← Church History Matters
Church History Matters
180 - Official Declaration 1 CFM - The Official Response To Polygamy In The Church - E50 December 8-14
01:04:14
Loading summary
Transcript79 lines
- [00:00]
A
Like, all they had to say was, this guy's a Mormon. And people would be like, oh, scandal. Oh, yeah, there's no way this guy can be let in.
- [00:10]
B
That's precisely what drove the prophet to his knees again and again. They live in time and space with the rest of us, and they receive revelations based on the circumstances in which they find themselves and their people.
- [00:21]
A
That's how it works. Circumstances cause us to ask the Lord, and then the Lord gives us revelations.
- [00:26]
B
It shows the danger of isolating one verse of Scripture and then generalizing that to cover also circumstances.
- [00:33]
A
And the environment around us directs the prophets to receive the revelations that they do and often come in response to the serious questions they were dealing with. Hello, Scott.
- [00:42]
B
Hello, Casey.
- [00:43]
A
We are near the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, which it feels like everything we've been talking about has been getting juicier and juicier. The closer. Like, we just pack the end with all the controversial stuff. And you and I love to discuss controversy, so this is fun for us.
- [01:02]
B
Like a couple moths to the flames, we are drawn to controversy. And boy, do we have some controversies today.
- [01:10]
A
That might be the best analogy. Yeah. Literally, we're dealing with the two most controversial things in church history, which is plural marriage and race in the priesthood. There should be no trepidation discussing these things. We need to talk about them. We need to talk about the history surrounding them. We need to work our way through the issues surrounding them. And I'm glad that these sections are. These declarations, I guess I should say, are in the Doctrine Covenants because they give us a platform to do so. So I'm glad we get a chance to talk about this. It's actually stuff that I don't mind talking about. I even like talking about because it's good for us.
- [01:47]
B
I like a lot of things, like the fear of the thing is worse than the thing. Like, when you start getting into the history, it's rich, it's complicated. But the best way to handle these controversies is to go right into them, go through them, try to understand what was happening contextually. We know that's one of our cor. Pillars of studying Doctrine and Covenants and history generally. You got to understand the context in which the statements were made and what was going on and what elicited the statement. So, yeah, you're right. This week we're studying. It's called Official Declaration 1 and 2 and the articles of Faith. Last week, like, we ended the Doctrine and Covenants as such. There's no more sections of the Doctrine and covenants. But now we've got official declarations which came out of some pretty fraught circumstances with some really interesting history. So looking forward to it.
- [02:43]
A
We should note that Official Declaration 1 and 2 are not revelations. They basically recognize revelations that were received by the leaders of the church, One that ended the practice of plural marriage and another that ended the priesthood and temple policy linked to race that existed in the church for so long. So this is intense stuff to talk about, but also very, very healthy discuss because sunlight is the best disinfectant. And as we're going through this, we are dealing with some complex history, not just in the church, but when it comes to race and the priesthood in the history of humanity, but particularly in the history of the United States. The issue of race has been a challenging and difficult issue that it's worthwhile for us to sit down and discuss a little bit because it's one of those things we've got to overcome. It's one of those things we've got to eliminate before we can build the city of Zion.
- [03:37]
B
Yeah. So 1890. This is when President Wilford Woodruff announces the end to plural marriage in the church. Casey, that's huge. That's a huge announcement. A major shift. Let's back up a little bit. Start us out with some context there. Tell us the story. What was going on that led up to this momentous announcement.
- [04:03]
C
Hi, I'm Dowell Wilson, CEO at Scripture Central. A couple things I want to do here for just a minute. First, I'd like to thank you for your engagement, for watching and listening to our programs. We love your feedback. We hear from so many of you literally every day. We get hundreds of comments from you. Thank you for listening and supporting our shows. Second, as you know, we're approaching Giving Tuesday. I'm sure you're aware that Scripture Central is a donor supported organization. We receive no revenue from any of our shows. We've resisted advertising both for our listeners and for us. We never have to worry about the purity of what we're doing and whether we have to be beholden to an advertiser or somebody who is worried about content of a show. We just do it because we think it's the right thing to do and the right support of the Savior Jesus Christ and of his mission and of his church. And that's what we try to do here at Scripture Central. Which brings me last of all to the purpose of this interruption in your schedule today. Since we are donor supported, I'm here to ask for your support on Giving Tuesday. And as you contemplate your year end giving, we would love your support of our programs, of our content providers. There's information below where you can contribute and how you can contribute, but it's the lifeblood of our organization. Let me just reiterate to us your support is the widow's mite. We take it on a very consecrated basis. We invite you to look at the methods below for how you can support Scripture Central. That we can continue our mission to bring people to Jesus Christ through faithful disciple scholarship and the good word that is provided to us through the Scriptures and our prophets. Thank you for being a faithful listener and we look forward to your ongoing support.
