Official Declaration 1: Not Unanimous

[Buckeye]

I learned something new today. Contrary to what is said in the 1981-edition of the D&C that I carry, the vote to approve President Woodruff's 1890 manifesto was not unanimous. A slim majority approved the measure. Many others abstained (including B H Roberts). And at least one vocally opposed. This historical error has been corrected in the online edition of the scriptures, as well as the recent Portuguese revision. Just another example of how the Church is serious about correcting historical errors in our teachings. Good time.

 

FWIW, I also doubled-checked OD-2 to see it was revised. The online version still says that that declaration was unanimously approved.

 

Sources:

 

OD-1: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

OD- 2: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

History behind the update: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2015/09/125-years-of-the-manifesto-and-an-overlooked-change-in-mormon-scripture/

LDS essay on the end on polygamy: https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng#22

 

[Mars]

huh.  go figure.

[Buckeye]

huh.  go figure.

 

Considering how much the saints had suffered for the principle, the challenge to polygamous families going forward, and that two apostles would resign in protest over the second manifest 14 years later, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that there was a strong lack of unanimity among the saints in 1890. That's why OD-1 reads as a piece of persuasion (sort of, "we really have no other choice") in contrast to OD-2 ("the long-promised day has come").

[rockpond]

Considering how much the saints had suffered for the principle, the challenge to polygamous families going forward, and that two apostles would resign in protest over the second manifest 14 years later, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that there was a strong lack of unanimity among the saints in 1890. That's why OD-1 reads as a piece of persuasion (sort of, "we really have no other choice") in contrast to OD-2 ("the long-promised day has come").

 

The fact that it took another 14 years to actually stop polygamous marriages being done by a minority of church leaders also shows a lack of unanimity and acceptance of President Woodruff's manifesto.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The fact that it took another 14 years to actually stop polygamous marriages being done by a minority of church leaders also shows a lack of unanimity and acceptance of President Woodruff's manifesto.

I don't really think so. Given that polygamy was illegal during most of its history, the church has a long history of publically saying or implying one thing while privately doing another. Starting with section Section 101 on marriage, to Joseph Smith saying "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one" church members were used to hearing one thing in public but privately practicing another. I think initally the manifesto was viewed in this manner. It's not that they didn't accept it, its that they didn't really think that Pres Woodruff meant all plural marriages should stop.

[Mars]

Considering how much the saints had suffered for the principle, the challenge to polygamous families going forward, and that two apostles would resign in protest over the second manifest 14 years later, I guess it shouldn't be surprising that there was a strong lack of unanimity among the saints in 1890. That's why OD-1 reads as a piece of persuasion (sort of, "we really have no other choice") in contrast to OD-2 ("the long-promised day has come").

 

right - i'm not confused about the climate surrounding the manifesto.  and like rockpond said, it's not news to me that polygamy didn't cease in all cases everywhere the moment president Woodruff penned it.  as such, i'm not surprised it wasn't unanimously supported.

 

i never gave it a second thought, and even now it doesn't bother me.  but i'm a titch surprised that it was reported as unanimous.

[Alan]

Is it just me or is the correction simply a removal of the statement saying it was approved unanimously?

This doesn't amount to a correction in my view, simply an economy with the truth.

 

A correction would read something like "the foregoing was sustained by a majority of the congregation"....... or was it?

[Buckeye]

Is it just me or is the correction simply a removal of the statement saying it was approved unanimously?

This doesn't amount to a correction in my view, simply an economy with the truth.

 

A correction would read something like "the foregoing was sustained by a majority of the congregation"....... or was it?

 

The sources I saw indicate it was a majority, if only a small majority. 

 

And yes, the 'correction' was simply removing the erroneous statement. There is no new language. 

[rockpond]

 I think initally the manifesto was viewed in this manner. It's not that they didn't accept it, its that they didn't really think that Pres Woodruff meant all plural marriages should stop.

 

Maybe I should have said that they didn't seem to accept the manifesto in the same way that it is commonly viewed today.

 

In other words, they didn't accept it as a revelation from God that the practice of plural marriage was to end.

 

I think you and I are getting at the same thing here.

[HappyJackWagon]

The text seems significantly different from what I remember but I only have online access and don't have my physical scriptures with me. Can someone do a side by side comparison. This seems quite a bit different.

[bluebell]

In the 1981 edition of both a Triple and a quad that i have in print, there is no section heading at all, no explanations and no mention of unanimous or not.  The OD simply starts with "To Whom It May Concern:" and continues on from there.

