Here Is An Historical Topic I Have Never Seen Addressed

[Buzzard]

Even though I think it would be fascinating.

The Manifesto occured in 1890. We all know there were a handful of polygamous marriages for a few years after that, until the Second Manifesto, and after that, everyone got the message that this wasn't just wink, wink, nudge, nudge, plural marriage was done. But for those who contracted plural marriages before the manifesto, I have found precious few mentions of those existing marriages AFTER the Manifesto. In some areas, plural wives left their husbands voluntarily. I have heard of some cases where local leaders told polygamous families they had to break up. In some cases, the sentiment was "Good riddance!", in others, these forced divorces were occaisons for tears and heartbreak. But in other areas, the rule seems to have been, no new marriages, but it's OK to keep the ones you already have. Joseph F. Smith fathered children with his plural wives that he married pre-manifesto, so no guidance contrary to this principle seems to have come from the leadership of the church, since the prophet did not drop instantly down to one spouse.

Most of what is out there about plural marriages after the manifesto comes from critical sources showing how those devious Mormons kept marrying multiple women after 1890, but even they don't talk about the families left over from before the Manifesto.

So it makes sense, that in certain-probably mainly rural-corners of the Mormon west, there would have been active, temple-attending men and women in plural marriages well into the 20th century. What where their lives like? What church positions did they hold? How did the community treat them decades after the last plural marriage had been contracted? I did find a tidbit that the last widower who had lived in polygamy died in 1967 in the Mexican colonias. No mention of when his second to last wife had passed away, however. Has anyone seen research on this topic? If not, it seems like a natural. I even ran into a BYU professor of Church History a few years ago who was unaware of so much as a Masters thesis on the subject.

Remember, I am asking not as a critic, but as a descendant of pioneer polygamists. I even have a gangload of 3rd-5th cousins down in Colorado City, but that's another story...

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting question. Don't know the answer, but you may want to look at the following sources:

Embry, Jessie L., “A History of Polygamy in Utah,” in A. Powell, ed., Utah History Encyclopedia (SLC: Univ. of Utah Press, 1994); has a good bibliography; online at http://www.media.uta...E/UHEindex.html , and http://www.media.uta...p/POLYGAMY.html .

Embry, Jessie L., Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (SLC: Kofford Books, 2008).

Hales, Brian C., Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations After the Manifesto (SLC: Greg Kofford Books, 2006/2007).

Edited March 12, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[jcake]

Well, my great-grandfather was one of those who had two wives before the manifesto, and continued on as a polygamist until one of the wives died, I believe in the early 1920's.

[Buzzard]

Interesting question. Don't know the answer, but you may want to look at the following sources:

Embry, Jessie L., “A History of Polygamy in Utah,” in A. Powell, ed., Utah History Encyclopedia (SLC: Univ. of Utah Press, 1994); has a good bibliography; online at http://www.media.uta...E/UHEindex.html , and http://www.media.uta...p/POLYGAMY.html .

Embry, Jessie L., Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle (SLC: Kofford Books, 2008).

Hales, Brian C., Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations After the Manifesto (SLC: Greg Kofford Books, 2006/2007).

From your link: "Although the Mormon Church officially prohibited new plural marriages after 1904, many plural husbands and wives continued to cohabit until their deaths in the 1940s and 1950s." I realize it's an article, not a full treatise, but one (One!)sentence to describe 50-60 years post-Manifesto. I'll check out those books, but most of what I have found covers the splinter groups, not the faithful LDS living out the rest of their lives as an anachronism.

[Calm]

Kathryn Daynes' book only takes it to 1910 it looks like, but I wouldn't be surprised if she had info somewhere on what happened afterwards. You might want to see if you can find something by her on it.

http://www.press.uil...0252026812.html

You can read some of her book online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8RuWiM2-YYAC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=daynes+post+manifesto+polygamy&source=bl&ots=7MF2V3oxz0&sig=HyHrEdibXWSodM9OIS8TBK6Sqds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VnddT_nlLuWQiQLY18y2Cw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited March 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

Wasn't Pres. Grant a polygamist into the 20th Century?

