{"id":42228,"date":"2021-11-12T09:42:02","date_gmt":"2021-11-12T14:42:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.timesandseasons.org\/?p=42228"},"modified":"2023-02-05T14:47:53","modified_gmt":"2023-02-05T22:47:53","slug":"there-is-never-but-one-on-the-earth-at-a-time","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2021\/11\/there-is-never-but-one-on-the-earth-at-a-time\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cThere is never but one on the earth at a time\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Polygamy was one of the most divisive and explosive policies that Joseph Smith ever embraced.\u00a0 In many ways, it was what led to Joseph Smith\u2019s death.\u00a0 He knew that it would be a cause of contention, both within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and with those who were not members, and he made some efforts to both conceal the practice and to set up rules to keep it controlled.\u00a0 Key among the latter was the idea of only one individual serving as the gatekeeper to entering plural marriages.\u00a0 Yet, polygamy was a confusing and messy practice to early church members from the very start and it was difficult to stick to those rules. \u00a0As Amasa Lyman once said about the early attempts to practice plural marriage, \u201cWe obeyed the best we knew how, and, no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance.\u201d<\/a>[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

Joseph Smith\u2019s Presidency<\/strong><\/p>\n

During the 1840s, a series of difficult situations may have led Joseph Smith to centralize the authority to perform plural marriages and eternal marriages to the office of church president. First, Benjamin Johnson recalled that in Kirtland, Ohio in the early 1840s, some church members followed a man who \u201cclaimed he had revealed to them\u00a0the celestial law of marriage.\u201d This led to \u201cmen and women of previous respectability\u201d engaging \u201cin free love.\u201d<\/a>[2]<\/a> \u00a0More significantly, the assistant president of the LDS Church and mayor of Nauvoo, John C. Bennett, seduced women in Nauvoo by claiming that Joseph Smith had authorized extramarital sexuality if it was kept secret. \u00a0Joseph Smith\u2014furious at Bennett\u2019s infractions\u2014removed him from office and had him excommunicated in May 1842. \u00a0Afterwards, Bennett and Smith engaged in a public war of accusations towards each other. \u00a0Thus, in at least two circumstances, the idea of plural marriage had been used as a license for adultery.<\/p>\n

Even when individuals performed marriages to implement polygamy, Joseph Smith was cautious about how they were authorized. \u00a0A little over a year after the Bennett excommunication, Hyrum Smith sealed Parley P. Pratt to both Mary Ann Frost and Elizabeth Brotherton in Joseph Smith\u2019s absence. \u00a0Later, Joseph Smith rebuked Hyrum for performing the marriage sealings without his authorization. \u00a0According to Brigham Young, Joseph told his brother that if Hyrum did not stop performing sealings without his authorization, \u201che would go to hell and all those he sealed with him.\u201d<\/a>[3]<\/a> \u00a0Soon after that incident, Joseph Smith recorded his revelation on plural marriage, which declared that relationships \u201cthat are not made and entered into and Sealed\u00a0by the Holy Spirit of promise\u00a0of him who is anointed\u00a0. . . are of no\u00a0effect<\/span>\u00a0efficacy, virtue or force in and after the resurrection from the\u00a0dead,\u201d and that \u201cthere is never but one on the earth at a time, on whom\u00a0this power and the\u00a0Keys\u00a0of this\u00a0priesthood\u00a0is conferred\u201d (who, at that time, was \u201cmy Servant Joseph\u201d).<\/a>[4]<\/a>\u00a0 This set up a clear line of authorization, though it would prove difficult to decide who inherited that right when Joseph Smith died.<\/p>\n