[Bob Crockett]

O.D. No. 1 was unanimously approved.  The proof to that is that the fact that it was canonized in 1908 and no apostle who was in the quorum in 1890 stepped forward to contest it. 

 

Nor did any apostle step forward to contest it when it was announced over the pulpit, or when Pres Woodruff improved upon it with the publication of his revelation about it. 

 

That doesn't mean to say there wasn't dispute, discussion or lobbying against it.  That often happens with many of the Q12's actions.  There's a lot going on with their actions, and many are unhappy with a particular decision, but they all line up behind it and "consent" notwithstanding prior objections.

 

Elders Taylor and Cowley were later dropped from the Q12 over the interpretation of the manifesto, but they never contested it.

 

When Joseph F. Smith testified before the Senate in the Reed Smoot hearings, he said that OD 1 was unanimous and a revelation, although he admitted he was not faithful in following it.

 

Fundamentalists say the following things about OD1:   (1) It is not "thus saith the Lord" and (2) it was not unanimous.  As such, they say, it was not a revelation.  

 

But, revelations need not say "thus saith the Lord," and OD1 became unanimous when it was announced and no apostle opposed it or said they opposed it.  

 

It is like the testimony of the Eight Witnesses.  Where is the signed copy of their testimony?  Well, when the Book of Mormon was in publication with their Witness, none of them stepped forward to say that wasn't their testimony.  There was no need for a signed document with their testimony; there is also no need for OD1 to bear the signatures of all the Q12; once it was published and there was no dissent, it was adopted as an institutional statement without opposition.

[Buckeye]

In the 1981 edition of both a Triple and a quad that i have in print, there is no section heading at all, no explanations and no mention of unanimous or not.  The OD simply starts with "To Whom It May Concern:" and continues on from there.

 

Check out the church's comparison of the 1981 and 2013 versions: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

 

Maybe you have a rare misprint. Could be worth $1,000's.

[Buckeye]

O.D. No. 1 was unanimously approved.  The proof to that is that the fact that it was canonized in 1908 and no apostle who was in the quorum in 1890 stepped forward to contest it. 

 

Nor did any apostle step forward to contest it when it was announced over the pulpit, or when Pres Woodruff improved upon it with the publication of his revelation about it. 

 

That doesn't mean to say there wasn't dispute, discussion or lobbying against it.  That often happens with many of the Q12's actions.  There's a lot going on with their actions, and many are unhappy with a particular decision, but they all line up behind it and "consent" notwithstanding prior objections.

 

Elders Taylor and Cowley were later dropped from the Q12 over the interpretation of the manifesto, but they never contested it.

 

When Joseph F. Smith testified before the Senate in the Reed Smoot hearings, he said that OD 1 was unanimous and a revelation, although he admitted he was not faithful in following it.

 

Fundamentalists say the following things about OD1:   (1) It is not "thus saith the Lord" and (2) it was not unanimous.  As such, they say, it was not a revelation.  

 

But, revelations need not say "thus saith the Lord," and OD1 became unanimous when it was announced and no apostle opposed it or said they opposed it.  

 

It is like the testimony of the Eight Witnesses.  Where is the signed copy of their testimony?  Well, when the Book of Mormon was in publication with their Witness, none of them stepped forward to say that wasn't their testimony.  There was no need for a signed document with their testimony; there is also no need for OD1 to bear the signatures of all the Q12; once it was published and there was no dissent, it was adopted as an institutional statement without opposition.

 

I'm not disputing the validity of the declaration, or that it was later adopted as a revelation. My point is directed to the accuracy have saying the declaration was unanimously approved at the 1890 conference - precisely what the (now-removed) sentence claimed. The natural reading the 1981 version of OD-1 is that the declaration was unanimously approved at the 1890 conference by all in attendance. Limiting approval to just the Q12 doesn't make sense because the declaration was read by President Snow to the entire assembly and he asked the entire assembly for their vote. Dating the approval as coming in 1908 makes no sense for the same reason. Perhaps there is wiggle room regarding "approval", but to be technically correct, in my view, a "unanimous approval" cannot include an abstention.

 

Again, I'm talking about the approval as of 1890, not it's effect today. We don't get to re-write history. Consider the statement "all of the united states outlaw slavery." Today that statement is correct. But in 1790 it was not. So it would be an error to claim that in 1790 all of the states outlawed slavery.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Buckeye

[Bob Crockett]

If your contention is that "all in attendance" at the conference did not unanimously approve as opposed to the Q12, then that is another matter.