- [06:01]
A
From the 1840s to the 1880s, many latter day Saints participated in the practice of plural marriage. And recognizing how controversial the practice was, Joseph Smith introduced it privately to a few close associates during the Nauvoo period. We mentioned when we Talked about section 132 probably was introduced to Joseph Smith much earlier. Latest update to the Doctrine and Covenants even took away the date 1831 and just said earlier because we don't know. We don't know precisely when he received the revelation about it, but it's private in Nauvoo and then during the years immediately following. But by 1852, it was publicly announced to the United States. And to say that it caused some controversy is vastly underselling. Became a huge issue. The United States, and I mean the Republican Party, was founded to eliminate two things, plural marriage and slavery. That's how big it was.
- [07:01]
B
Twin relics of barbarism, they called it.
- [07:03]
A
Yeah, that's the 1850s language that they use for it. So the practice began with a revelation to Joseph Smith and it ended with a revelation to Wilford woodruff. Official Declaration 1, which is commonly known as the Manifesto, was not the revelation, but the announcement of the end of the practice of plural marriage. On several. On several occasions, President Woodruff explained the spiritual communications that led him to issue the manifesto. And one helpful thing is that since the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, they've actually included excerpts from several of these addresses where President Woodruff gave his rationale, the reasons for why he ended the practice of plural marriage, including the revelatory experiences that he had. And that is incredibly helpful. In fact, I wish that they would beef up every section of the Doctrine and Covenants with similar historical context. But this is a particularly difficult one. So I'm glad they did it here. President Woodruff felt the need to explain his actions because the Manifesto is just A huge. It's difficult to undersell Turning point in the history of the church. Is that fair to say that this is a milestone in the history of the church? Like a big, big deal?
- [08:16]
B
One of the biggest. Yeah. The Gospel topics essay on plural marriage. In one of them, it says that by the time of Joseph Smith's death, 115 men and women had entered into plural unions and about 2 to 300 more had been officially taught to practice. And then by like 1857, about half of the members of the church were in some sort of plural family. Right. Whether as a child or as a husband or as a wife. And it never really gets bigger than that. So that's probably the height. Right. 1857. And then it actually had been slowly sort of. What's the right word? Just there was an attrition to it. Right. It was going down. Monogamy was becoming more normalized even before the government started to persecute the saints, for lack of a better word, through legislation. And maybe we should talk about some of that legislation.
- [09:14]
A
Yeah, I mean, Katherine Danes, who's one of the leading researchers on plural marriage in the church, actually tried to track those numbers and she used sort of small demographic, like she focused on the city of Mantype. And exactly what you said. It seems to have reached its Peak in 1857. And the natural tendency of the saints was towards monogamy. Like plural marriages would continuously fall and then they would spike when the government tried to outlaw plural marriage. Because I guess we just have kind of a rebel streak within us, like, you're not going to tell us how to live our life. So if you outlaw. So this is a quick summary. It's worthwhile to dive into deeper. But throughout. Throughout the 19th century, the United States government passed legislation designed to bring an end to the practice of plural marriage. For instance, in 1862, the United States Congress passed a series of laws intended to pressure the saints into ending the practice. For instance, these laws, which kind of grew increasingly draconian.
- [10:16]
B
And it's interesting, that 1862 moral anti bigamy act, they called it. That one was more like a shot across the bow because it didn't have any teeth to it. Think about what's going on in the United States in 1862. We're into the Civil War now, and they're not going to basically enforce this law. They don't have the means, the resources to go out and prosecute polygamists in Utah. But it is a shot across the bow saying, we see you, we're coming for you if you don't reform. And basically, that's it. Right? That's the 1862 kind of a. Can we call it a warning?
- [10:55]
A
A warning shot. Yeah. Because like you said, it outlaws bigamy. But the saints would usually respond to these laws by saying, well, this is a religious practice, so it's protected under the First Amendment. And over the course of the 1860s, 70s, and 80s, they just get more and more severe. So they, for instance, pass a law that makes it so that Latter Day Saints can't serve as judges. And then they even get to the point to where polygamists can't vote. And then the 1880, the 87 Edmunds Tucker act actually says that Latter Day Saints can't vote unless they take an oath against plural marriage. Which asking somebody to take an oath against a tenant of their religion sounds crazy today.
- [11:43]
B
Right.