Apostolic Interregnum<\/strong><\/p>\n

After Joseph Smith\u2019s death in 1844, Brigham Young tried to follow the pattern of only \u201cone on the earth at a time\u201d having authority by keeping control of plural marriages centralized in his own hands. \u00a0The Quorum of the Twelve collectively assumed leadership of much of the LDS Church in August 1844, with Brigham Young as the quorum president.\u00a0 Yet, within their ranks, there were disagreements over whether they functioned as that \u201cone on the earth\u201d as a group or whether it was the president of the quorum who held the power. \u00a0\u00a0Some felt that it was the right of the president of the Quorum of the Twelve.\u00a0 For example, in the fall of 1844, Wilford Woodruff noted in a letter that he believed the sealing authority \u201cis a right exclusively belonging to the quorum of the Twelve on the president of the Quorum.\u201d<\/a>[5]<\/a> \u00a0In 1845, Brigham Young affirmed in a letter that he believed that \u201cthe sealing power is always vested in one man . . . [and] all sealings must be performed by the man holding the keys or by his dictation, and that man is the president of the Church.\u201d<\/a>[6]<\/a> \u00a0Again, in 1846, the Quorum of the Twelve asserted that \u201cno man has a right to Attend to the ordinance of sealing except the President of the Church or those who are directed by him so to do.\u201d<\/a>[7]<\/a> \u00a0In each of these cases, the president of the church was the one man who held the right to the sealing authority. \u00a0As the president of the quorum that led the church, Brigham Young assumed that he functioned as the president of the church in this regard.<\/p>\n

While President Young made that assumption, not everyone in the quorum felt the same way.\u00a0 In the early years of his leadership, Brigham Young faced several challenges to his assumed right to be the one man to control sealing ordinances. \u00a0Most significant among these was a disagreement with William Smith that focused on the sealing authority. \u00a0In October 1844, just months after the death of Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff reported in a letter that there were significant divisions in the LDS Church in the eastern United States. According to his report, William Smith\u2014another member of the Quorum of the Twelve and the younger brother of Joseph Smith\u2014had been stirring up trouble in that area along with George J. Adams and Samuel Brannan. \u00a0Central to the developing difficulty with Smith was control over the sealing power. \u00a0Woodruff heard reports that Brannan had performed a sealing and when he brought it up to William Smith, they had a disagreement. \u00a0Woodruff felt that Brannan\u2019s \u201cadministrations are not legal\u201d because \u201cit is a right exclusively belonging to the quorum of the Twelve on the president of the Quorum [and] not legal with those who are not Endowed.\u201d \u00a0Smith, however, believed that Brannan\u2019s sealings were valid, for \u201cany Elder can do it that has power to marry at all\u201d and the quorum\u2019s exclusive authority referred only \u201cto exclusive privleges, & [does] not <refferance> to sealing a man to his wife for Eternity.\u201d<\/a>[8]<\/a> \u00a0From this, it becomes apparent that Elder Smith and his associates had fundamental disagreements over whether the sealing power was centralized or democratized.<\/p>\n

William Smith continued to challenge the authority of Brigham Young. \u00a0William Clayton, on the day before William was ordained as the patriarch, commented in his diary: “Wm. Smith is coming out in opposition to the Twelve. . . . William says he has sealed some women to men and he considers he is not accountable to Brigham nor the Twelve nor any one else.”<\/a>[9]<\/a> \u00a0In the following months, William indicated that as the closest adult male blood relative to Joseph Smith, the patriarch, and as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve (with nominally equal authority to Brigham Young), this added up to greater authority than Brigham Young and as such, he should be president of the church.<\/a>[10]<\/a> \u00a0Sealing authority was central to his claims. \u00a0As patriarch, he claimed to \u201chold the\u00a0sealing\u00a0blessings\u00a0of my\u00a0church, even the holy spirit of promise,\u00a0whereby ye\u00a0are sealed up unto the day of redemption,\u201d as had been promised to Hyrum Smith when he was called to be patriarch in an 1841 revelation (D&C 124).<\/a>[11]<\/a> \u00a0Responding to these claims in a letter to William, Brigham Young stated that \u201cthe sealing power is always vested in one man . . . and that man is the president of the Church,\u201d while the patriarch of the Church only had sealing power to the extent that the president of the church delegated it to him.<\/a>[12]<\/a> \u00a0William continued to battle for the \u201cSmith family rights\u201d\u2014both for his own position and for Joseph Smith III to become the president of the church when he was old enough. \u00a0His course of action, bad history, and volatile personality alienated church members, and William Smith was excommunicated from the church on Sunday, October 19, 1845 by unanimous vote.<\/a>[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

