Joseph Smith will lead the Saints back to Jackson County)

President Joseph F. Smith said, " It may be considered strange that the Lord should give first of all the Patriarch; ... we well know that this order has not been strictly followed from the day we came into these valleys until now--and we will not make any change at present." (Special Conf. Rept., Univ. of Utah Library) Joseph Smith: (Before the Nauvoo Legion) You will gather many people into the fastness of the Rocky Mountains, as a center for the gathering of the people, and you will be faithful because you have been true; and many of those that come under your ministry, because of their much learning, will seek for high positions. And they will be set up and raise themselves in eminence above you, but you will walk in low places unnoticed and you will know all that transpires in their midst, and those that are [247] my friends will be your friends. And this I will promise to you, that when I come again to lead you forth, for I will go to prepare a place for you, so that where I am you shall be with me." (Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by N.B. Lundwall) * * * * Argument: If you are Excommunicated, you have no more Priesthood, allblessings are revoked, etc. 1. Excommunication is for departing from the Priesthood and Gospel truths. Not for living more of God's laws, or believing too much of the restored Gospel. 2. Excommunication from the Church for living God's Law because of God's command, is not binding in heaven. Or why did the very prophets at the head of the Church continually risk it? 3. Even Jesus Christ Himself was cast out of His Church, by the members of His Church. Who lost the Priesthood? 4. Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden, knowingly breaking a lesser law to live a higher law. Those entering into plural marriage are breaking a "rule of the Church" as Pres. Joseph F. Smith admitted, to live a higher law. 5. Joseph F. Smith: "The Lord can take away the power and efficacy of their ordination, and will do so if they transgress. No endowments or blessings in the House of the Lord, no Patriarchal Blessings, no ordination to the Priesthood can be taken away once given. To prevent a person from exercising the rights and privileges of activity in the offices of the Priesthood, may be and has been done, and the person

so silenced still remains a member of the Church, but this does not take away from him any Priesthood that he held." (Imp. Era 11:466) Adam was a scapegoat. (For the world) Christ was a scapegoat. (For all of us) Joseph Smith was a scapegoat. (For all of us in the latter days)[248] Those now living plural marriage are scapegoats. (For the Church) But from the beginning there has always been a way provided for a "reconciliation"--the putting of things back in order. Argument: In the last days, even the very elect will be deceived. 1. That is not according to scripture. The statement is, "... if it were possible, the very elect will be deceived." (Matt. 24:24) 2. Jedediah M. Grant, 1854: "... Let Lucifer mix in truths with error, and work great signs and wonders to deceive the very elect, but it is not possible. Why? Because they have learned the Priesthood, and they possess the power thereof that cannot be shaken .... For it is not possible for them to deceive the elect of God." (J.D. 2:15) Argument: We have to follow the Prophets. 1. Exactly. * * * * The Grandaddy Argument: M a n i f e s t o Official Declaration: To whom it may concern: (An unusual opening for a revelation) Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from SaltLake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the UtahCommission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior,allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last Juneor during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of theChurch have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practiceof polygamy--[249] I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare thatthese charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage,nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny thateither forty or any other number of plural marriages have during thatperiod been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in theTerritory. One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that themarriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in theSpring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed theceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. Inconsequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by myinstructions, taken down without delay. Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding pluralmarriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court oflast resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and touse my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside tohave them do likewise. There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of myassociates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construedto inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church hasused language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has beenpromptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to theLatter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden bythe law of the land. /s/ Wilford Woodruff, September 24, 1890 Upon careful reading of the Manifesto, one is led to appreciate thewords of Joseph Smith: 25 March 1839: Joseph Smith, Jun., from Liberty Jail, told the Churchthat unless suggestions are made or names mentioned by commandment or"thus saith the Lord," he did not consider it very binding as to thegeneral affairs of the Church. (D.H.C. 3:295) Excerpt from Thomas J. Rosser letter, missionary to England and Walesduring 1907 and 1908: "... I then left for Treorachry, Wales, my birthplace, and laboredthere until May 23, 1908. Then I went back to Bristol, my [250]headquarters, to a conference, which was held Sunday, May 24, 1908. OnMonday morning, the 25th, our Conference Priesthood Meeting was held,which lasted four hours and a half. After the preliminary exercises,President Charles W. Penrose asked if any of the brethren had anyquestions on their minds, and if so, to present them now before hedelivered his message to us. "Up went my hand. "`All right,' he said.

"`President Penrose,' I said, `I have heard much discussion on theprinciple of Plural Marriage, some saying that it is withdrawn from theearth and that the Manifesto was a revelation from God. Dear President,what about this case?' Then I related to him the testimony of the Sister,... and asked him, `Why should she receive this testimony if God haswithdrawn that principle from the earth, and the Manifesto is a truerevelation from God?' "President Penrose then rose to his feet, scratched the side of hishead with his right hand for a moment or so, then stretched out his righthand toward us and said, `Brethren, I will answer that question, if youwill keep it under your hats. I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifestowith the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. It's no revelationfrom God, for I wrote it. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the Devil athis own game. Brethren, how can God withdraw an everlasting Principle fromthe earth? He has not, and can not, and I testify to you as a servant ofGod that this is true.' "The reason this statement is given is because I have heard so muchdiscussion as to whether or not the Manifesto of 1890 is a revelation fromGod, and so I wish to relate here--with the understanding given to us atthe Bristol Conference by Charles W. Penrose on May 25, 1908." If the Manifesto was a revelation ... What do we do with D.&C. 105:5--"And Zion cannot be built up unlessit is by the principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom; otherwise Icannot receive her unto myself." 1. Therefore, we cannot redeem Zion prior to the Millennium unless celestial laws are being lived. 2. Exaltation and the power of eternal lives are not possible [251] because the Law has not been lived. Like Israel, we must be living a lesser law that cannot exalt. 3. Without plural marriage, the Saints "must be rejected as a body and the Priesthood authority withdrawn." George Q. Cannon. 4. Without Patriarchal marriage, the Priesthood must be "out of our possession." Brigham Young, J.D. 10:273. 5. The Gospel is not here in its Fulness. George Teasdale, J.D. 25:21. 6. Jesus will never come: Orson Pratt: "Jesus will have to stay a long time in the heavens providing that monogamist principles are the only principles that

will be introduced. In fact He never can come, for the Scriptures say the, heavens must retain Him until all things are restored." (Acts 3, J.D. 17:221) 7. How can "seven women take hold of one man" as prophesied in Isaiah 4:1? JOSEPH W. MUSSER: The Manifesto released only those of the Saints who did not have thefaith, courage or fortitude to accept and abide in the Law. JOSEPH W. MUSSER: "It was expected the Manifesto would pave the way to Statehood, whenthe Saints being in the majority, could make their own laws, relative totheir religious beliefs. But the Church accepted its being voted out.Plural marriage, being a law of the Priesthood (D.&C. 132:28, 58, 61), andthe Priesthood presiding over the Church, the Manifesto signed by thePresident of the Church and ratified by the members thereof, did and couldonly [252] affect the Church, the Priesthood as a separate and distinctorganization, carrying on as the Lord intended it should. Note: The Manifesto is the only document signed by only one member of the First Presidency. Why? Note: What are the three requirements for a document or revelation to become part of the Standard Works?: 1. Accepted by the First Presidency unanimously. 2. Accepted by the Quorum of Twelve unanimously. 3. Accepted by the Church in Conference." The Manifesto does not meet one of the requirements. How binding was the Manifesto on these brethren? JOSEPH. F. SMITH: (Under question by Congress in 1904) The Chairman: "Do you obey the law in having five wives at the same time, and having them bear you eleven children since the Manifesto of 1890?" J.F. Smith: "Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I have obeyed the law of the land.... I do not claim so, I have said