[Calm]

Looks like he was until 1908 until his third wife (his first wife having died in 1893) died in 1908: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heber_J._Grant#Wives

[blackstrap]

This must have been a case of "Don't ask,don't tell " .From the above,it seems that polygamy just sort of "died" out.

[webbles]

I have a great-great-grandfather who had a post-1890 manifesto polygamous marriage (1903). I looked through my history book about him and it mentions that he served as a stake missionary and as a member of the stake high council in the 1920s. His obituary mentions that he was a member of the school board and helped cover the bond for the new school building. The history book also says that he lived with both of his wives during that time. One of the wives was a Relief Society president in the 1920s. He died in the late 1920s and both his wives survived him. He lived in southern New Mexico.

His father lived in St. George with two wives after 1910 (they each had a separate house). When he died, his funeral was announced in the front page of the local newspaper, was held in the St. George Tabernacle, and the speakers included the mayor, the Washington County commissioner, St. George Temple president, the stake president, a former mission president, and his Bishop. He also had children after 1890.

So, there's two stories. I have no idea if it is representative. I could probably find more from other ancestors.

[Bob Crockett]

My great grandfather brought home from his mission in 1904 three new wives to marry in Mexico by Ivins. My ggfather was thereafter excommunicated for it.

[Buzzard]

I have a great-great-grandfather who had a post-1890 manifesto polygamous marriage (1903). I looked through my history book about him and it mentions that he served as a stake missionary and as a member of the stake high council in the 1920s. His obituary mentions that he was a member of the school board and helped cover the bond for the new school building. The history book also says that he lived with both of his wives during that time. One of the wives was a Relief Society president in the 1920s. He died in the late 1920s and both his wives survived him. He lived in southern New Mexico.

His father lived in St. George with two wives after 1910 (they each had a separate house). When he died, his funeral was announced in the front page of the local newspaper, was held in the St. George Tabernacle, and the speakers included the mayor, the Washington County commissioner, St. George Temple president, the stake president, a former mission president, and his Bishop. He also had children after 1890.

So, there's two stories. I have no idea if it is representative. I could probably find more from other ancestors.

I would bet that there are dozens, if not hundreds of stories like this. Plural marriage was so entrenched in the lifestyle of small Mormon towns that it took two manifestos plus an investigation by a committee of apostles in 1909 to shut it down completely. Some folks didn't believe that Salt Lake was serious until they started excommunicating church officials. I'm trying to locate the tomes a couple of you have recommended-that's more than I had found looking on my own, but it looks like most studies, including the books you have referred me to, mainly cover the rise of apostate polygamist groups. That story I know about, all those Barlows running around down there are my distant relatives. Supposedly, though this is third hand information, there was quite a stir at a family reunion several years back when a few Barlows in prairie dresses and long sleeve shirts showed up.

If any of the academics who come to this site know of a doctoral candidate, it seems like this story would make a great dissertation.

[why me]

it would be absurd to believe that once the manifesto came into practice that polygamous marriages would break apart. The men and women who were involved in such marriages were allowed to continue until a divorce or death drove them apart. And this makes sense. Women could not be cast away because the lds church changed policy.

[Jaybear]

So it makes sense, that in certain-probably mainly rural-corners of the Mormon west, there would have been active, temple-attending men and women in plural marriages well into the 20th century. What where their lives like? What church positions did they hold? How did the community treat them decades after the last plural marriage had been contracted? I did find a tidbit that the last widower who had lived in polygamy died in 1967 in the Mexican colonias. No mention of when his second to last wife had passed away, however. Has anyone seen research on this topic? If not, it seems like a natural. I even ran into a BYU professor of Church History a few years ago who was unaware of so much as a Masters thesis on the subject.