- [11:44]
A
And the church understandably tried to find legal means to strike down these laws. For instance, George Reynolds, who was the secretary of the First Presidency, was asked to serve as a test case. He was involved in plural marriage. He was married to two women. And his case went all the way up to the Supreme Court because the First Presidency and the leaders of the church didn't believe that these laws would stand up in court. But the Supreme Court actually upheld it. That's why In Official Declaration 1, you can read President Woodruff saying, these laws have been upheld by the court of last resort. Meaning we've tried every legal means to test if these would stay, and they've passed that. So now it becomes a question of honoring obeying the law of the land versus the law of God. And the saints felt understandably caught in the middle. In fact, by 1890, the federal government of the United States had disincorporated the church. They had seized a lot of its assets. They placed many prominent church leaders in prison. George Q. Cannon, the first counselor in the First Presidency, had done a term in prison. And the wives of these leaders often suffered the indignity of being subpoenaed to testify in court against their family members, sometimes even against their own husbands and fathers.
- [12:57]
B
Yeah. And the Edmunds Tucker Act, I mean, it is so brutal. You used the word draconian earlier. Like, it doesn't just disenfranchise the church, which means, like, legally dissolving the LDS Church's legal standing. Right. Like, it also disenfranchised women. It made it so they couldn't vote. Like, prior to this, women could vote. Now they can't. In Utah, right there, they had been given that right back in 1870, that was taken away by the Edmonds Tucker act. Like it's so brutal. And then like you said, it required voters to take an anti polygamy oath before being permitted to vote in any election. Any of the men, since the women couldn't vote now, the men had to take an anti polygamy oath. So it is super brutal.
- [13:41]
A
Yeah, we don't often appreciate that, that the Utah Territory actually was the first place to offer universal women's suffrage and that is taken away in these anti polygamy legislations that are passed because of that. Wyoming is the first place to offer the first state to offer universal women's suffrage. Points for Wyoming. Good job, you guys. But I mean, we had it and then it was rolled back because these women didn't vote. The leaders of the church as they assumed they would. So it gets difficult.
- [14:12]
B
Which seriously stoked the ire of many Latter Day Saint women. And they go to Washington like they hold like government opposition meetings. Some of them speak before, I think members of Congress, I think they speak in front of Congress and they make their defense of polygamy slash their right to vote. Like when their right to vote is on the chopping block, that's when they, they head to Washington. But to no avail, unfortunately.
- [14:40]
A
Yeah, one of the historical travesties from this era is that many Latter Day Saint women who were suffragettes don't get their due because they are one Latter Day Saints and b plural spouses. So Leonard Arrington, for instance, once said that Emmaline B. Wells would be held up right next to Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Importance of a suffragette if she wasn't a Latter Day Saint and a plural wife, which causes people to just dismiss her without listening to what she had to say or looking at what she had to do. So all of this kind of comes to a peak in the summer of 1890. That's when the United States Supreme Court upholds the legality of the Edmunds Tucker Act. And that seems to be around the time that Wilford Woodruff, who is the fourth president of the church, begins to seriously inquire about what needs to happen. In fact, one of the discourses you can see down below, official declaration 1, he says he was shown in vision exactly what would take place if we did not stop the practice. All the temples would go out of our hands. So now it's turning into a contest between are we going to continue to live plural marriage? Are we going to continue to do temple work? Which by this point temples in St. George, Manti and Logan had all been dedicated, and the Salt Lake Temple was getting close to completion. And he's realizing we might lose these if we happen. So on September 25, 1899, President Woodruff issues the Manifesto Official Declaration, 1, which he later maintained was prompted by a revelation given to him from God. And the manifesto announced, 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 members of the church over which I preside to have them do likewise. And the manifesto addressed the United States government when it explains, these are the words, we are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice. So there's some complexity there because they're basically saying, we're going to submit to the law. They're not repudiating the principle itself, but they do say, at this point, we're not going to teach it or practice it any further. And there's some nuance to this that has to be explored a little bit.