that I prefer to stand my chances against the law.... And I wish to assert that the Church has obeyed the law of the land, and that it has kept its pledges with this Government; but I have not, as an individual, I have taken that chance myself." (Smoot Investigation 1:99, etc.) B.H. ROBERTS: (Under question by Congress in 1904) Chairman: "In living in polygamous cohabitation you are living in defiance of the Manifesto of 1890, are you not?" B.H. Roberts: "Yes sir. In defiance of the action of the Church on that subject." (Smoot Investigation, Vol. 1:718-719) [253]HEBER J. GRANT: "Plural marriage has been stopped, but not by the Lord." (February22, 1942, Ensign Ward) ABRAHAM H. CANNON Journal: March 29,1892 "We continued our meeting. Pres. Snow said he felt that when anyquestion came up among us on which the majority were clear, should therebe one who did not see as the others, that one should be willing to yieldhis views to those of the majority, and leave the responsibility of thecourse pursued with them." JOSEPH F. SMITH: "A brother told Pres. Joseph F. Smith that he knew he was required toabide the Celestial Law of marriage `and as far as I know, you are theonly man on earth that has the authority to stop me from living that law.' "J.F Smith then said, `My boy, as President of this Church, I do nothave the right to stop you from living that law. That is a covenant thatGod has made with Abraham and his seed forever. This is your birthright...Of course you are to understand that if you go ahead and enter pluralmarriage and someone betrays you, you will be excommunicated and your nametaken off the records of the Church.' "The brother said, `Yes, I understand, but I know that my name willnot be taken from the book of life and in the eternal world I shall benumbered among the living.' "President Smith then said, `God bless you,' and laid his hands uponhis head and gave him his blessing and told him to go to those who wereappointed to take care of these things." (Star of Truth 4:45)

DISCUSSION between Charles F. Zitting and Anthony W. Ivins: (November 2, 1928) Ivins: "Don't you know that a manifesto was passed in 1890 to do away with plural marriage?" Zitting: "I answered that I was well acquainted with the manifesto and asked him if it was a revelation from God." [254] Ivins: "No, I wish it was and then we would have something on which to handle such men as you when you come up here. Do you know about the letter President (Joseph F.) Smith sent out to the Presidents of Stakes in 1910? When those instructions came out we put a stop to it all over the world. Had you gone into plural marriage before those instructions came out, I would have nothing to say, but now it is quite a different matter." Zitting: "Bro. Ivins, do you mean to tell me that had I gone into plural marriage before this letter came out, it would have been all right?" Ivins: "Yes, as far as I am concerned personally." Zitting: "Very well, Bro. Ivins, if you have no more respect than that for Pres. Woodruff s manifesto, then what prevents me from showing the same respect to this letter of instruction from Pres. Joseph F. Smith? Neither one of them are revelations ...." Finally -- What argument matches the following? "Now I want to prophesy that all men and women who oppose therevelation which God has given in relation to Polygamy will findthemselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them the verymoment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally godown to hell and be damned, if they do not repent ... will be damned ifthey do not receive it. For the Lord has said so." (Orson Pratt, J.D.17:223-5) Trouble in the Church I TIMOTHY 4:1-3: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times someshall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and

doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocracy; having their consciencesseared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry...." [255]ISAIAH 3:12: Speaking of the latter days, "As for my people, children are theiroppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, t hey which lead thee,cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." ISAIAH 28:1, 7, 15: "Woe to the crown of pride to the drunkards of Ephraim, whoseglorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fatvalleys of them that are overcome with wine!" "But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink areout of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drinkthey are swallowed up of wine ...... "Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and withhell are we in agreement... (1890??) for we have made lies our refuge, andunder falsehood have we hid ourselves." The Manifesto is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. D.&C. 112:24-26: "Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth,a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, ofmourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon allthe face of the earth, saith the Lord. And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it goforth, saith the Lord; First among those among you, saith the Lord, whohave professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemedagainst me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord." BRIGHAM YOUNG: "Brethren, this Church will be led onto the very brink of hell by theleaders of this people. Then God will raise up the one [256] mighty andstrong, spoken of in the 85th Section of the D.&C., to save and redeemthis Church." (Provo Bowery Conference 1867)

ISAIAH speaks of the one "mighty and strong": Isaiah 28:2 - "Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, whichas a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty watersoverflowing shall cast down to the earth with the hand." Verse 17: "Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness tothe plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and thewaters shall overflow the hiding place." Verse 18: "And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, andyour agreement with hell shall not stand..." (Sept. 1886) D.&C. SECTION 85:7 "And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mightyand strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with lightfor a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while hisbowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God...." Why must one mighty and strong come to set the Lord's house in order - if it is not out of order? DANIEL 7:15-28: Verse 21: "I beheld and the same horn made war with the Saints, andprevailed against them;" (The horn from the ten horns represents theUnited States Government, which did prevail.) Verse 25: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, andshall wear out the Saints of the most High, and think to change times andlaws ...." ISAIAH 24:5: "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; [257]because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken theeverlasting covenant." Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said of that scripture: "Are we not toomuch inclined to blame the generations that are past for the breaking ofthe new and everlasting covenant, and to think it is because of the greatapostasy which followed ... the Apostles in primitive times...? Perhaps weshould wake up to the realization that it is because of the breaking ofcovenants, especially the new and everlasting covenant which is the

fulness of the Gospel that the world is to be consumed by fire and few menleft. Since this punishment is to come at the time of the cleansing of theearth when Christ comes again, should not the Latter-day Saints take heedunto themselves? We have been given the new and everlasting covenant, andmany among us have broken it." (Des. News, Oct. 17, 1936) (Latter-day Saints have broken the "New and Everlasting covenantwhich is the fulness of the Gospel" because Latter-day Saints are the onlyones on earth who have it.) JOSEPH SMITH: "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of theworld, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be alteredor changed. All must be saved on the same principles. ... where there isno change of priesthood, there is no change of ordinances." (D.H.C.5:423-4) Then how is Priesthood affected if an Ordinance, an exalting Ordinance, is dropped - voted out? THIRD NEPHI 16:6, 7, 10: "And blessed are the Gentiles (in this reference, US), because oftheir belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them ofme and of the Father." "Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and becauseof the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall thetruth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall bemade known unto them." [258] "... At that day when the Gentiles (us) shall sin against my gospel,and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations...(etc); and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulnessof my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of mygospel from among them." And what is the "Fulness" of my gospel?" BRIGHAM YOUNG says: "Hear it ye Elders of Israel and mark it down in your log-book, thefulness of the gospel is the united order and plural marriage..." (Sermonat dedication of St. George Temple)

The prophets denied the principle would be overthrown. HEBER C. KIMBALL: "Plurality is a law which God established for His elect before theworld was formed, for a continuation of seeds forever. It would be as easyfor the United States to build a tower to remove the sun, as to removepolygamy, or the Church and Kingdom of God." (Mill. Star 28:190) HEBER C. KIMBALL: "You might as well deny Mormonism and turn away from it as to opposethe plurality of wives. Let the presidency of this Church, and the 12apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that theywill oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What areyou opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for thesalvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet inthis our dispensation; and that which He revealed He designs to havecarried out by His people." (J.D. 5:203) LORENZO SNOW: (1886 in jail) "God will not change his law of celestial marriage. But the man, thepeople, the nation, that oppose and fight against this [259] doctrine andthe Church of God will be overthrown." (Hist. of Utah, Whitney 3:471) JOHN TAYLOR: "Polygamy is a divine institution. It has been handed down directfrom God. The United States cannot abolish it. No nation on earth canprevent it, nor all the nations of the earth combined. I defy the UnitedStates. I will obey God." (S.L. Trib., 1/6/1880) MILL. STAR, Vol. 5:27, October 1865: "The doctrine of polygamy with the Mormons is not one of that kindthat in the religious world is classed with `non-essentials.' It is not anitem of doctrine that can be yielded, and faith in the system remain...Mormonism is that kind of religion the entire divinity of which isinvalidated, and its truth utterly rejected, the moment that any one ofits leading principles is acknowledged to be false .... Polygamy wasrevealed by God, or the entire fabric of their faith is false. To ask themto give up such an item of belief, is to ask them to relinquish the whole,to acknowledge their Priesthood a lie, their ordinances a deception, andall that they have toiled for, lived for, bled for, prayed for, or hopedfor, a miserable failure and a waste of life."