While the William Smith incident was the most significant disagreement after the death of Joseph Smith, different understandings of church structure after the death of Joseph Smith continued to cause confusion over the authority to perform plural marriages. \u00a0Parley P. Pratt and John Taylor performed plural marriages for each other in Winter Quarters while the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve were on the way to Utah in 1847. \u00a0At the time, the church was governed collectively by the Quorum of the Twelve rather than a First Presidency. \u00a0As such, Pratt believed that \u201cone of them [the Twelve] by reason of age is the President of the Quorum and of the church . . . [but] all the 12 are alike in keys power might majesty & dominion.\u201d<\/a>[14]<\/a> \u00a0Thus, as an apostle, he believed he could perform polygamous marriages without the express permission of the president because he had equal authority to the president. \u00a0Brigham Young disagreed\u2014he accused Pratt and Taylor of adultery and declared that they had \u201ccommitted an insult on the Holy Priesthood.\u201d<\/a>[15]<\/a> \u00a0Their unauthorized sealings so incensed Young that after Pratt had been murdered while serving a mission in Arkansas ten years later, he stated that when \u201cBro. Parley\u2019s blood was spilt, I was glad for it for he paid the debt he owed, for he whored.\u201d<\/a>[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

President Young feared that men would continue to abuse the idea of plural marriage and continued to push for recognition of his authority in controlling plural marriages. \u00a0Speaking in 1847, he claimed that one reason for centralization of authority was to reduce occurrences of Mormon men going<\/p>\n

to some woman that does not understand which is right or wrong and tell her that she cannot be saved without a man and he has almighty power and can exalt and save her and likely tell her that there is no harm for them to sleep together before they are sealed, then go to some clod head of an elder and get him to say their ceremony, all done without the knowledge or counsel of the authority of this church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cThis,\u201d Brigham stated, \u201cis not right and will not be suffered.\u201d<\/a>[17]<\/a> \u00a0In one example of not suffering it, William W. Phelps was excommunicated on December 5, 1847 for being married to three women by H. B. Jacobs without the proper authorization. \u00a0Young stated that the marriages weren\u2019t valid and that Phelps had committed adultery.<\/a>[18]<\/a> \u00a0Likewise, William McCary had been excommunicated and expelled from Winter Quarters earlier in 1847 for performing his own highly sexualized version of polygamous sealings without proper authority.<\/a>[19]<\/a> \u00a0Brigham Young worked to make it so that his understanding of his authority would be observed in the future when the First Presidency was reorganized soon afterwards.<\/p>\n

Brigham Young\u2019s Presidency<\/strong><\/p>\n

During the first decade in Utah, Brigham Young exercised centralized control over approving plural marriages. As non-Mormon observer John Williams Gunnison wrote in 1852: \u201cThe Seer alone has the power, which he can use by delegation, of granting the privilege of increasing the number of wives: the rule of primitive ages is applied in the case, and the suitor must first have the consent of the parents, then consult the lady, and the Seer.\u201d<\/a>[20]<\/a> \u00a0Likewise, in late 1853, Parley P. Pratt wrote to Brigham Young for approval to marry Keziah Downes and stated that: \u201cIt requires only you[r] sanction<\/em>, the Lady\u2019s Consent,<\/em>\u2014and the Seal of God <\/em>to complete the appointment.\u201d<\/a>[21]<\/a> \u00a0Orson Pratt also wrote in 1853 that:<\/p>\n