Remember, I am asking not as a critic, but as a descendant of pioneer polygamists. I even have a gangload of 3rd-5th cousins down in Colorado City, but that's another story...

From Wiki:

In 1906, [Joseph F.] Smith was brought to trial on a charge of unlawful cohabitation with four women in addition to his lawful wife; he pleaded guilty and was fined $300, the maximum penalty then permitted under the law

it would be absurd to believe that once the manifesto came into practice that polygamous marriages would break apart. The men and women who were involved in such marriages were allowed to continue until a divorce or death drove them apart. And this makes sense. Women could not be cast away because the lds church changed policy.

Not according to Gordon Hinckeley:

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

That makes sense, since according to the manifesto, Mormons were advised not to break the law. A new illegal marriage is no less illegal than continuing with an illegal marriage.

[Buzzard]

Jaybear-

The events we are talking about are more than a century old. It's not helpful to look at an 1890 situation through 2012 eyes. From my reading, there was a tacit, unwritten understanding between the church and the feds that families living in polygamy already would be allowed to continue to "cohabitate", as the government called it, without continued persecution, as long as the new marriages stopped, which in large part happened. As has been established, some additional plural marriages happened, but after the second manifesto, the LDS who had not gotten the message were disabused of any notion that this was a ploy to get the government off the churches back. Any who did not were excommunicated, including one member of the 12.

I don't know if any of us can understand just how much plural marriage was considered an integral part of the gospel back then, even by those who did not practice it. The 1978 revelation was greeted with near unamimous joy, the 1890 and 1904 revelations, not so much.

[Buzzard]

it would be absurd to believe that once the manifesto came into practice that polygamous marriages would break apart. The men and women who were involved in such marriages were allowed to continue until a divorce or death drove them apart. And this makes sense. Women could not be cast away because the lds church changed policy.

There seems to have been some chaos, as the end of the doctrine was interpreted differently in different areas. A GGGrandpa of my wife's told his second wife that he never liked her much anyway, and to hit the road. Because of the end of plural marriage, there never was a divorce, she just moved out. Another ancestor of mine was told by his bishop to pick one of his wives, he wrote in his journal that leaving the other one was worse than death, since she did not leave town, so they saw each other all the time, but could not be husband and wife even though they had been and still had strong feelings for each other, and his first wife remained friends with the former second wife.

I'm not aware of any of my personal ancestors who kept living as plural households, though I would not be surprised to discover some. Unless you count those Barlow cousins of mine who followed Lorin Wooley down to Short Creek.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear-

The events we are talking about are more than a century old. It's not helpful to look at an 1890 situation through 2012 eyes. From my reading, there was a tacit, unwritten understanding between the church and the feds that families living in polygamy already would be allowed to continue to "cohabitate", as the government called it, without continued persecution, as long as the new marriages stopped, which in large part happened. As has been established, some additional plural marriages happened, but after the second manifesto, the LDS who had not gotten the message were disabused of any notion that this was a ploy to get the government off the churches back. Any who did not were excommunicated, including one member of the 12.

I don't know if any of us can understand just how much plural marriage was considered an integral part of the gospel back then, even by those who did not practice it. The 1978 revelation was greeted with near unamimous joy, the 1890 and 1904 revelations, not so much.

Fascinating history. It seems to me that the Manifesto was so poorly received that it became necessary for the leaders to later insist, despite the plain language suggesting otherwise, that the manifesto was divine revelation not merely advice, which advice some chose not to follow.

On this issue, I think the fundamentalist have the better argument. I have high regard for those willing to buck the system, at great personal cost, in support of a higher principle, so long as they don't harm other people.

[BCSpace]

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

Depending on how you look at it, that could mean the practice of the marriage rite was discontinued or the practice of actually living as multiply married persons was discontinued.

[Buzzard]

Fascinating history. It seems to me that the Manifesto was so poorly received that it became necessary for the leaders to later insist, despite the plain language suggesting otherwise, that the manifesto was divine revelation not merely advice, which advice some chose not to follow.