Then who can really believe polygamy was so easily "suspended"? ABRAHAM H. CANNON: "As God lives, the principle will not be driven from the earth."(S.L. Stake Conf., May 8, 1887) GEORGE Q. CANNON: "Those who make the attack perhaps hope to drive the people of God torenounce the doctrine and promise not to obey the revelation. Unless theSaints apostatize, such an action on [260] their part is impossible. Bydoing so, they would deliberately shut the door of the celestial glory intheir own faces .... To comply with the request of our enemies would be togive up all hope of ever entering into the glory of God, the Father, andJesus Christ, the Son .... So intimately interwoven is this preciousdoctrine with the exaltation of men and women in the great hereafter thatit cannot be given up without giving up at the same time all hope ofimmortal glory." (Juvenile Instructor, May 1, 1885, editorial) Section 101 of the D.&C. is a parable about a nobleman, servants,watchtower. Joseph Smith is the servant spoken of in verse 55, as shown in103:21 and 105:16 and 90:16. Joseph Smith partially set things in order when he came to President JohnTaylor, resulting in the 1886 Revelation, which was intended to keep theeternal principle of plural marriage alive and perpetuated, as theprophets had said. An indication of the weakness of the Saints: BRIGHAM YOUNG: "Whereupon, the Prophet goes upon the stand, and aft preaching abouteverything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the ideaof the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the Law of Sealing, and itproduced such a tremendous excitement that as soon as he had got hisdinner half eaten, he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all thathe had preached, and left the people to guess at the matter." (J.D. 2:217,Mar. 18, 1855) ** "In 1891, shortly after signing the Manifesto, the FirstPresidency and Apostles signed a Petition to the President of the U.S. forAmnesty, "To be at peace with the government and in harmony with theirfellow citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence

of the Government and the people, our people have voluntarily put asidesomething which all their lives have believed to be a sacred principle."(Contributor 13:197) [A Covenant with death and an agreement with Hell.] [261] "Brigham Young warned earlier: `There is nothing that would so soonweaken my hope and discourage me as to see this people in full fellowshipwith the world, and receive no more persecution from them because they areone with them. In such an event, we might bid farewell to the HolyPriesthood with all its blessings, privileges and aids to exaltations,principalities and powers in the eternities of the Gods.'" (J.D. 10:32) BRIGHAM YOUNG: "When we see the time that we can willingly strike hands and havefull fellowship with those who despise the Kingdom of God, know ye thenthat the Priesthood of the Son of God is out of your possession." (J.D.10:273) (No wonder, then, that Pres. Joseph F. Smith testified in the Smootcase Vol 1:335-6, that he was living in open violation of the rules of theChurch; as did Francis M. Lyman, B.H. Roberts and others of the presidingbrethren.) Parley P. Pratt said if he were asked to give up this principle he wouldnot "Give a fig for Mormonism." If one principle can be given up, so canany part of it. JOHN TAYLOR: "If God has introduced something for our glory or exaltation, we arenot going to have that kicked over by any improper influence either insideor outside of the Church of the Living God." (J.D. 25:310) DESERET NEWS EDITORIAL: (Geo. Q. Cannon) "Were the Church to do that as an entirety, God would reject theSaints as a body, the authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn ...the Lord would raise up another people. ..." (April 23, 1885) [262]GEORGE Q. CANNON: "The day will come when men's Priesthood and authority will be calledto question, and you will find out that there will be hundreds who have no

Priesthood, but who believe they hold it, they holding only an office inthe Church." (Meeting at Draper shortly before his death. Truth 3:153) JOHN TAYLOR: "On Sept 27, 1886, in an eight hour meeting, Pres. Taylor said: `Iwould be surprised if ten percent of those who claim to hold theMelchizedek Priesthood will remain true and faithful to the Gospel at thetime of the seventh president and that there would be thousands that thinkthey hold the Priesthood at that time, but would not have it properlyconferred upon them.'" DANIEL H. WELLS: "Many will doubtless make shipwreck of their faith and will be ledaway by the allurements of sin into and by forbidden paths; yet theKingdom will not be taken from this people and be given to another. But apeople will come forth from among us, who will be zealous of good works,willing to do the bidding of the Lord, who will be taught in His ways andwho will walk in His paths." (Des. News, Nov. 6, 1876) DANIEL H. WELLS: "And if we as a people do not hold ourselves on the altar ready to beused, He will pass on and get somebody else; because He will get a peoplethat will do it. I do not mean to say that He will pass on and leave thispeople; no, there will come up from the midst of this people that peoplewhich has been talked about so much." (Des. News, Dec. 9, 1882) ORSON F. WHITNEY: "Many of this people are perhaps preparing themselves, by followingafter the world in its mad race ... but I know that there [263] is apeople, in the heart's core of this people, that will arise in theirmajesty in a day that is, near at hand and push spiritual things to thefront, a people who will stand up for God, fearing not man nor what mancan do..." (Des. Weekly, Aug. 11, 1889) HEBER C. KIMBALL: "But the time will come when the Lord will choose a people out ofthis people upon whom He will bestow His choicest blessings." (Des. News,11/9/1865) HEBER C. KIMBALL:

"Many of this people have broken their covenants ... by finding faultwith the plurality of wives and trying to sink it out of existence. Butyou cannot do that, for God will cut you off and raise up another peoplethat will carry out his purposes ... no tongue can express the sufferingand affliction this people will pass through if they do not repent." (J.D.4:108) MILLENNIAL STAR 42:584 - 1880: "Before the great day of the Lord shall come, and the day ofrighteousness and peace dawn upon this fair creation, two potent cleansingprocesses shall be in active operation. The first of these is thepreparation of a choice people, purified by an application of their livesas individuals and a community, of the principles of the Gospel of peace.Such a body will evolve from those called Latter-day Saints ... Out ofthis community ... will emanate the nucleous or foundation from which willspring the righteous Millennial population of our globe." (These Millennial people will have had to be living all the restoredlaws - the fulness.) Who are they? President George Q. Cannon told Joseph W. Musser that President JohnTaylor had taken steps in his day to see that the principle of pluralmarriage was perpetuated, doubtless referring to the eight hour meeting of1886. [264] * * * * Conferring Priesthood JOSEPH F. SMITH: "The revelation in Section 107 of the D.&C., verses 1, 5, 6, 7, 21,clearly points out that the Priesthood is a general authority orqualification, with certain offices or authorities appended thereto.Consequently the conferring of the Priesthood should precede and accompanyordination to office, unless it be possessed by previous bestowal andordination. Surely a man cannot possess an appendage to the Priesthoodwithout possessing the Priesthood itself, which he cannot obtain unless itbe authoritatively conferred upon him." (Imp. Era 4:394, 1901) The change made official in the Church was established after this manner: HEBER J. GRANT: (7th President)

"Ordaining to the Melchizedek Priesthood: Calling the candidate byname; -- by (or in) the authority of the holy priesthood and by the layingon of hands, I (or we) ordain you an Elder (or whatever the office may be)in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and confer upon youall the rights, powers, keys, and authority pertaining to this office andcalling in the holy Melchizedek Priesthood, in the name of the Lord, JesusChrist, Amen." (April 26, 1921, Missionary's Handbook, p. 139, 1944) CHARLES W. PENROSE: "We have made a mistake in our ordinations; we have been conferringthe Priesthood and it ought not to be done." (Quarterly Conference, Provo,The Kingdom of God, D.R. Peay, p. 26) In 1957, President McKay changed the wording in conferring Priesthood backto the original manner. [265] President Wilford Woodruff once said, "Joseph Smith continuedvisiting myself and others up to a certain time, and then it stopped."(Stake Conference, Ogden, October 19, 1896, Des. Weekly News, Vol. 53, No.21) A Stake President, some years after the Manifesto, asked John HenrySmith, a member of the First Presidency of the Church, "Brother Smith, whydon't you brethren put this question of plural marriage up to the Lord andhave it settled once and for all?" President Smith answered, "We have putit up to the Lord, but He will not answer us upon the question." (Had the Lord not made it clear enough?) Another Stake President, claiming membership in the Heber J. Grantprayer circle, meeting in the Temple, stated that upon one occasionPresident Grant came to his circle meeting with tears in his eyes, saying,"Brethren, I have fasted and prayed most earnestly to the Lord for certaininformation, but He will not answer me;" and on several occasionsPresident Grant said the heavens were as brass over him. An Inconsistency HEBER J. GRANT: "No matter what restrictions we may be placed under by men, our onlyconsistent course is to keep the Commandments of God. (Cites instances ofthe Three Hebrews.) If we are living in the light of the Gospel, we have atestimony of the truth, and we have but one choice, that is to abide in