No man in Utah, who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain another, has any right to make any propositions of marriage to a lady, until he has consulted the President over the whole church, and through him, obtains a revelation from God, as to whether it would be pleasing in His sight. If he is forbidden by revelation, that ends the matter: if, by revelation, the privilege is granted, he still has no right to consult the feelings of the young lady, until he has obtained the approbation of her parents, provided they are living in Utah; if their consent cannot be obtained, this also ends the matter. But if the parents or guardians freely give their consent, then he may make propositions of marriage to the young lady; if she refuse these propositions, this also ends the matter; but if she accept, a day is generally set apart by the parties for the marriage ceremony to be celebrated.<\/a>[22]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This was reiterated in 1857 by a general authority of the church, Albert P. Rockwood, who taught a group of men in Provo that: \u201cIf you whant a wife, you first ask Brigham, then the Perants & next the female.\u201d<\/a>[23]<\/a> \u00a0In all these cases, only four people needed to approve the sealing\u2014the parents of the woman, the perspective wife, and Brigham Young.<\/p>\n

If approval was given, the president of the church would perform the marriage and sealing ordinance or delegate it to another man who had priesthood authority. \u00a0English explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton observed in 1860 that: \u201cThe marriage ceremony is performed . . . by the Prophet, who can, however, depute any follower, as Mr. Heber Kimball, a simple apostle, or even an elder, to act for him.\u201d<\/a>[24]<\/a><\/p>\n

Even though the LDS Church president had the final say in the matter, eventually it became necessary to use local church leaders as gatekeepers to approval. As indicated in the Gunnison and Pratt sources above, prior to 1857, men only needed the approval of the church president, the woman, and perhaps her parents to enter plural marriage. \u00a0Accounts from the 1860s indicated that Brigham Young expected men to receive approval from their stake president and bishop as well as by himself. \u00a0For example, Charles R. Bailey mentioned that when he wanted to marry two girls in 1863, he first went \u201cover to President Peter Maughan [the stake president] And took the girls with me And asked him for A Recomend to go to the Endowment house And take these two girls for wifes.\u201d<\/a>[25]<\/a> \u00a0Charles L. Walker recorded that at a St. George social in 1864: \u201cI asked Bro. Brigham if I could take another wife. He said I have no objection if it is all right with your Bishop and President.\u201d<\/a>[26]<\/a> \u00a0President Heber J. Grant confirmed that this was the case later in Utah when he recalled that:<\/p>\n

During the time that we were preaching and practicing plural marriage . . . no individual was permitted to take a plural wife without the written recommendation of the bishop of the ward in which he resided, vouching for his character. Not only that, the president of the stake had to vouch for his character as well. \u00a0And before he could go into the temple to marry a plural wife the President of the Church had to give him a recommend.<\/a>[27]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In these accounts from the 1860s and later, local approval from bishops and stake presidents were expected prior to approval from the president of the church.<\/p>\n

The tipping point that made additional layers of bureaucracy necessary seems to be the Mormon Reformation of 1856\u20131857. \u00a0This reformation was an attempt by church leaders to rekindle faith and testimony throughout the LDS Church, though it led to excesses. \u00a0Brigham Young encouraged leaders to \u201cfiguratively, . . . have it rain pitchforks, tines downwards, from this pulpit,\u201d<\/a>[28]<\/a> and one of the subjects leaders pushed for more conformity on was plural marriage. \u00a0Pressure to marry became so intense that Ellen Spencer Clawson noted that in early 1857, leaders were insisting that \u201cthe brethren here . . . take more wives, whether they want to or not . . . Indeed this is the greatest time for marrying I ever knew.\u201d<\/a>[29]<\/a> \u00a0Statistics indicate that the number of plural marriages in relation to the population was 65 percent higher in 1856\u201357 than in any other two-year period in Utah history.<\/a>[30]<\/a> \u00a0Because of this rapid increase in marriages, Brigham Young\u2019s office became swamped with requests. \u00a0Erastus Snow noted that: \u201cThis people are makeing a great rush to Presidents Youngs office to get wives sealed to them. On sunday night Presidet Young sealed men & women till it was time for the prayer circle to meet. Then He had to turn a room full out of Doors to wait another time.\u201d<\/a>[31]<\/a> \u00a0To deal with the issue, in January 1857, President Young delegated the responsibility, telling a subordinate to say \u201cyes<\/em>\u201d to everyone recommended by their bishop.<\/a>[32]<\/a> \u00a0Using local ecclesiastical officers as gatekeepers seems to have become standard policy after the Mormon Reformation.<\/p>\n