- [16:58]
B
Yeah. So at this point, it sounds like they've exhausted all their legal options to try to oppose this. Right. We've engaged in civil disobedience to the extent that this had not yet been tried in the Supreme Court. Church leaders had gone underground, avoiding arrest. But once the Supreme Court, that seems to be the last shoe to drop. Right. Once the Supreme Court upheld the legality of the Edmunds Tucker act, we see President Woodruff approaching the Lord in desperation. And this is. This is the announcement. This is the outcome of that. And it's interesting, too, that shortly after President Woodruff announces the manifesto, the Quorum of the twelve apostles vote to uphold his actions. And a few weeks later, at the October 1890 General Conference, the membership of the church was asked to sustain the manifesto, and it became authoritative and binding upon the saints at that point. Those are words used, I believe, by Lorenzo Snow at the time. And although the members of the church generally accepted the manifesto, stopping the practice of plural marriage within the church actually proved difficult. Part of the problem was a difference of opinion among church leaders on how to implement the manifesto. For instance, the manifesto had no bearing on plural marriages that already existed. President Woodruff had even said, he explained, he said, this manifesto only refers to future marriages and does not affect past conditions. I did not, he said emphatically, I did not. I could not and would not promise that you would desert your wives and children. This you cannot do in honor. Wow. Even with that strong, like, emphasis from the prophet, some Latter Day Saints who had entered into plural marriages began to live with just one wife. And they do start to abandoned some of their, their wives and children. Also, although the, the manifesto officially ceases the practice of solemnizing new plural marriages in the United States, it didn't really apply to places outside the United States where it wasn't technically illegal. Right. Places like Mexico and Canada. And so some members will use that as a loophole to continue to practice plural marriages. We're talking even like some, some apostles, right? And so really sticky. And you know, it's like, were we just checking the box legally, but wink, wink, nod, nod. We're actually going to continue to live plural marriage outside the U.S. some settlements in Mexico, you know, Latter Day Saint settlements there, like, continue this practice. Settlements are kind of famous, you know, places where the Eyrings eventually come from. And President Kimball. Doesn't President Kimball have some connections to that area as well?
- [19:39]
A
Well, yeah. Camilla Kimball's an eye ring. And we're talking Colonia Juarez and Colonia Doublon. And I mean, there's still vestiges of this. Like, we sometimes read Official Declaration 1 and act like, you know, it's easy to stop a marriage system like that, you know, that you can just end it when really that wasn't the case. And the fact that President Woodruff said it applied to future marriages, but not past ones, and the United States was willing to grant amnesty to people that were already practicing plural marriage meant that we had people practicing plural marriage in the church, like into the 1940s and 50s. For instance. Heber J. Grant, who was president of the church from 1918 until 1945, had practiced plural marriage by the time he became president of the Church, two of his wives had passed away, and he was monogamous the entire time he was president of the church, but he was practicing it with the full blessing of the church because he had entered into those plural marriages before the manifesto was issued. So there's a lot of complexity surrounding the end of it. And it's because this was such a huge thing that the Saints had fought for and defended for decades, that to ask them to end it was really a huge sacrifice that the beginning of plural marriage was difficult and the end of plural marriage was difficult. And we need to make sure that.
- [21:00]
B
We note that after it was read and then sustained on the 6th of October, 1890, President Woodruff stood up and said, I thank God that I have seen with my eyes this day that this people have been ready to vote to sustain me in an action. Here's what he says that I know in one sense has pained their hearts. Zina Dh Young, in her diary of that day, October 6, she said, Today the hearts of all were tried but looked to God and submitted like this was not going to be easy to implement this, to try to unwind some of what had been being woven for the last several decades.
- [21:40]
A
Yeah. And I mean, if I can Recommend Reading saints volume 2 does a really good job dealing with sort of the feeling surrounding the end of plural marriage. Joseph F. Smith, for instance, who's a counselor in the First Presidency, faithful as can be, you know, true blue, dyed in the wool through and through. He's the one that coined that term. He is in tears at the General Conference where they sustain the manifesto and struggles to get through his talk, but ultimately does sustain the manifesto and then defends the manifesto and then issues the second manifesto, which is kind of where we give a little teeth. We do a little bit more to enforce the end of the practice of plural marriage.
- [22:22]
B
Let's read the actual manifesto here, make some comments, and then we should go there. Let's talk about the second manifesto that comes after this.
- [22:29]
A
Let me note a couple things. First, we usually do a textual history. Manifestos issued in 1890. By 1908, they had started to include it in the Doctrine and Covenants. It wasn't officially canonized by that point, but it was there as kind of supporting augmenting material. In 1921, it was added to the Doctrine and Covenants. And then in 1981, it was retitled Official Declaration 1, because now we had an Official Declaration 2. And that's when the excerpts from addresses President Woodruff gave were added to the Doctrine and Covenants. So it's been in the Doctrine and covenants since 1908. It's been canonized, I guess you would say, since 1921.
- [23:08]
B
What's the difference between being included in the Doctrine and covenants in 1908 and then being officially added to the Doctrine and covenants in 1921?
- [23:16]
A
Great question. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that canonization includes sustaining.
- [23:22]
B
Okay, so it wasn't sustained until 1921 to be in the Scriptures.
- [23:26]
A
The official canonization process, and people might argue with this, and that is okay, is that it has to be presented to the Church and then sustained by the Church. That's why something like the Family Proclamation, which we quote from all the time, is held in high esteem. By us, but has never gone through the official canonization process. That's maybe a bad example because it's not in the doctrine Covenants, but if we were to canonize something, we would see that actually happen.