the law of God no matter as to the consequences.... When people know theyare right it is wrong for them to forego their honest convictions byyielding their judgment to that of the majority." (Des. News, April 6,1885) HEBER J. GRANT: "I am a law breaker; so is Bishop Whitney; so is B.H. Roberts; mywives have brought me only daughters. I propose to [266] marry until I getwives who will bring me sons." (Sept. 8, 1899, after the Manifesto, S.L.Tribune) Later ... November 27, 1928: HEBER J. GRANT: "None could point to anyone who had entered this principle since itsofficial prohibition who was a pride to any community, and that the samecould be said of their children. I shall rejoice when the governmentofficials put a few of these [polygamists] in the County Jail or in theState Penitentiary." (Letter reprinted in Truth magazine 11:32) In 1935, at President Grant's request, Hugh B. Brown drafted a lawchanging "Unlawful Cohabitation" from a simple misdemeanor with a maximumjail sentence of six months, to a felony, the latter bearing a five yearjail sentence. This law was fathered in the legislature by Lyle B. Nicholes, anofficer in the Mormon Church, and enacted by Mormon vote. It was guidedthrough the legislative hopper by a committee comprising GeneralAuthorities of the Church. It was signed by Governor Henry H. Blood, aMormon Stake President, and later President of the California Mission. It is a matter of record in the court files that men were appointedby the Church leaders to gather evidence to be used by the prosecution incases against the men. Under the law, Abraham, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and PresidentGrant himself, had lived feloniously, for they were all guilty of livingin plural marriage. God, himself, was guilty, for His son Jesus Christ wasborn of a plural wife. As to President Grant's statement, those arrested were in the CountyJail on May 13, 1945, awaiting transfer to the penitentiary. On the 14thof May, President Grant passed away, one day after seeing his wish aboutthe polygamists (of which he was very much one) come true.

L.D.S. BIOGRAPHICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA Vol. 3, p. 415: [267] Regarding Abraham Hunsaker: When the law of celestial marriage was first whispered to him heopposed it exclaiming, "It is of the devil," but God knew his heart and inopen day a messenger from heaven with three women clothed in white raimentstood before him several feet from the ground, and addressed him thus:"You never can receive a full and complete salvation in MY kingdom unlessyour garments are pure and white and you have three counselors like me."Thus he was convinced that principle was right and he subsequently,married five wives, two of whom survived him, and he became the father of50 children. * * * * Finally, we have the word of the Lord: "How can I revoke an everlasting covenant, for I the Lord ameverlasting, and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor doneaway with, but they stand forever.... I, the Lord, do not change, and myword and my covenant and my law do not. "I have not revoked this law nor will I, for it is everlasting, andthose who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof." [268] [269] CHRONOLOGY AND DIGEST 1788 Anti-bigamy law of New York. 1:471-472 1797 Anti-bigamy law of Vermont. 1:47123 Dec 1805 Joseph Smith was born. 1:17 Nov 1822 (1) Vilate Murray was married 3:1 (1) to Heber C. Kimball. 1824 Anti-bigamy law of Ohio. 1:472 1825 Anti-bigamy law of Missouri. 1:472-47318 Jan 1827 Emma Hale married to Joseph Smith. 3:1 (1) 1829 Translation of the Book of Mormon completed. 3:1-2 1829 Earliest known revelation on plural 3:2 marriage given. Oliver Cowdery proposed to enter into the practice but was forbidden by Joseph Smith.

6 Apr 1830 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized at Fayette, New York. 3:2 1831 Joseph Smith told Lyman Johnson that 3:3 plural marriage was a correct principle but that the time had not come to teach or practice it in the Church.1 Jul 1831 Revelation given that God's laws are to 3:3 be kept on this land. 1833 Anti-bigamy law of Illinois. 1:473-47428 Jan 1833 Leonora Cannon married to John Taylor. 3:5 (1)24 Jul 1833 Agatha Ann Woolsey married to John D. Lee. 3:6 (1)6 Aug 1833 Revelation: Admonition to live by every 3:6 word proceeding out of the mouth of God.22 Jan 1834 Joseph Smith says that all men have the 3:7 privilege of thinking for themselves on matters relative to conscience.18 Feb 1834 Mary Ann Angel married to Brigham Young. 3:13 (1)4 Sep 1834 Marinda N. Johnson was married to Orson Hyde. 3:13 (1)24 Sep 1834 Jenetta Richards married to Willard Richards. 3:14Dec 1834 Lectures on Faith delivered in Kirtland. 8:14 1835 Benjamin F. Johnson learned that the 3:16 ancient order of plural marriage was again to be practiced in the Church. Oliver Cowdery and Warren Parish knew[270] that Joseph Smith and Fannie Alger were husband and wife. 1835 Section 101 (Doctrine and Covenants, 3:16-18 1835 ed.) given relating to marriage, i.e.: one man to have one wife, one woman but one husband.9 Oct 1836 Ruth Moon married to William Clayton. 3:22 (1)13 Apr 1837 Phoebe W. Carter married to Wilford Woodruff. 3:2229 Apr 1837 The Seventies resolved to have no 3:22 fellowship with anyone guilty of polygamy or any offense of the kind.8 May 1838 Joseph Smith says that the Mormons do 3:23 not believe in having more wives than one at the same time.Fall 1840 Joseph Smith taught Joseph B. Noble 3:29 the principle of celestial or plural

marriage, or a plurality of wives.5 Apr 1841 Louisa Beman married to Joseph Smith. 3:30 (3)27 Oct 1841 Zina D. Huntington married to Joseph Smith. 3:32 (4)11 Dec 1841 Prescindia L. Huntington married to Joseph Smith. 3:33 (5) 1842 Desdemona, W. Fullmer married to Joseph Smith. 3:34 (6) Elvira A. Cowles married to Joseph Smith. 3:34 (7)Feb 1842 Mary E. Lightner married to Joseph Smith. 3:35 (8)7 Feb 1842 Nauvoo city marriage ordinance passed 3:35 requiring registration of marriages whether with or without a license.17 May 1842 John C. Bennett affirms that Joseph 3:39 Smith never taught him that polygamy, adultery, or fornication were right.24 May 1842 Chauncy L. Higbee was cut off the 3:44 Church for unchaste and unvirtuous conduct toward certain females, and for teaching it was right if kept secret.15 Jun 1842 Lucy Decker was married to Brigham Young. 3:45 (2)17 Jun 1842 William Law says that no accusation 3:45 of bigamy has ever been proved against the Mormons.27 Jun 1842 Joseph Smith is accused of seducing 3:50 or attempting to seduce single and married females, including Nancy Rigdon.29 Jun 1842 Eliza R. Snow married to Joseph Smith. 3:51 (9)Summer 1842 Martha McBride married to Joseph Smith. 3:52 (10)Summer 1842 Brigham Young proposes to Martha 3:53-56 Brotherton and is rejected.16 Jul 1842 The Presbyterian General Assembly 3:57 decided that it is incest for a man to marry his dead wife's sister.[271]27 Jul 1842 Sarah Ann Whitney married to Joseph Smith. 3:57 (11)Aug 1842 Ruth Vose Sayers married to Joseph 3:58 (12) Smith.1 Aug 1842 Accusations of polygamy indirectly 3:58-59 denied in an editorial in the Times and Seasons.