The transition to requiring local ecclesiastical officers\u2019 approval was sometimes messy. \u00a0When Rockwood taught that \u201cyou first ask Brigham, then the Perants & next the female,\u201d<\/a>[33]<\/a> in 1857, he did so two months after President Young directed that local leaders should approve the marriages before people approached the president of the church. \u00a0An interesting case from this time involved Zerah Pulsipher<\/a>, who was one of the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy, like Rockwood. \u00a0He also seems to have missed the shift in policy and paid a price for it. \u00a0In 1862, Pulsipher became the highest-ranking church leader to face a disciplinary council for abuse of the sealing authority before the 1890 manifesto.<\/p>\n

Zerah Pulsipher\u2019s abuse of the sealing authority poses an interesting case. \u00a0He was considered a general authority, yet, on April 12, 1862, Zerah was the subject of a church trial for \u201csealing women to men without authority.\u201d \u00a0As a result, \u201che was required to be rebaptized & had the privilege of Being ordained into the High Priest Quorum.\u201d[34]<\/a>\u00a0 In addition, Zerah was released from his position in the presidency, which his son-in-law called \u201ca very hard loss in his old age.\u201d[35]<\/a>\u00a0 Some years previous to the trial, a friend of Pulsipher by the name of Wm Bailey had asked Pulsipher to perform two polygamous marriages for him\u2014one to Hannah Hughes in 1856 (which ended in divorce) and one to Harriet P. in 1861. \u00a0By February 1862, President Brigham Young had been alerted to problems with the way the marriages had been authorized and requested information from Pulsipher and Bailey\u2019s bishop, Frederick Kesler. \u00a0The bishop reported the circumstances of the marriages and complained that \u201call this marrying has been done over Jordan under the jurisdiction of the 16th<\/sup> ward with out my approbation or concent in the least.\u201d<\/a>[36]<\/a><\/p>\n

The second of the two marriages seems to have been more problematic in the eyes of church officials. Kesler stated that, \u201cWm Bailey asked me for a recommend to you [Brigham Young] fer to get another wife. I told him to call again, which he did accompanied with the girl which he intended to marry (a Harriet Pareter) they were on their way to your office. I did not feel justified in giving him a recommend & referred him to you in person. He accordingly saw you & returned home[,] took the girl[,] called on Zera Pulsipher & he married them on the 28th<\/sup> day of Nov. 1861.\u201d<\/a>[37]<\/a> \u00a0According to Zerah\u2019s son-in-law, John Alger, \u201cOld man baly came to father [Zerah] Puslipher some time a go and told him that President Young told him to go to him father Pulsipher and that the he should marry a cirtain girl to him[,] Baly[,] which father Pulsipher done.\u201d \u00a0Alger called this an \u201cover sight\u201d on Zerah\u2019s part.<\/a>[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

The lines of authority were somewhat confusing in this situation. Whether or not President Young approved, Bailey circumvented a final approval from his bishop by approaching Zerah Pulsipher to perform the marriage. \u00a0Pulsipher technically outranked the bishop in the LDS Church hierarchy but didn\u2019t have jurisdiction over local issues. \u00a0Alger referred to the unauthorized marriages as an oversight and it seems that Zerah\u2019s two main oversights were not approving the sealings with the bishop and not checking with President Young to make sure that he had authorized the marriages, only relying on Bailey\u2019s word.\u00a0 It is entirely possible that Young had authorized the marriage, pending Kesler\u2019s approval, but Zerah missed out on a change in policy and assumed that the church president\u2019s approval was all that was necessary to perform a sealing, hence Kesler\u2019s complaint that it was done \u201cwith out my approbation or concent in the least.\u201d<\/a>[39]<\/a><\/p>\n