 

it wouldn't surprise me that there were people unhappy with the revelation.

 

Your evidence that that claim of unanimous approval was a lie is what?

[jkwilliams]

That's interesting because, at least these days, no decisions are made unless the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 are unanimous. 

[Buckeye]

If your contention is that "all in attendance" at the conference did not unanimously approve as opposed to the Q12, then that is another matter.

 

it wouldn't surprise me that there were people unhappy with the revelation.

 

Your evidence that that claim of unanimous approval was a lie is what?

 

Bob, you're better than that. I never said "lie." I only pointed out the change and the historical error. At least one member of the Q12 failed to approve; Roberts abstained. In my book, that's not an approval. Also, I never claimed the 1890 declaration is not binding today.

 

Below is the 1981-version. I simply can't read the last sentence any other way than as a claim that the declaration was unanimously approved by all persons at the 1890 conference.

 

 

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 intention 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.

 

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

 “I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.” The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

 

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Buckeye

[bluebell]

Check out the church's comparison of the 1981 and 2013 versions: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

 

Maybe you have a rare misprint. Could be worth $1,000's.

 

Nope, i checked three different printed copies with a copyright of 1981.  None of them have any explanation before the OD 1 begins.

 

But i think i see the problem.  I was looking for a  section heading to compare and not looking in the actual body of the section.

Edited September 24, 2015 by bluebell

[Buckeye]

That's interesting because, at least these days, no decisions are made unless the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 are unanimous. 

 

Times were different then. As the church essay discusses, Apostles Cowley and Taylor resigned because of the second manifesto. It's hard to imagine a less unanimous decision. From what I understand, our current correlation movement is a natural outgrowth of our struggle to end polygamy. First the FP/Q12 were correlated. Then lower leaders and the auxiliaries. And finally the membership itself through the home teaching program. At its heart, correlation is an attempt to create unanimity in the church that was lacking in 1890.

[Buckeye]

Nope, i checked three different printed copies with a copyright of 1981.  None of them have any explanation before the OD 1 begins.

 

The link I provided shows the exact language. It's not found in the introduction. It's found immediately following President Snow's request for a vote.

[JAHS]

Check out the church's comparison of the 1981 and 2013 versions: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

 

Maybe you have a rare misprint. Could be worth $1,000's.

 

Many of the changes in the D&C involve section headings where it said that Joseph Smith said something changed to "Joseph Smith's History states".   I am assuming that this is because there were many things recorded in Joseph Smith History that sounds as if he was the one saying something, when in fact  someone else was writing it as if Joseph Smth said it. Probably the reason for these types of changes?

[ksfisher]

Bob, you're better than that. I never said "lie." I only pointed out the change and the historical error. At least one member of the Q12 failed to approve; Roberts abstained. In my book, that's not an approval. Also, I never claimed the 1890 declaration is not binding today.

 

Below is the 1981-version. I simply can't read the last sentence any other way than as a claim that the declaration was unanimously approved by all persons at the 1890 conference.

 

Are you saying that Roberts was the member of the Quorum of the Twelve who failed to approve the manifesto?  If so that's not correct as Roberts was never an apostle, but one of the presidents of the Seventy.   Perhaps I'm misreading.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Are you saying that Roberts was the member of the Quorum of the Twelve who failed to approve the manifesto?  If so that's not correct as Roberts was never an apostle, but one of the presidents of the Seventy.   Perhaps I'm misreading.

The Qof12 did support the manifesto, but most of the apostles and first presidency (including Woodruff himself apparently) continuted to approve new pluaral marriages post manifesto. See Quinn's work from the mid 1980's here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N01_11.pdf

[ksfisher]

The Qof12 did support the manifesto, but most of the apostles and first presidency (including Woodruff himself apparently) continuted to approve new pluaral marriages post manifesto. See Quinn's work from the mid 1980's here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N01_11.pdf

 

Right, it just sounds like Buckeye is saying that Roberts was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.

[JLHPROF]

This has been observed before.

 

OD1 used to include: "The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous."

 

Fortunately I believe this incorrect statement has been removed in new editions.

 

 

However, the essays recently published still state:

"The Deseret News reported that the vote was “unanimous”; most voted in favor, though some abstained from voting.²²

 

Neither of these statements is historically 100% true.  There were those present when the manifesto was put to vote that voted against and it was more than a couple that abstained from voting at all.  In fact there were votes against and it was a small number that actually voted it in.