1 Aug 1842 William Clayton accuses Martha 3:60-61 Brotherton of apostacy. He says that no such principle of "two wives" ever existed among the Latter-day Saints, and never will.2 Aug 1842 Joseph Smith's love letter to Nancy 3:62-64 Rigdon is published.27 Aug 1842 Joseph Smith's authorship of the love 3:65-66 letter to Nancy Rigdon denied in an editorial in The Wasp and by Sidney Rigdon.1 Oct 1842 Several of the leading brethren and 3:68-69 sisters affirm that there is only one marriage system or rule known among the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, viz: one man-one wife. J.C. Bennett's "secret wife" system is denied.Winter 1842 The Peace Maker is published on the 3:69-110 Church press by Udney Hay Jacob, supporting the concept of plural marriage and other things.1 Dec 1842 The Peace Maker is called "an unmeaning 3:110 rigma-role or nonsense, folly, and trash." 1843 Maria Lawrence married to Joseph Smith. 3:110 (13) Sarah Lawrence married to Joseph Smith. 3:110 (14) Sarah P. Noon married to Heber C. 3:110 (2) Kimball. Joseph Smith suggests that plural 3:111-112 marriage will again be practiced in Zion and that the laws of Zion would permit it, but had to retract the statement.Early 1843 Hannah Ells married to Joseph Smith. 3:112 (15)Feb 1843 Joseph Smith taught William Clayton 3:112-113 that plural marriage was right in the sight of Heavenly Father and that it was his (Wm.'s) privilege to have all the wives he wanted. Joseph said that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth.Mar 1843 Martha R. Browitt married to Orson Hyde. 3:114 (2)4 Mar 1843 Emily D. Partridge married to Joseph 3:114 Smith secretly from Emma Smith.

8 Mar 1843 Eliza M. Partridge married to Joseph 3:114-115 Smith secretly from Emma Smith.9 Mar 1843 Patty B. Sessions married to Joseph 3:115 (16) Smith.[272]15 Mar 1843 The charge of advocating plurality of 3:115 wives common property is declared false and ridiculous.Spring 1843 Flora Ann Woodworth married to Joseph 3:116 (17) Smith.Apr 1843 Joseph Smith teaches the doctrine of 3:116 celestial marriage including plurality of wives to Erastus Snow.Apr 1843 Mary Ann Price married to Orson Hyde. 3:116 (3)2 Apr 1843 Joseph Smith teaches the principle of 3:116-117 plural or celestial marriage to Benjamin F. Johnson and asks him for his sister Almera to be his wife.Apr 1843 Almera W. Johnson married to Joseph 3:118 (18) Smith.12 Apr 1843 Olive Gray Frost married to Joseph 3:118 (19) Smith.27 Apr 1843 Margaret Moon married to William 3:118 Clayton for time and eternity by Joseph Smith, he already having a wife living not sealed to him for time and eternity.May 1843 Helen Mar. Kimball married to Joseph 3:118 (20) Smith.1 May 1843 Lucy Walker married to Joseph Smith. 3:118 (21)11 May 1843 Eliza M. Partridge remarried to Joseph 3:118-119 (22) Smith. Emily D. Partridge remarried to Joseph 3:118-119 (23) Smith.16 May 1843 Joseph Smith tells William Clayton: 3:119 "Except a man enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity ... by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die ... they will not have any children after the resurrection.12 Jun 1843 Rhoda Richards married to Joseph Smith. 3:122 (24)12 Jul 1843 Joseph Smith says: "I received the 1:16-24 following revelation ... Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including Plurality of Wives

..." (D&C 132)22 Jul 1843 Hyrum Smith rehearses the revelation 3:122-123 on celestial marriage to Howard Coray, saying that it was not for the public yet.22 Jul 1843 William Clayton's first wife, Ruth, 3:123 (2) was married to him by Joseph Smith.Aug 1843 Almera Johnson married to Joseph Smith. 3:124 (25)(sic)12 Aug 1843 Revelation on celestial marriage is 3:125 read to the Nauvoo High Council by Hyrum Smith. Three of the brethren did not receive the testimony of Hyrum Smith concerning its truthfulness.7 Sep 1843 Mormons are accused of setting aside 3:125-127 all moral and religious institutions established by the Bible and cherished by men as the only means of maintaining those social blessings necessary to happiness.[273]20 Sep 1843 Malissa Lott married to Joseph Smith. 3:127 (26)5 Oct 1843 Joseph Smith gives instructions to try 3:128-129 those persons who are preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives ... that no man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise.15 Oct 1843 Joseph Smith gives instructions that 3:129 the sisters should stop their "spinning street yarns and talking about spiritual wives."23 Oct 1843 Joseph Smith teaches Heber C. Kimball, 3:129 George A. Smith, and Brigham Young many principles illustrating the doctrine of celestial marriage.2 Nov 1843 Fanny Young married to Joseph Smith. 3:130 (27) Harriet E.C. Campbell married to 3:130 (3) Brigham Young. Augusta Adams married to Brigham Young. 3:130 (4)25 Nov 1843 Joseph Smith is acquitted of the charge 3:130 of having taught that seduction was right. He said that the Church has not received permission to commit fornication, adultery, or any corrupt action, that if a man commit adultery he cannot receive the Celestial Kingdom.

12 Dec 1843 Elizabeth Haigham married to John Taylor. 3:130 (2)21 Jan 1843 Joseph Smith teaches that to be saved, 3:131 a man must abide the whole celestial law.1 Feb 1844 Hyrum Brown is cut off the Church for 3:132 preaching polygamy and other "false and corrupt doctrines."15 Feb 1844 Artimesia Beman married to Erastus 3:136 (1) Snow for time and eternity by Hyrum Smith.25 Feb 1844 Jane Ballantyne married to John Taylor. 3:136 (3)Mar 1844 Joseph Smith affirms that the 3:137 revelation on celestial and plural marriage was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.15 Mar 1844 Hyrum Smith denies the teachings of 3:137-138 some elders who say that a man having a certain priesthood can have as many wives as he pleases, that such teaching is false doctrine, and that no such thing is practiced in Nauvoo. He further states that any man found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine is liable to lose his license and membership also.16 Mar 1844 Emma Smith, as President of the Relief 3:139 Society, admonishes the sisters to "... let polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution be frowned out of the hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature ...."1 Apr 1844 To the Elders abroad: "...If any man 3:141 writes or [274] preaches doctrines contrary to the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an impostor, try him by the principles of the acknowledged word of God. If they teach, preach, or practice contrary to that, cut them off...."2 Apr 1844 Minerva White married to Erastus Snow. 3:142 (2)19 Apr 1844 Abigail Shaffer Woolsey married to 3:142 (2) John D. Lee.24 Apr 1844 Review of the history of the 3:142-143 "Spiritual Wife System" given in the Warsaw Signal.

3 May 1844 Parley P. Pratt implies that the 3:144 insinuations that Joseph Smith keeps six or seven young females. as wives etc. are infamous slander and lies, that men who perpetrate such things should be left alone severely and be shunned as a pestilence.4 May 1844 William and Jane Law swear affidavits 3:145-146 that Hyrum Smith read to them the revelation commanding Joseph Smith to have more wives than one and to administer that law to others.4 May 1844 Austin Cowles swears an affidavit to 3:146-147 the effect that Hyrum Smith read, in High Council meeting, a revelation containing the doctrine of plurality of wives, calling it a heresy.8 May 1844 Clara Decker married to Brigham 3:147 (5) Young.Jun 1844 Joseph Smith tells William Marks, 3:148 President of the Nauvoo Stake, that polygamy would prove the overthrow of the Church, that it was a cursed doctrine, and that every exertion should be made to put it down, and that those in transgression must be severed from the Church unless they make ample satisfaction.27 Jun 1844 Joseph and Hyrum Smith are killed at 3:148 Carthage.Sep 1844 Emily C. Partridge was married to 3:149 (7) Brigham Young.10 Sep 1844 Ann Alice Gheen married to Heber C. 3:150 (3) Kimball. Clara Chase Ross married to Brigham 3:150 (8) Young.26 Sep 1844 Elder Benjamin Winchester and his wife 3:151 are cut off from the Church for unchristian-like conduct, in slandering the Church, and railing against, and speaking evil of the Twelve and others.12 Oct 1844 A resolution is adopted by a conference 3:155-156 presided over by Richard Savery, concerning B. Winchester and Sidney Rigdon, that the Twelve and their abettors have flagrantly violated the