After Brigham Young<\/strong><\/p>\n

After Brigham Young\u2019s death, while pressure from the U.S. government ratcheted up, the authorization system became more dilute.\u00a0 At first, authorization during the post-Brigham Young apostolic interim and John Taylor\u2019s presidency seems to have continued using bureaucracy to approve plural marriages. Heber J. Grant\u2019s recollections of requiring a recommend approved by a bishop, stake president, and the church president to enter a plural marriage was rooted from his time as a stake president during John Taylor\u2019s presidency. As increased pressure was placed on Latter-day Saints to abandon polygamy, however, church leaders began to pursue a public image of reforming the church while maintaining a private belief that polygamy should continue.<\/p>\n

To help create plausible deniability, marriages were often authorized without receiving direct approval from the church president. \u00a0During an 1884 trial, John Taylor, the president of the church, was brought as a witness to testify whether or not a polygamous marriage had been performed. \u00a0When asked, \u201cWhen this authority is conferred upon any one by you, is it an authority limited to some particular case, or a general authority?\u201d \u00a0President Taylor responded that: \u201cIt would be a general authority until rescinded.\u201d \u00a0When asked: \u201cWho in this city is authorized to celebrate plural marriages?\u201d he stated that: \u201cA great many have been appointed\u2014hundreds.\u201d \u00a0Further indicating a dilution in centralized control over sealings to plural wives, Taylor stated that: \u201cThere is no specific place appointed in which marriages occur\u201d and that that he recalled many marriages begin performed \u201coutside of any one of the Endowment Houses within the past three years.\u201d \u00a0Finally, when asked if he knew whether the defendant \u201chas taken a plural wife or not,\u201d President Taylor stated that he didn\u2019t know and he did not know that he had any means to find out.<\/a>[40]<\/a> \u00a0If this is taken as an honest statement, it indicates that the president of the church was not aware of the marriage that had been performed, likely because it had been approved and performed by church leaders at a local level who, as Taylor indicated, had been given general authority to do so.<\/p>\n

This seems to have remained the case during the era between the 1890 Manifesto and the 1904 Second Manifesto.\u00a0 For example, a Latter-day Saint named Elva Richardson Shumway recalled that in Mexico in early 1904, Anthony Ivins, the stake president in Colonia Ju\u00e1rez, told the Saints that plural marriages had to happen soon because \u201che still had the sealing power, but it was going to be taken.\u201d\u00a0 According to her recollection: \u201cPresident Ivins had the sealing power and he had been commissioned to perform those marriages.\u00a0 He had the right and authority to do so which he had been doing for years.\u00a0 But after the Church clamped down on it, he no longer had the power.\u00a0 It was taken from everyone at this time.\u201d<\/a>[41]<\/a>\u00a0 Ivins wasn\u2019t punished for doing this marriage at that late date\u2014in fact, he was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1907 and the First Presidency in 1921.\u00a0 Yet, there was also a shift coming due to the Reed Smoot Hearings, which led to the LDS Church truly abandoning plural marriages and to restricting the sealing authority.<\/p>\n