- [23:53]
B
It has to actually be presented to the church and sustained as an official canon. So in 1908, it was just put in there, but without sustaining vote?
- [24:01]
A
Basically, yeah. And in 1921, my understanding, it was canonized. Okay, so let's read the text.
- [24:13]
B
To whom it may confess 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, alleged that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that 40 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 top not encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy. So this is, in some ways, this is a response to allegations of ongoing rebellion against the government. So here to clarify, he says, 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 persons to enter into its practice, and I deny that either. 40 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 manner was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence, the endowment house was, by my instruction, taken down without delay. So he's very serious. And by the way, Casey, I mean, I can't shake the feeling that the government is watching. Right. And that he's writing this with them in mind. Right. Like this is. This is an announcement to the Latter Day Saints, but it is much more than that. This is an announcement to all to let everybody know that we're willing to play by the rules of the United States of America now.
- [26:04]
A
Yeah. This is a public press dispatch. And just to provide a little context for those that don't know, the endowment house was on Temple Square and had been there since the 1850s and was the place where a number of innovations were introduced, including the idea that you move from room to room during the endowment. And this was before the Salt Lake Temple was completed. The Salt Lake Temple is not going to be dedicated until 1893. So this was no small step. To have the endowment house taken down was a huge public gesture to basically say, we are serious about this, we mean business. To illustrate that, I have ordered the endowment house to be taken down and removed. Now, we're only three years away from the temple being dedicated, so it wasn't that bad, but it was. I'd love it if the endowment house was still there, you know, because it's an important part of our history. And in our series we did last year on temples, we talked a lot about the endowment house, and I was surprised how important it was in the development of our temple ordinances. So big stuff, big stuff happening here.
- [27:06]
B
The only temple the saints had or house to do temple ordinances that the Saints had until St. George, right. In the late 70s. So, yeah, super important. Okay. Continuing, he says, 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 presume 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 strikes me, Casey, that the very last line is, my advice is to refrain from contracting those marriages. That is interesting. That's not a commandment, that's advice. No wonder some people felt like there was a little wink, wink in here that they could go to Mexico and continue to do this, which again, we need to talk about a little bit more.
- [28:27]
A
More. But it's not even a wink, wink, Right. The exact last phrase is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. And so What Official Declaration 1 was was an acknowledgement that they were going to follow the laws of the land with regards to marriage. But he does mention, like, it's been upheld by the court of last resort. Latter Day Saints have always positioned themselves as law abiding citizens. That's one of the articles of faith. But I Could see immediately how some members of the church would be saying, okay, so this is asking us to ob the law, and realized, oh, well, there's no law in Mexico against performing a plural marriage, or there's no law in Canada or anything like that, or what if I take a boat into international waters or something like that? Those are all possibilities that exist there.
- [29:14]
B
This is not a refutation of polygamy as such. It is a declaration that we're willing to keep the laws of the United States of America in the United States of America. That's it.
- [29:24]
A
Yeah. And I would say because of that, whenever we teach Official Declaration 1, we probably ought to mention the 1904 statement by Joseph F. Smith, which is commonly known as the second manifesto. So the second manifesto basically universalized the teaching that we weren't going to practice plural marriage among living people, at least. And it gives a little bit of teeth to the instruction as well.
- [29:51]
B
Before you read that, do you mind dropping a little context on why President Smith would be making this in 1904? Do we need to talk about the Reed Smoot trials at all to kind of give a little bit of context as to the heat that he had been under? Right. The scrutiny that President Smith had been under recently, which leads to this?
- [30:10]
A
Yeah, let's talk a little bit about this. So if we contextualize the second manifesto, what had happened was, is Reed Smoot, who was a member of the quorum of the 12, he was monogamous, but he had been elected to the United States Senate. And it was kind of a landmark for the church, a really big deal. Reed Smoot was an up and comer, basically, but the Senate didn't want to seat him because they believed that he was a secret polygamist. And they also had worries that he would be more loyal to the church than he would the government. And so Reid Smoot has to undergo a series of hearings that last around six years. So we're not talking like just a walk in the park. And that basically relitigated the entire issue surrounding plural marriage over and over and over again. And during these hearings, members of the church were dragged to Washington and forced to testify. That included Joseph F. Smith, who became president of the church in 1901. And he was put on the stand and asked questions and some of the things they were asserting like, are you still supporting your other wives and your other children? And things like that. Like, a couple years ago, I just wrote a paper on the media coverage of the Reed Smoot hearing. And. And it was pretty sensational. To be honest with you, where there was one paper that actually had like a huge two page spread on corrupt officials in government. And it was so funny because they had pictures of all these people and one was like embezzlement and one was like perjury. And then they had a picture of Reed Smoot and underneath it said Mormon. Like that was the only. All they had to say was, this guy's a Mormon. And people would be like, oh, oh yeah, there's no way this guy can be let in. But let me read a couple excerpts. When Joseph F. Smith was on the stand, this is one of my favorite exchanges. So a US Senator asks him and says, I will illustrate what I mean by the injunction of our scripture, what we call the New Testament. And President Smith says, which is our scripture also? And the Senator said, which is your scripture also? And Joseph Epsmith said, yes, sir. And then the Senator said, the apostle says that bishop must be sober and be the husband of one wife. And Joseph F. Smith responded by going, at least, at least one wife.