original and true principles of the Church through practising the doctrine of polygamy, despoiling female virtue and chastity, and seduction.15 Oct 1844 Sidney Rigdon publishes an article 3:157-163 condemning the Twelve and others at Nauvoo for teaching and [275] practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives.1 Nov 1844 William Smith testifies that there is 3:164-165 no law in the Church commanding a plurality of wives and those teaching that a doctrine of this kind is either tolerated or taught in the Church are wanton falsifiers and base calumniators.2 Nov 1844 Susan Snively married to Brigham Young. 3:165 (9)7 Nov 1844 Benjamin Winchester attributes Joseph 3:165-166 Smith's death to the "transgression" of introducing the "spiritual wife system" into the Church.14 Nov 1844 Mary Ann Hale married to Benjamin F. 3:166 (2) Johnson.15 Nov 1844 Sidney Rigdon's accusations of 3:167 "spiritual wifery" contested in the Times and Seasons.20 Nov 1844 Alice Hardman married to William 3:167 (3) Clayton. Jane Hardman married to William 3:167 (4) Clayton.2 Dec 1844 S. Bennett laments that Joseph Smith 3:168 was teaching the spiritual wife doctrine secretly and denying it openly, and those who set at naught the counsels of God by teaching as a celestial law that the highest degree of glory is only to be obtained by marrying more wives than one.17 Dec 1844 Gov. Thomas Ford acknowledges the 3:169-170 belief that Joseph Smith announced a revelation sanctioning polygamy, whereby a man was allowed one wife pursuant to the laws of the country and an infinite number of others to be enjoyed in some mystical and spiritual mode. 1845 Clarissa Cutler married to Heber C. 3:173 (4)

Kimball. Emily Cutler married to Heber C. 3:173 (5) Kimball. Lucy Walker married to Heber C. 3:173 (6) Kimball Margaret Pierce married to Brigham 3:173 (10) Young.9 Jan 1845 Diantha Farr married to William 3:175 (5) Clayton.20 Feb 1845 Sidney Rigdon and William Law trace the 3:175 deaths of Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith to the introduction of the spiritual wife system.Feb 1845 Olive Grey Frost married to Brigham 3:175 (11) Young.22 Feb 1845 Accusations of polygamy, adultery, 3:176-177 etc. refuted by Parley P. Pratt.Spring 1845 Rachel Andora Woolsey married to John 3:180 (3) D. Lee. Louisa Free married to John D. Lee. 3:180 (4) Mary Ann Oakley married to John Taylor. 3:180 (4)30 Apr 1845 Emmeline Free married to Brigham Young. 3:188 (12)1 May 1845 From the Times and Seasons: Cain, who 3:189 taught the doctrine of a "plurality of wives" and the giants who practiced the same iniquity, and [276] others who build up churches and multiply systems without authority from God are all co-workers in the same plan.1 May 1845 The charge of polygamy against the 3:189-190 Mormons is refuted by E. M. Webb.24 May 1845 Parley P. Pratt says that the 3:192-194 "spiritual wife" doctrine of J. C. Bennett and other apostates is not of God, and those advocating such doctrine either secretly or publicly should be rejected.12 Nov 1945 William Smith accuses Brigham Young, 3:194-195 John Taylor, W. Richards and others for continually preaching the doctrine and openly practising adultery, and says that Joseph and Hyrum would never have sanctioned the present wicked plans of the Twelve and their doctrine of polygamy.Dec 1845 Amanda Gheen married to Heber C. 3:195 (7)

Kimball.11 Dec 1845 Nancy Bean married to John D. Lee. 3:195 (5)1845-1846 Martha E. Berry married to John D. Lee. 3:196 (6) Polly Ann Workman married to John D. 3:196 (7) Lee. Delthea Morris married to John D. Lee. 3:196 (8) Prescindia L. Huntington married to 3:196 (8) Heber C. Kimball. Ruth Reese married to Heber C. Kimball. 3:196 (9) Thresa Morley married to Heber C. 3:196 (10) Kimball.Jan 1846 Sylvia P. Sessions Lyon married to 3:196 (11) Heber C. Kimball. Sarah Lawrence married to Heber C. 3:196 (12) Kimball. Maria Lawrence married to Brigham 3:196 (13) Young. Ellen Rockwood married to Brigham 3:196 (14) Young. Sarah Longstroth married to Willard 3:196 (2) Richards.1 Jan 1846 Mary H. Smith married to Heber C. 3:197 (13) Kimball.7 Jan 1846 Sarah Sanders married to Heber C. 3:197 (14) Kimball. Harriet Sanders married to Heber C. 3:197 (15) Kimball.21 Jan 1846 Martha Bowker married to Brigham Young. 3:198 (15) Nanny Longstroth married to Willard 3:198 (3) Richards.26 Jan 1846 Martha McBride Knight married to Heber 3:199 (16) C. Kimball. Sarah Stiles married to Heber C. 3:199 (17) Kimball. Naamah K. J. Carter married to Brigham 3:199 (16) Young.3 Feb 1846 Nancy M. Winchester married to Heber C. 3:199 (18) Kimball. Sarah Scoll married to Heber C. Kimball. 3:199 (19)7 Feb 1846 Rebecca Swain Williams married to Heber 3:199 (20) C. Kimball.15 Apr 1846 Rebecca Ann Jackson married to Wilford 3:199 (2) Woodruff.[277]30 Apr 1846 The Nauvoo Temple is dedicated 3:199-200 privately.

Sarah C. Williams married to John D. 3:199-200 (9) Lee.14 Oct 1846 Margaret M. Alley married to Brigham 3:200 (17) Young.21 Dec 1846 Emoline Vaughn married to John D. Lee. 3:201 (10)27 Feb 1847 Nancy Armstrong married to John D. Lee. 3:201 (11) Mary V. Young married to John D. Lee. 3:201 (12) Lavina Young married to John D. Lee. 3:201 (13)Mar 1847 Lucy Bigelow married to Brigham Young. 3:201 (18)23 Apr 1847 Sophia Whitaker married to John Taylor. 3:201 (5)4 Dec 1847 Harriet Whitaker married to John 3:201 (6) Taylor.19 Dec 1847 Elizabeth R. Ashby married to Erastus 3:202 (3) Snow.29 Jun 1849 Eliza R. Snow married to Brigham Young. 3:202 (21)15 Jan 1850 That Joseph Smith taught a system of 3:202-203 polygamy is branded a lie and refuted in the Millenial Star. 1850 Accusations against the Church of 3:204 polygamy branded as too outrageous to admit of belief by John Taylor.9 Sep 1850 The Act of Congress providing for the 1:27 organization of the Territory of Utah was approved.20 Sep 1850 Brigham Young is appointed Governor of 1:27 Utah Territory.29 Aug 1852 The first public reading of the 1:28-33 revelation on Celestial marriage including a plurality of wives was done in a special conference. No vote was called for or given.Jan 1853 The Seer was published putting forth 1:43-110 some of the basic principles of Mormonism including plural marriage.3 Jun 1862 The Morrill anti-bigamy bill was passed 1:146 by the United States Senate.8 Jul 1862 The anti-bigamy bill was approved by 1:147-148, 477-478 President Abraham Lincoln.10 Mar 1863 Brigham Young is arrested on a charge 1:148 of bigamy and placed under $2000 bond.Jan 1867 The Utah Legislature petitioned 1:162 Congress to repeal the 1862 anti-bigamy law.6 Dec 1869 Sen. Aaron H. Cragin introduced an 1:171 anti-polygamy bill in the U. S. Senate.[278]

