PDA

View Full Version : Good Morning...Mormons reverse course on polygamy



Okla-homey
9/24/2009, 06:08 AM
At times in US history, and despite First Amendment guarentees, infringement of the "free exercise of religion" has been found to be constitutional by the Court. What happened on this day in 1890 was the Mormon response to a line of cases and Congressional acts which otherwise would have surely led to the destruction of the major religion founded on US soil.

Sept. 24, 1890: The Mormon Church officially renounces polygamy

119 years ago on this day in 1890, faced with the eminent destruction of their church and way of life, Mormon leaders reluctantly issue the "Mormon Manifesto" in which they command all Latter-day Saints to uphold the anti-polygamy laws of the nation.

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7048/zzzzzzzzantipolygamylegislationuz4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
About 1,300 LDS men who had practiced plural marriage were jailed by federal officers pursuant to the Edmunds Act (1882), and many women were found "in contempt of court" and jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands. In the Utah penitentiary in 1885 are (from left to right) Francis A. Brown, Freddy Self, Moroni Brown, Amos Milton Musser, George H. Kellogg, Parley P. Pratt, Jr., Rudger Clawson, and Job Pingree.

The Mormon leaders had been given little choice: If they did not abandon polygamy they faced federal confiscation of their sacred temples and the revocation of basic civil rights for all Mormons.

The Manifesto was written in response to the anti-polygamy policies of the Federal Government, and most especially the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887. This law disincorporated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and allowed the federal government to freeze all of the church's assets.

The US Supreme Court upheld property seizure in The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890).

By September, federal officials were preparing to seize the church's temples and the US Congress had debated whether to extend the Edmunds Act so that no Mormon man could vote, not just the polygamists.

The Supreme Court had already ruled a law constitutional which banned all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from voting in Idaho Territory in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890).

LDS President Wilford Woodruff reported that on the night of September 23 he received a revelation from God that the church should cease the practice of plural marriage. Woodruff announced the Manifesto to his peeps on this day and acted quickly to publish it in the Deseret News.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9628/zzzzzzzzzzzwoodruffaa2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
President Wilford Woodruff.


To Whom it may concern:

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

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

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

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

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

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

It's worth noting that President Woodruff had at least six wives himself and added another AFTER making his Manifesto. He also fathered over thirty-five children.

On October 6, 1890, during the 60th Semi-Annual General Conference of the church, the Manifesto was formally ratified by church membership.

Within six years of the announcement, Utah became a state and anti-Mormon federal persecution subsided. However, Congress still refused to seat later polygamist representatives-elect.

Rumors of post-Manifesto marriages surfaced, causing then church president Joseph F. Smith to issue a "Second Manifesto" in 1904. This Manifesto threatened excommunication for Latter-day Saints who continued to enter into plural marriages.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1733/zzzzzzzzzzjfsmithbr7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
President Joseph F. Smith

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8946/zzzzzzzzzzjfs3ot4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
President Joseph F. Smith and family photographed in 1901 three years before issuing the "Second Manifesto" condemning polygamy by Church members. He and his wives had forty-eight children. His wives were Levira Annett Clark (m. 1859; no children; died 1888); Juliana Lambson, on his right (m. 1866; 13 children, including Joseph Fielding Smith top row center); Sarah Ellen Richards, on his left (m. 1868; 11 children); Edna Lambson, second on his right (m. 1871; 10 children); Alice Ann Kimball, second on his left (m. 1883; 7 children); and Mary Taylor Schwartz, third on his right (m. 1884; 7 children).

Apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley each resigned from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles due to disagreement with the church's position on plural marriage. Technically, plural marriage continues to be grounds for excommunication from the church.

Followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been practicing the doctrine of "plural marriage" since the 1840s. The best available evidence suggests that the church founder, Joseph Smith, first began taking additional wives in 1841, and historians estimate he eventually married more than 50 women.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4190/zzzzzzzzzuntitledga1.png (http://imageshack.us)
Joseph Smith, the new religion's founder.

For a time, the practice was shrouded in secrecy, though rumors of widespread polygamy had inspired much of the early hatred and violence directed against the Mormons in Illinois. After establishing their new theocratic state centered in Salt Lake City, the church elders publicly confirmed that plural marriage was a central Mormon belief in 1852.

The doctrine was distinctly one-sided: Mormon women could not take multiple husbands. Nor could just any Mormon man participate. Only those who demonstrated unusually high levels of spiritual and economic worthiness were permitted to practice plural marriage, and the Church also required that the first wife give her consent.

As a result of these barriers, relatively few Mormon men had multiple wives. Best estimates suggest that men with two or more wives made up only 5 to 15 percent of the population of most Mormon communities -- but it seems all the leaders of the church were among this minority.

Boomer_Sooner_sax
9/24/2009, 07:11 AM
Seriously, one wife is enough. I couldn't put up with more than one and God help us if they are all on their times of the month together. Geez ;)

StoopTroup
9/24/2009, 07:32 AM
Honestly....one woman to comb the critters out of a beard like that ain't enough.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1733/zzzzzzzzzzjfsmithbr7.jpg

badger
9/24/2009, 07:45 AM
They probably had plural marriage to build up their population, don't ya think?

I've found Mormons (or as they prefer, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) to be wonderful people. This of course excludes the BYU bastards who met us on the field at Jerryworld a few weeks ago.

Jacie
9/24/2009, 09:28 AM
In doing genealogical research of my ancestors, after noting the succession of wives, all of whom died at a fairly young age compared to the male ancestor I was following, always after having multiple children, it occurred to me that men, at least those who were settling frontier America, were serial polygamists. They had multiple wives and numerous children, but only one wife at a time (divorce was rare in the 1800's compared to today though I found out for a time I was related to Sam Houston through marriage by a wife before they divorced). As for the large numbers of children, many of them did not grow up to produce lines of cousins for me to research having died in infancy.