- [32:41]
B
Oh boy.
- [32:42]
A
So he was like, let me reconcile this scripture for you. And it caused kind of a sensation because what came out in the hearing was that President Smith had continued to financially support his wives and he'd also had children by some of his wives. But the understanding of the church was that there was amnesty. But it seems like the leaders of the church by the government were being expected to live monogamously and take care of it that way. And so it's really rough and it kind of shines a light on the church in a way that these guys weren't being serious about ending plural marriage. They were just paying lip service. So that's the context where in 1904, Joseph F. Smith decides to issue a second manifesto. This is issued in General Conference. And this is how that one reads. It says, inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation the plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the Church at its General Conference October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land. I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanctioned consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And then this is where, again, serious. And I hereby announce that all 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. So this gives teeth to. The manifesto basically says, okay, at this point, if you enter into a new plural marriage or you perform a new plural marriage, to be excommunicated from the church, and makes it very serious. And as if to illustrate that within a couple weeks after the issue of the second manifesto, two members of the Quorum of the twelve, one is John W. Taylor, who's the son of church president John Taylor, are both removed from the quorum of the 12. Matthias Cowley, who's another apostle, is removed from the Quorum of the twelve, too. Eventually, John W. Taylor is excommunicated because.
- [35:00]
B
Don'T they come to President Smith and say, we are unwilling to submit to the direction of your second manifesto. Like they're just honest.
- [35:09]
A
Here's the letter, for instance, that John W. Taylor writes to the 12. He writes, I find that I have been out of harmony with the set authorities as to the scope and meaning of the manifesto issued by President Wilford Woodruff. Inasmuch as I have not been in harmony with my brethren on these subjects and I have been called into question concerning them, I now submit myself to their discipline and to save further controversy, tender my resignation and hope for such clemency in my case as they may deem right and just and merciful. So he resigns from the quorum of the 12. Interesting historical footnote. He's eventually excommunicated one of his children. Samuel Taylor writes a really interesting book called Family Kingdom about John W. Taylor and his family. He also writes the movie the the Absent Minded professor, which is kind of fun. And he writes a really colorful biography of John Taylor that I think is really great, to be honest with you. And then Matthias Cowley is the second one who resigns from the quorum of the 12. This is the letter he writes. It's dated the day after John W. Taylor's resignation. Matthias Cowley wrote, I regret very much that I have done anything that has caused a lack of confidence in me or that has occasioned the suspicion that the authorities of the Church have been untrue to their declarations concerning plural marriages since the manifesto of 1890. For my acts, I am responsible and not the Church nor its president. I have been seriously out of harmony with my quorum and wishing to bear my own burdens, I hereby tender My resignation as a member of the council of the 12. Matthias Cowley is not excommunicated from the church, but he stays in the church, but never becomes an apostle again. And by the way, can I tell my favorite story from this whole episode? Reid Smoot is dragged through the mud backward and forward while this is happening, but he's monogamous. And in the middle of one of the Senate hearings, somebody accuses Reid Smoot of being a polygamist. And the guy that accuses him. Him is unfaithful to his wife. And so another senator, this is Senator Boyce Penrose of Pennsylvania, gets up and accuses this senator and says, as for me, I would rather have seated beside me in this chamber a polygamist who doesn't polyg than a monogamous who doesn't monog, basically. So that's a sweet burn. Right? The news coverage of this whole thing was crazy. Like, they literally showed the clothing and the signs of the temple endowment in major newspapers. But eventually Smoot is seized, and he stays in the senate into the 1930s, becomes one of the most influential senators in Washington, and goes a long way towards kind of cracking open the idea that Latter Day Saints could serve in the federal government with no conflict to their religion. So it's a great historical kind of time capsule for the second manifesto. But that's the context, essentially. The second manifesto accelerates the end of plural marriage and also sets up the conflict that by the 1930s, leads to the excommunication of these large fundamentalist movements that eventually become groups like the FLDS Church, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the Apostolic United Brethren and other groups that still practice plural marriage to this day.