13 Jan 1870 A mass meeting was held by the ladies 1:171 of Salt Lake City to protest against passage of the Cullom anti-polygamy bill.23 Mar 1870 The Cullom bill was passed by the House. 1:171Feb 1871 Judge James B. McKean made belief in 1:174 polygamy a test question in the naturalization of aliens.2 Oct 1871 Brigham Young was arrested on an 1:175 indictment charging him with lascivious cohabitation with his polygamous wives.2 Jan 1872 Judge McKean refused $500,000 bail for 1:176 the release of President Young.23 Jun 1874 The Poland Bill was approved, having 1:183, 479-485 passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.25 Feb 1875 Judge McKean ordered President Young 1:193 to pay Ann Eliza Young, a divorced plural wife, $9500 alimony.Dee 1875 The ladies of Utah sent a petition to 1:194 Congress petitioning for statehood and for the repeal of the anti-polygamy laws.27 Apr 1877 The case of Ann Eliza Young vs. Brigham 1:198 Young was finally decided, the alimony being disallowed.29 Aug 1877 Brigham Young died.1879 Memorial of Emmeline B. Wells and Zina 1:215-216 Young asking for repeal of the anti-polygamy law of 1862 was laid before the House.6 Jan 1879 The Supreme Court upheld the 1:217-225 constitutionality of the 1862 anti-bigamy law.Jan 1880 Revelation given through Wilford 1:253-260 Woodruff concerning the Patriarchal Law of Abraham and this nation.22 Mar 1882 The Edmunds anti-polygamy law became 1:289-290, 486-489 law.13 Oct 1882 Revelation given through President John 1:309-312 Taylor.7 Jun 1883 Dr. J.B. Carrington, a non-Mormon, was 1:317 arrested for bigamy and was discharged notwithstanding proof of his guilt.18 Oct 1884 John Taylor states on the witness stand 3:210-224 in the polygamy trials that temples are not necessary for marriage solemnization, though preferable, that there are many

men authorized to perform plural sealings.3 Nov 1884 Rudger Clawson was sentenced to four 1:346 years' [279] imprisonment and $800 fine for polygamy and unlawful cohabitation.1 Feb 1885 John Taylor delivers his last public 1:350-363 discourse.3 Feb 1885 A law passed by the Idaho Legislature 1:363 prohibiting all Mormons from voting, was approved by Gov. Bunn.20 Apr 1885 The United States Supreme Court upheld 1:376 the decision of the Utah courts in the Rudger Clawson polygamy case.16 Sep 1885 Judge Zane interpreted the law in such 1:390 a way that persons found guilty of unlawful cohabitation could be imprisoned for life. This was the commencement of the segregation policy.20 Oct 1885 Thomas Simpson, a non-Mormon sentenced 1:390 to two years' imprisonment for polygamy, was pardoned by President Cleveland and released from the penetentiary after seven months' service.30 Nov 1885 The cases against several men for lewd 3:394 and lascivious conduct were dismissed in police court because of Judge Zane's decision.31 Dec 1885 Lorenzo Snow is convicted of unlawful 1:395 cohabitation notwithstanding the evidence introduced against him proved him innocent.8 Jan 1886 The First District Court at Ogden 1:400 brought another verdict of guilty against Lorenzo Snow for unlawful cohabitation in 1884 and 1883 in conformity with the segregation policy.12 Mar 1886 Apostle Lorenzo Snow voluntarily went 1:411 to prison in order to have his case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court quickly.10 May 1886 The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the 1:420 three Snow polygamy cases for "want of jurisdiction."13 May 1886 Gov. Caleb West offered amnesty to 1:420 those in prison for polygamy and unlawful cohabitation if they promised

to obey the law as interpreted by the courts.16 Jul 1886 Gov. West issued a proclamation 1:427 warning the Mormons against disobeying the Edmunds law.5 Aug 1886 The views of the minority respecting 1:427-439 the Tucker-Edmunds Bill were referred to the House calendar and ordered to be printed.27 Sep 1886 Revelation given to John Taylor 1:442-443 relative to the New and Everlasting 3:227-230 Covenant.18 Oct 1886 The test oath law is declared 1:444 constitutional.27 Nov 1886 Wm. A. Morrow, a non-Mormon, charged 1:449 with [280] unlawful cohabitation, promised to obey the law, and sentence was suspended.12 Jan 1887 John T. Caine speaks in the U. S. 1:454-464 House of Representatives in opposition to the Edmunds-Tucker anti-polygamy bill.3 Mar 1887 The Edmunds-Tucker Bill becomes law, and 1:464-465, 490-501 takes effect without the signature of 2:1 President Cleveland.30 Jun 1887 A constitutional convention, consisting 2:11 entirely of Mormons, met to frame a Constitution for the State of Utah, including in it an anti-polygamy provision.7 Jul 1887 The First Presidency and the Twelve 2:18 endorsed the Constitution proposed by the convention.25 Jul 1887 President John Taylor died in exile. 2:2130 Jul 1887 Suit was commenced against the Church 2:21 and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law.11 Nov 1887 Receiver Dyer took possession of the 2:49 Tithing office, Salt Lake City.15 Nov 1887 Receiver Dyer took possession of the 2:49 Historian's office and Gardo House and demanded the President's office.18 Nov 1887 Receiver Dyer took possession of the 2:51 property belonging to the Perpetual Emigrating Fund.22 Nov 1887 John T. Caine is set apart for his 2:51 labors as Delegate from Utah at Washington.

23 Nov 1887 Receiver Dyer took formal possession 2:51 of the President's office.12 Dee 1887 Several anti-polygamy measures were 2:52 introduced in the U. S. Senate.13 Jan 1888 An act for the punishment of polygamy 2:52 was introduced into the Utah Legislature by Wm. H. King, a Mormon.18 Feb 1888 Franklin S. Richards explains to the 2:56-58 Senate Committee on Territories that a Celestial Marriage might or might not be a plural marriage.29 Feb 1888 Angus M. Cannon explains that 2:58 polygamous marriages have been discontinued for nearly a year, and that persons applying for such marriages have been refused, and that President Woodruff affirmed that he (Pres. Woodruff) could not grant recommends to the Temple for such marriages.13 Mar 1888 The Supreme Court of the District of 2:60 Columbia decided that the Edmunds-Tucker law was in-[281]tended for the Territory of Utah alone, and was not applicable to the District of Columbia.25 Aug 1888 John T. Caine tells the U. S. House of 2:65-70 Representatives that plural marriage in Utah is a dead issue.24 Sep 1888 The refusal of the officers of the 2:78 Church to participate in plural marriages began when the law forbade them, which was since before the death of President Taylor.23 Jan 1889 A letter is written by Pres. Woodruff 2:86 to Pres. M. W. Merrill of the Logan Temple instructing him to discontinue plural marriages for the present until further advised, unless for special occasions or for prudential reasons.26 Apr 1889 The Woman's Industrial Christian Home 2:98-99 Assn. is established for the purpose of receiving and protecting polygamous wives who wish to renounce the system.25 Sep 1889 A house of prostitution is raided. The 2:138-139 women are fined ten dollars and costs and committed to the county jail for 30 days. The keeper is fined $100 and

costs and committed to the county jail for four months.13 Oct 1889 Wilford Woodruff affirms that he has 2:156-158 refused to give any recommendations for the performance of plural marriages since having become President of the Church, and that President Taylor also refused before him.9 Nov 1889 A female charged with keeping a house 2:182-183 of ill fame was acquitted upon the basis that such laws have become obsolete.14 Nov 1889 Proceedings concerning Mormon 2:189 naturalizations were commenced in Third District Court before Judge Thomas J. Anderson.24 Nov 1889 Revelation given to Wilford Woodruff 2:223-224 concerning concessions demanded by the court upon polygamy and other points.30 Nov 1889 Thomas J. Anderson issues his opinion 2:230-261 that members of the Mormon Church cannot be naturalized.12 Dec 1889 Wilford Woodruff issues a manifesto on 2:288-292 politics, the kingdom of God, blood atonement, etc.4 Jan 1890 The Idaho test oath case is argued 2:299-324 before the U.S. Supreme Court.13 Jan 1890 A bill to disfranchise all Mormons was 2:324 introduced in the U. S. House of Representatives, implementing a test oath.[282]25 Jan 1890 A constitutional amendment in regard to 2:327-328 polygamy and cohabitation is introduced in the House.3 Feb 1890 The Idaho test oath is declared 2:328-329 constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.25 Mar 1890 The Supreme Court of Wisconsin renders 2:355 a decision effectively prohibiting the reading of the Bible in the public schools.10 Apr 1890 The Baskin disfranchisement bill 2:366 relating to the Territory of Utah is introduced in Congress.19 May 1890 The U. S. Supreme Court rendered a 2:369-395 decision declaring those sections of the Edmunds-Tucker Bill escheating Mormon Church property valid and constitutional.