This situation makes genalogical research challenging, especially when a man's children had the same first name of siblings born of an earlier wife. Also, many of those frontier wives are known only under their married name.

If you are serious about learning who your ancestors were, it is worth considering joining the LDS which will research your family history for you.

olevetonahill
9/24/2009, 09:36 AM
Ive said before No way in hell would I want more that one wife
How in hell would you put up with all the dayum Mothers in Law :eek:

mdklatt
9/24/2009, 01:59 PM
I don't understand why polygamy is illegal, for Mormons or anyone else. Who cares? I concede that it's probably not a good idea for various reasons, but why is it in the government's baliwick?

Gresho Murford
9/24/2009, 02:19 PM
Isn't plural marriage illegal in the US? If so, how do some people get away with it (big love, etc)? Do they just have one "real" wife and the rest are just living with the dude?

badger
9/24/2009, 02:20 PM
I don't understand why polygamy is illegal, for Mormons or anyone else. Who cares? I concede that it's probably not a good idea for various reasons, but why is it in the government's baliwick?

Many probably feel the same way about other types of non-government approved marriage options... like marriage to people of the same sex or minors: Probably not a good idea for various reasons, but why is it the gov't baliwick.

PS: I don't like the idea of minors marrying overagers.

StoopTroup
9/24/2009, 02:32 PM
Isn't plural marriage illegal in the US? If so, how do some people get away with it (big love, etc)? Do they just have one "real" wife and the rest are just living with the dude?

Most of em are held up in an Alamo type situation in texas. :pop:

yermom
9/24/2009, 02:44 PM
why don't they just do like Garth Brooks and divorce one, build her a house adjoining yours and marry another?

it's not like it's illegal to have kids with your ex wife, is it?

StoopTroup
9/24/2009, 02:55 PM
Reverend yermom....

A Modern Day Saint. :D

abOUtwinning
9/24/2009, 03:10 PM
If you are serious about learning who your ancestors were, it is worth considering joining the LDS which will research your family history for you.

I have been a member all my life even served a 2 year mission in Montana and I am still active today. And they don't do your geneology for you. They encourage you to do the work on your own family lines. All they do is provide the tools to make it as easy as possible.

btw I am NOT a BYU fan

Okla-homey
9/24/2009, 03:52 PM
In doing genealogical research of my ancestors, after noting the succession of wives, all of whom died at a fairly young age compared to the male ancestor I was following, always after having multiple children, it occurred to me that men, at least those who were settling frontier America, were serial polygamists. They had multiple wives and numerous children, but only one wife at a time (divorce was rare in the 1800's compared to today though I found out for a time I was related to Sam Houston through marriage by a wife before they divorced). .

Case in point, my great-grandfather Jim Lester, who farmed a quarter section northeast of Okemah he bought off a Creek freedwoman, married a gal from Fayetteville AR in 1904. She died three years into their marriage.

He went back over to Fayetteville and arranged with his father-in-law to marry his deceased wife's baby sister. She was 14 at the time and the last gal at home, so dad-in-law gave it the thumbs-up. Great-grandpa Jim put her, who would become my great grandmother, aboard his wagon along with her personal effects and drove her home to his place in Okfuskee Co. They were married 15 years and she bore Jim four kids (my grandsmother among them) before Jim died of "consumption" (TB).

mdklatt
9/24/2009, 04:06 PM
Many probably feel the same way about other types of non-government approved marriage options... like marriage to people of the same sex or minors: Probably not a good idea for various reasons, but why is it the gov't baliwick.


You don't see a fundamental moral difference between marriage amongst adults and marriage involving minors?

Okla-homey
9/24/2009, 04:23 PM
For the record, I'm down with ghey civil marriage. It will be great for the divorce business. Two men in a marriage doubles the chance of marital infidelity and hurt feelings leading to the inevitable divorce. What's more, gheys tend to be financially better off than the average straight married couple, and the property division dispute alone should typically be good for five figures to both lawyers. Not to mention the child custody fight if both daddies/mommies want the kid(s).:D

SoonerAtKU
9/25/2009, 09:19 AM
I'd say the suggestion above that it was to increase population is pretty spot on. You can even see the similarities in the Old Testament. No multiple wives specifically encouraged, but the whole thing is instructions on how to breed a bigger religion. Here's how to not die of food-borne illness in the desert. Here's the best time to sleep with your wife to have the best chance of getting her pregnant. Here's why you should kill your enemies if they're not of your faith, but have fair laws for those of us who are Sons of God.

It's a fundamental part of early religion. You convert everyone you can, and you breed like rabbits to make yourselves a bigger tribe. Hell, catholics are STILL forbidden from using birth control. That isn't a godly commandment, that's protecting your subscription base.

badger
9/25/2009, 10:08 AM
You don't see a fundamental moral difference between marriage amongst adults and marriage involving minors?

You kind of omitted the last part of my post. There are circumstances where minors can many people over 18 - there was one in my high school class who had been dating a girl several years ahead of us... and got her pregnant.

As such, he got emancipated from his parents and was allowed to marry even though he was 17.

But, like I said in the final part of my post that you omitted, I do not think minors should be able to marry adults. However, my comment was just that some people, myself not included, may try to use similar arguments for other types of marriage not approved by the gov't.

But, this is yesterday's news already, Have a good weekend and stuff

85Sooner
9/26/2009, 08:41 AM
So much for freedom of religion. And these folks never bombed anyone.