- [38:21]
B
And it's so interesting that they're known as fundamentalists, and that's a phrase they apply to themselves. And Wilford Woodruff declared clearly, and so did his successors. Which is more fundamental? Temple. Temple is more fundamental. But there's this group. Group that. That went the opposite direction, saying, no, what's most fundamental is polygamy. And that's. That's where we get the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints and others along that line. So that does it. It just pushes your back to the wall and makes you answer the question, like, what. What's most fundamental? Yes, Polygamy was started by Joseph Smith. Yeah, for sure. That nobody's arguing that it wasn't. But is that more fundamental than the. The ordinances that culminate in the temple to the. To God's plan and Wilford Woodruff and everyone after him in his succession has said, no, polygamy is not more fundamental than that.
- [39:11]
A
And that does kind of lead to the current church position, which is that plural marriage is the exception rather than the rule. Like one thing we should Note about the 2013 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants is that for the first time, official declarations 1 and 2 were both given historical introductions. And these historical introductions, while I wouldn't describe them them as canon, our official church commentary on this and the historical introduction to Official Declaration one makes this statement. It says, the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God's standard for marriage unless he declares otherwise. And then they quote two scriptures, 2 Samuel 12:7, 8 and Jacob 2:27 30. And they could have added in section 49 of the Doctrine and Covenants 2, which also reinforces the idea of monogamy. And that is significant as well that basically the church today now teaches that plural marriage was sanctioned of God but was exceptional. The standard is monogamous marriage, which seems to line up with what the Scriptures teach as well too.
- [40:14]
B
Yeah, that's what Jacob2 says. Right. If the Lord will raise up seed, he'll command his people to do polygamy. Otherwise they shall hearken unto the monogamy rule. That's the default setting. Yeah.
- [40:25]
A
So let's talk controversies with official declaration 1. No shortage of controversies here. Right? This is just all controversy. That's why it's so fun to talk about. So let me throw a couple at you. I'm going to combine a few that we've written down here. 1 Nephi 3:7 the LORD giveth no commandment of the children of men saved. He prepares a way for them to accomplish that commandment. So why didn't the Lord open the way for us to continue to practice plural marriage? And is it okay to say that the Church gave in to public pressure on plural marriage? What would we say say about that?
- [41:04]
B
There's a couple questions in there that are super important. So let's start with 1 Nephi 3 7. I think that's a good one.
- [41:09]
A
Right?
- [41:09]
B
Because you know, we are all well brought up. Quoting First Nephi 37 Young Eager Nephi up against opposition, but won't be deterred to get the brass plates says that great line, God will not give any commandments, save he shall prepare a way for those he's commanded to to accomplish the thing that he commanded them. Right. So why didn't, why didn't God intervene here and prepare a way for the saints to continue to obey this commandment. Right. Why didn't he just say, blessed are you for your obedience to this principle of plural marriage. Fear not your enemies, for they are in my hands and I will do with them as seemeth me. Good. And then the government has their own. I don't know. I don't know. Something happens where, whether in Congress or elsewhere, that enables the saints to come, continue to practice. Right. Why. Why didn't God intervene? That's. That's good. But I think what it fundamentally does, it shows the danger of isolating one verse of Scripture and then generalizing that to cover all circumstances. Like if, if your assumption is that God will always prepare a way to accomplish everything he's commanded, no matter what obstacles we face based on that one verse of Scripture, then that's probably going to be violated. As you read our church's history, this being a great example. But, but this isn't the first example. President Woodruff, for instance, he. He said, and I quote, the Lord has required at our hands. This is at that October 6, 1890 moment. He said, the Lord has required at our hands things that we were prevented from doing. The Lord required us to build a temple in Jackson County. Remember that? We were prevented by violence from doing it. The Lord has given us commandments concerning many things, and, and we have carried them out as far as we could. But when we cannot do it, we are justified. The Lord does not require at our hands things that we cannot do. That was his response to that very question. Right. And that's a powerful principle to keep in mind. Right? Like if you've been legitimately kept by outside circumstances from keeping commandments that you otherwise would have willingly obeyed. The Lord does not require that at your hands. I'm thinking about missionaries who had to come home early because of COVID 19 raging throughout the world. Right? People who yearn to be married but are not, they'd love to keep that commandment, but the circumstances are such that that's not on the table right now. Married couples who want to. Want to multiply and replenish the earth, they want to have children, but they can't. There's a commandment out there that they can't keep. I think that's powerful. Right? And you know, we don't apply First Nephi 37 to those scenarios, right? We don't say, well, what about that? Why won't God prepare a way for you? So we gotta take young, eager, happy Nephi, who's excited to obey God's commandments, His One statement can't be isolated from everything else. Like, President Packer is a great quote I love. He said every verse of Scripture, whether oft quoted or obscure, must be measured against other verses. There are complimentary and tempering teachings in the scriptures which bring a balanced knowledge of. Of truth. I don't think Nephi had experienced all the scenarios possible that could have prevented commandment keeping. In his case, it worked out great with the brass plates. But President Woodruff brought up a good example. We lost the temple in Missouri. Here's another great example, painful example in our history of losing the right to practice our religion in terms of plural marriage. And so, yeah, I would just. I just love President Packer's quote. I would kind of frame it in that. On that particular issue, let's. Let's look at the harmonized canon rather than one verse to come to a conclusion on something like that.