On this issue, I think the fundamentalist have the better argument. I have high regard for those willing to buck the system, at great personal cost, in support of a higher principle, so long as they don't harm other people.

There you go with that 2012 lens again. In 1890, the members of the church had been hounded, jailed, and ground down for nearly 20 years over polygamy. I can see how some of them figured the Manifesto was a trick to get the Feds off the church's back. Also, the 1890 revelation used the word "advice". The 1904 one said if you do, you will be ex'ed.

[Jaybear]

Depending on how you look at it, that could mean the practice of the marriage rite was discontinued or the practice of actually living as multiply married persons was discontinued.

Standing alone that arguably could be true, but quite a stretch of the word "practice." But not in context. In the very same release, your prophet also said:

'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.' One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

[Jaybear]

There you go with that 2012 lens again. In 1890, the members of the church had been hounded, jailed, and ground down for nearly 20 years over polygamy. I can see how some of them figured the Manifesto was a trick to get the Feds off the church's back. Also, the 1890 revelation used the word "advice". The 1904 one said if you do, you will be ex'ed.

The 1904 manifesto was issued by Joseph F. Smith, who also later went onto say under oath: "I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations. I never said that I had a revelation except so far as God has shown me that so-called Mormonism is God's divine truth, that is all."

[Robert F. Smith]

From your link: "Although the Mormon Church officially prohibited new plural marriages after 1904, many plural husbands and wives continued to cohabit until their deaths in the 1940s and 1950s." I realize it's an article, not a full treatise, but one (One!)sentence to describe 50-60 years post-Manifesto. I'll check out those books, but most of what I have found covers the splinter groups, not the faithful LDS living out the rest of their lives as an anachronism.

Jessie Embry, who is at BYU (Redd Center for Western History), is the best expert on such questions and has done a lot of oral interviews on it over the years. She might appreciate you writing down your family information for her files.

When the State of Israel was founded it had to absorb a lot of Jews and Arabs who had multiple wives (perfectly legal under Muslim law). So, even though the new state prohibited future polygynist marriages, those who already had multiple wives were permitted to live out their lives together. I don't know what the rule is in the occupied territories of the West Bank, but I imagine that polygyny is permitted.

Polygyny is likely to become legal inside the United States within the next decade or so, since the basis of Reynolds v U.S. is fundamentally flawed and will likely be reversed along with other cases now being pursued against restrictions on marriage.

[HiJolly]

All of my grandparents grew up in the Mexican colonies. One Ggrandfather died in Logan in 1932 with two of his wives still living, still all in the same home. He wrote in his journal about new hometeachers coming over and getting a bit freaked out. His Stake President was ET Benson. I don't know what his church calling was.

Another Ggrandfather's widow passed away in 1976 in Provo UT, the last of three wives.

[Cobalt-70]

There you go with that 2012 lens again. In 1890, the members of the church had been hounded, jailed, and ground down for nearly 20 years over polygamy. I can see how some of them figured the Manifesto was a trick to get the Feds off the church's back. Also, the 1890 revelation used the word "advice". The 1904 one said if you do, you will be ex'ed.

I don't think you can categorize the Second Manifesto as a "revelation." Wilford Woodruff later claimed to have a revelation associated with the First Manifesto, but as far as I am aware, Joseph F. Smith did not claim to have a similar revelation for the Second Manifesto. It was just an announcement of new church policy at General Conference.

[Cobalt-70]

{duplicate}

Edited March 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Polygyny is likely to become legal inside the United States within the next decade or so, since the basis of Reynolds v U.S. is fundamentally flawed and will likely be reversed along with other cases now being pursued against restrictions on marriage.

If so, what will be the doctrinal basis for the continued ban on Mormon polygamy? The reason given for its discontinuation was that it was illegal, and continuing it would have destroyed the church. If it becomes legal, someone will have to come up with a new justification for continuing the church ban.