20 Sep 1890 The Mormons in Canada do not practice 2:442 polygamy and do not intend to do so.24 Sep 1890 A manifesto advising the Saints to 2:443 refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the laws of the land issued by Pres. Woodruff.25 Sep 1890 The Official Declaration was 2:443-444 telegraphed to Washington, and Bro. Caine made arrangements to have the manifesto published in a circular letter and newspapers. It was published simultaneously in the Deseret News.6 Oct 1890 The Official Declaration is presented 2:480 to the Church in Conference and voted upon.3 Dec 1890 Judge T. J. Anderson reaffirmed his 2:518 former ruling, that alien Mormons were not entitled to citizenship, he having no faith in the manifesto.19 Jan 1891 The U. S. Supreme Court rendered a 2:518 decision that polygamous children born within one year after the passage of the Edmunds law were legitimate and entitled to inherit after their fathers.19 Oct 1891 Wilford Woodruff says that the 2:525-532 manifesto did not change the tenet or principle of faith of the Church to which it had reference.20 Oct 1891 Pres. George Q. Cannon states that he 2:533 has no hope or expectation that the practice of polygamy or plural marriage will ever be re-established in the Church.20 Oct 1891 President Joseph F. Smith says that he 2:536-537 understands the intention of President Woodruff in issuing the manifesto to be to stop the practice of polygamy in the Church permanently.19 Dec 1891 The Petition for Amnesty is sent to the 2:547-550 President [283] of the United States.4 Feb 1892 An act to punish polygamy and other 2:551, 591-592 kindred offences was passed in the Utah Territorial Legislature.Mar 1892 Proceedings in the Temple Lot case: 3:237-278 Depositions concerning polygamy in Nauvoo given by President Woodruff and others.

4 Jan 1893 Benjamin Harrison, as President of the 2:565-566 United States, grants full amnesty and pardon to all persons who have abstained from unlawful cohabitation under color of polygamous or plural marriage since Nov. 1st 1890.17 Jul 1893 The Utah Commission ruled that former 2:567-568 polygamists who had not violated the Edmunds Law since Nov. 1, 1890, were entitled to vote in elections.Oct 1893 An amended bill providing for the 2:568 restoration of Church property is passed by Congress.5 Apr 1894 George Q. Cannon says: "I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married ... until the laws of our government change to permit the holy order of wedlock which God has revealed.18 Sep 1894 A new oath was framed by the Utah 2:569 Commission for polygamists.27 Sep 1894 Pres. Grover Cleveland issues a 2:569 proclamation granting pardon and restoring civil rights to all persons who were disfranchised by the anti-polygamy laws excepting those who had not complied with Pres. Harrison's proclamation.6 May 1895 A Constitutional Convention adopted a 2:569, 593-594 Constitution for the State of Utah which included anti-polygamy provisions.13 Nov 1895 It was decided by the United States 2:570 Supreme Court that the Edmunds Law was applicable as thoroughly to the District of Columbia as to the Territory of Utah, thus reversing the court's former decision.4 Jan 1896 Utah was proclaimed a State by Pres. 2:570 Grover Cleveland.1896 Laws pertaining to polygamy, unlawful 2:595-596 cohabitation and related items were adopted by the Utah State Legislature verbatim from the former Territorial Statutes.13 Jan 1896 That the divine law of Celestial 3:297

marriage has not changed is affirmed in the Deseret News.[284]12 Sep 1897 Methodist ministers declare that 3:297 polygamy is still being practiced by Mormons officials and members.13 Sep 1897 That polygamy is still being practiced 3:280-283 by the Mormon Church is denied by Angus M. Cannon.May 1898 Brigham H. Roberts declares that 3:282 Christians must learn to tolerate polygamy.2 Sep 1898 President Wilford Woodruff died.1899 James E. Talmage publishes that the 3:283-286 Saints are required to give strict allegiance to the civil laws.7 Jan 1899 Charles W. Penrose says that no plural 3:286-288 marriages have been permitted or solemnized after the Woodruff manifesto, and that there is no intention of reviving them in this state.30 Dec 1898 Lorenzo Snow says that polygamous 3:289-290 marriages in the Mormon Church have entirely ceased.8 May 1899 Lorenzo Snow says that the principle 3:300 of plural marriage is not practiced nor are such ceremonies performed nor permitted.9 Sep 1899 Heber J. Grant pleads guilty to 3:309 unlawful cohabitation and pays a fine.8 Jan 1900 Lorenzo Snow says that the Church has 3:313-315 positively abandoned the practice of polygamy or the solemnization of plural marriages in this and every other state, that no member or officer thereof has any authority whatever to perform a plural marriage or enter into such relation, nor does it advise or encourage unlawful cohabitation.6 Mar 1901 The Evans amendment respecting adultery 3:326 is introduced into the Utah State Senate.14 Mar 1901 Gov. Heber M. Wells vetoes the Evans 3:326-329 amendment.Jan 1904 Hearings are commenced in the U. S. 3:331-371 Senate regarding the seating of Senator Reed Smoot.

16 Jun 1906 John Henry Smith says that the 3:377 manifesto is only a trick to beat the devil at is own game.11 Jun 1906 Protestations are issued against the 3:377-400 seating of Reed Smoot in the U. S. Senate on the polygamy issue.10 Oct 1910 A list of 200 men who have entered 3:417-423 polygamy since the issuance of the Woodruff manifesto is published.6 Apr 1911 Joseph F. Smith affirms that plural 3:432-434 marriages have ceased in the Church as it was announced [285] by Presidents Woodruff and Snow, and that no man in the Church or anywhere outside of it has authority to solemnize a plural marriage, not one!4 Oct 1918 Charles W. Penrose says that plural 3:436 marriages are no longer solemnized.Apr 1921 Heber J. Grant says that no person has 3:442 the right to perform plural marriages.4 Jun 1923 Temple garments are greatly modified. 3:445-44717 Jun 1933 The Official Statement relating the 3:456-473 history of plural marriage and outlining the policy of the Church in regard to it is published in the Church News.14 Mar 1935 Unlawful cohabitation is made a felony 3:473-474 by law.7 May 1970 The director of the United States 3:478-480 Census Bureau apologizes for implying that those living in polygamy have anything to do with the Mormon Church in his instructions to those taking the census.24 Feb 1974 Elder Reed C. Durham, Jr., acknowledges 4:49 that the Church has the 1886 revelation and reveals that handwriting analysis show it to be written in John Taylor's handwriting. [286] KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AEB Albert E. Bowen JCK Joseph C. KingsburyAHC Abraham H. Cannon JDL John D. LeeAHL Anthon H. Lund JET James E. TalmageAM Aurelius Miner JFS Joseph F. Smith

AMC Angus M. Cannon JFIdS Joseph Fielding SmithAMM Amos Milton Musser JHS John Henry SmithAOS A. O. Smoot JLR Joseph Lee RobinsonARD Alvin R. Dyer JMG Jedediah M. GrantBER Ben E. Rich JRC J. Reuben Clark, Jr.BFJ Benjamin F. Johnson JS Joseph SmithBHR Brigham H. Roberts JT John TaylorBS Bathsheba Smith JTC John T. CaineBY Brigham Young LCW Lorin C. WoolleyCCR Charles C. Rich LJA Leonard J. ArringtonCW Charles Walker LJNL. John NuttallCWP Charles W. Penrose LOL Lyman O. LittlefieldDF David Fullmer LS Lorenzo SnowDHW Daniel H. Wells LWK Lucy W. KimballDMT Douglas M. Todd MFC Mathias F. CowleyEDP Emily Dow Partridge OFW Orson F. WhitneyEER E. E. Rich OH Orson HydeES Erastus Snow OP Orson PrattEmS Emma Smith OS Orson SpencerERS Eliza R. Snow PPP Parley P. PrattFDR Franklin D. Richards RC Rudger ClawsonFJC Frank J. Cannon SAW Samuel A. WoolleyFML Francis M. Lyman SLR Steven L. RichardsFSR Franklin S. Richards SR Sidney RigdonGAS George Albert Smith SWR Samuel W. RichardsGOL Gustive O. Larson SWT Samuel W. TaylorGT George Teasdale TS Thomas SmithGQC George Q. Cannon UHJ Udney Hay JacobsHBL Harold B. Lee WC William ClaytonHLA Hyrum L. Andrus WS William SmithHJG Heber J. Grant WW Wilford WoodruffHMW Heber M. Wells WWP William W. PhelpsHS Hyrum Smith