Today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, plural marriages during this life are forbidden and the sealing authority for monogamous marriages is restricted to being performed in the temples by authorized sealers, as delegated by the president of the church.\u00a0 After receiving a recommend for living ordinances from the local bishop and stake president (or equivalent officers), \u201ca temple marriage or sealing is usually performed by a sealer who is assigned to the temple where the couple will be married or sealed.\u201d<\/a>[42]<\/a>\u00a0 Functionally, this is similar to the situation at the turn of the 20th<\/sup> century, where specific people were authorized to perform sealings without having to receive authorization from the president of the church in each case.\u00a0 The key difference here is that the church\u2019s policy on plural marriages is now \u201cthat\u00a0all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church and will be liable to be dealt with, according to the rules and regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom.\u201d<\/a>[43]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Updated 2021-11-26<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Amasa Lyman, \u201cMarriage: Its Benefits,\u201d April 5, 1866, Journal of Discourses<\/em>, 26 vols. (Liverpool: Latter-day Saints\u2019 Book Depot, 1854\u201386): 11:207.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review<\/em> (Independence, Missouri: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Co., 1947), 84.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> , Brigham Young to William Smith, August 10, 1845, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Church History Library (CHL) https:\/\/prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com\/2021\/09\/13\/brigham-young-to-william-smith-10-august-1845\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Joseph Smith, “Revelation, 12 July 1843 [D&C 132],” online typescript (Salt Lake City: Church Historian\u2019s Press, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132\/1<\/a>), 1.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Wilford Woodruff to Brigham Young, October 9\u201314, 1844, Brigham Young Collection, CHL.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Young to Smith, August 10, 1845, Brigham Young Collection, CHL.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff\u2019s Journal: 1833-1898<\/em>, ed. Scott G. <\/em>Kenney, 9 vols.<\/em> (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1983), 3:62 (July 24, 1846).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Woodruff to Young, October 9\u201314, 1844, Brigham Young Collection, CHL.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> William Clayton Diary, May 23, 1845.\u00a0 Cited in Irene M. Bates and E. Gary Smith, Lost Legacy: The Mormon Office of Presiding Patriarch <\/em>(Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996), 82.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> See Bates and Smith, Lost Legacy<\/em>, 59\u201395.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Joseph Smith, \u201cRevelation, 19 January 1841 [D&C 124],” online typescript (Salt Lake City: Church Historian\u2019s Press, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-19-january-1841-dc-124\/11<\/a>), 13.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Brigham Young to William Smith, August 10, 1845, Brigham Young Collection, CHL.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Bates and Smith Lost Legacy<\/em>, 93.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Parley P. Pratt Discourse, May 23, 1847, General Church Minutes, CHL.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> \u201cMinutes of Councils, Meetings, & Journey,\u201d November 16, 1847. \u00a0Cited in Gary James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith<\/em> (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 58.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Historian’s Office general Church minutes, 1839-1877; 1861-1877; 1865 May-September; Salt Lake City, 1865 May 1; Church History Library.\u00a0 Cited in John G. Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet <\/em>(Cambridge, Mass and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2012), 271.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> John D. Lee, Journals of John D. Lee<\/em>, ed. Charles Kelley (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984), 80 (Feb. 16, 1847).<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Hosea Stout, <\/em>On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout 1844<\/em>\u20131861<\/em>, ed. Juanita Brooks, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964), 1:289\u2013290 (Nov. 30, 1847)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> See Newell G. Bringhurst, \u201cElijah Abel and the Changing Status of Blacks Within Mormonism,\u201d in Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, <\/em>ed. Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984), 135\u2013136. See also Nelson Whipple, Autobiography and Journal, CHL.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> John Williams Gunnison, The Mormons, or, Latter-Day Saints, in the Valley of The Great Salt Lake<\/em> (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Granbo & Co., 1852), 70.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Parley P. Pratt to Brigham Young, December 21, 1853, Parley P. Pratt Letters, Mormon File, Huntington Library.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Orson Pratt, \u201cCelestial Marriage,\u201d\u00a0The Seer<\/em>, Feb. 1853, 31\u201332, https:\/\/prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com\/2021\/10\/17\/excerpt-from-celestial-marriage-by-orson-pratt\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Albert P. Rockwood, \u201cRecord of the mass Quorum held in Provo City,\u201d 13 March 1857, Elias Blackburn Papers, Vault MSS 785, Harold B. Lee Library. \u00a0Cited in Turner, Brigham Young<\/em>, 240.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Richard F. Burton, City of the Saints, and Across the Rocky Mountains to California<\/em> (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1862), 427.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Autobiography of Charles R. Bailey, cited in Hardy, Doing the Works of Abraham<\/em>, 159\u2013160.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Charles Walker, Diary of Charles Lowell Walker<\/em>, ed. A. Karl Larson and Katharine Mile Larson, 2 vols. (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 1:250.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Heber J. Grant, One Hundredth Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints <\/em>(Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1930), 185.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Brigham Young, \u201cThe Necessity of the Saints Living Up to the Light Which Has Been Given Them,\u201d March 2, 1856, Journal of Discourses<\/em>, 3:222.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Ellen Spencer Clawson to Ellen Pratt McGary, February 15, 1857. \u00a0Cited in Hardy, Doing the Works of Abraham<\/em>, 119\u2013120.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Stanley S. Ivins, “Notes on Mormon Polygamy,”\u00a0Western Humanities Review<\/em>, 10, no. 3 (Summer 1956): 231.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff\u2019s Journal<\/em>, 5:14 (Feb. 2, 1857).<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Minutes of the President\u2019s Office, January 14 and 22, 1857, series 9, box 14, fd. 2, Leonard J. Arrington Papers, Archives and Special Collections, Milton R. Merrill Library, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 1\u20132.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Albert P. Rockwood, \u201cRecord of the mass Quorum held in Provo City,\u201d March 13, 1857, Elias Blackburn Papers, Vault MSS 785, Harold B. Lee Library, cited in Turner, Brigham Young<\/em>, 240.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff\u2019s Journal<\/em>, 6:39 (Apr. 12, 1862).<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> John Alger letter, Apr. 13, 1862<\/a>, in Zerah Pulsipher Papers, circa 1848\u20131874, MS 753 fd 2, CHL, https:\/\/zerahpulsipherplace.wordpress.com\/2023\/02\/05\/john-alger-letter-1862\/.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Frederick Kesler to Brigham Young, Feb. 7, 1862<\/a>, Brigham Young office files, CHL, https:\/\/zerahpulsipherplace.wordpress.com\/2023\/02\/05\/frederick-kesler-to-brigham-young-feb-7-1862\/.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Kesler to Young, Feb. 7, 1862.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Alger, Apr. 13, 1862.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Kesler to Young, Feb 7, 1862.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> \u201cThe Polygamy Trial,\u201d Deseret Evening News<\/em>, Oct. 18, 1884.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Elva Richardson Shumway, interviewed by Leonard R. Grover, April 25, 1980, Mesa Arizona, 7\u20139, LDS Polygamy Oral History Project, Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.\u00a0 Cited in Hardy, Doing the Works<\/em>, 368\u2013369.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/em>, version 7\/21 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2021), 27.3.2.5, https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/manual\/general-handbook\/27-temple-ordinances-for-the-living?lang=eng<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Joseph F. Smith, \u201cOfficial Statement,\u201d Seventy-Fourth Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/em> (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1904), 75, https:\/\/prophetsseersandrevelators.wordpress.com\/2021\/10\/31\/the-second-manifesto\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Polygamy was one of the most divisive and explosive policies that Joseph Smith ever embraced.\u00a0 In many ways, it was what led to Joseph Smith\u2019s death.\u00a0 He knew that it would be a cause of contention, both within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and with those who were not members, and he made some efforts to both conceal the practice and to set up rules to keep it controlled.\u00a0 Key among the latter was the idea of only one individual serving as the gatekeeper to entering plural marriages.\u00a0 Yet, polygamy was a confusing and messy practice to early church members from the very start and it was difficult to stick to those rules. \u00a0As Amasa Lyman once said about the early attempts to practice plural marriage, \u201cWe obeyed the best we knew how, and, no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance.\u201d[1] Joseph Smith\u2019s Presidency During the 1840s, a series of difficult situations may have led Joseph Smith to centralize the authority to perform plural marriages and eternal marriages to the office of church president. First, Benjamin Johnson recalled that in Kirtland, Ohio in the early 1840s, some church members followed a man who \u201cclaimed he […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10397,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,2895,18,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-church-history","category-come-follow-me-currculum","category-general-doctrine","category-scriptures"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10397"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42228"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42228\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44281,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42228\/revisions\/44281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}