- [44:40]
A
And that's always good advice, right? Is people take one verse and they kind of beat it to death when it comes to this. But President Packer is really solid in saying, no, look at the harmonized canon. Look at everything and consider it all, and then weigh your decision as you go.
- [44:55]
B
We like to tell cool stories in scripture to try to bolster this idea. Like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego Go. Who were thrown into the fiery furnace because they wouldn't bow down to government pressure, by the way. They wouldn't capitulate to government pressure to bow down to the. To the images. And the Lord miraculously saves them, right? And they become very influential in. In the court, in. In Babylon. But for every one of those stories, remember in Scripture, there's also a Benadi who also would not bow to political pressure of King Noah. And he is burned at the stake. Like God didn't prepare a way for him. Like, he just. He just died. For every Daniel in the lion's den, who is miraculously preserved, like, there's. There's others who are also thrown into dungeons and pits, like Jeremiah, who was also opposing the government. And guess what? He languishes in that. That dungeon cell almost to death. For every Peter, I'm thinking in the New Testament, when he gets miraculously preserved, he was opposing the government. Remember this? They commanded him not to teach any more about Jesus. And he says, whether it's better to obey God or you, you decide, they arrest him. He gets miraculously delivered by an angel. But then James got caught for the same thing, and he got beheaded by Herod. Like, for every Peter miraculous story, which we love to tell those stories. There's also these other counter stories in scripture where God doesn't seem to be preparing a way for them to accomplish. Accomplish the thing that they wanted to do in terms of living out the commandments of God. So take the harmonized canon, look at all the stories together. Don't just cherry pick the cool ones that seem to have miraculous intervention. And I think you get a more, as President Packer said, well balanced knowledge of the truth.
- [46:36]
A
Well done. Yeah.
- [46:38]
B
What about the cave to pressure, though? Should we talk about that? I think that's a good question and you should help me with this one, Casey. So let me frame it like this. I've heard it said in various ways, but something like this, well, you know, this just goes to show, you know, official declaration one just goes to show that external circumstances brought about the change, what President Woodruff called revelation. Right. But the truth is President Woodruff just buckled to external pressure, to government pressure, to threats from the government to tear everything down if we didn't acquiesce to their requests. And so is it fair to call it a revelation when it really looks like he was just buckling to pressure?
- [47:16]
A
I would say revelation never takes place in a vacuum. This is a conversation we've had all the way through the Doctrine and Covenants just to pull one example out of the air. Zion's camp, Section 105, when they're commanded not to fight, but to go back to Ohio without engaging in bloodshed. Some people look at that and say, well, did he actually get a revelation or was he just acknowledging that it was a fight that they couldn't win and so they gave up on it. You could make the same argument about Official Declaration 1 where the leaders of the church were acknowledging the public pressure. I mean, they go out of their way to say, yeah, all this stuff had been happening. The temples were going to go out of our hands. President Woodruff even says, I saw Zion thrown into confusion. I saw fathers and sons being thrown into prison. Like they're not covering up the fact that, that they were under immense public pressure. All they would say is that pressure led to the revelation that they didn't make it up. Essentially, President Woodruff himself says he was prepared to go to jail and give up his own freedom if the Lord told him that that was what he was supposed to do. But he's insisting that there's a revelatory reason that he was told and shown the consequences of what would happen, and that the Lord instructed him to end the practice of plural marriage at this point in. So I don't think anybody's covering that up. Right. And anybody that thinks that revelations just come out of the blue. Like, I know some people that, you know, get all shaky because, you know, there were other people that thought that drinking alcohol was bad in the 1830s. Therefore, the word of wisdom can't be inspired. No, no, no. Like, we look at the environment around us, and the environment around us directs the prophets to receive the revelations that they do and often come in response to the serious questions they were dealing with. And there was no more serious things question facing President Woodruff then. What to do about plural marriage now that it was fully upheld by the courts in the United States. Now that it was illegal in the United States.
- [49:25]
B
Yeah. Awesome. Yeah. What other kind of revelation is there than revelation that responds to external circumstances? Right. Prophets don't operate in timeless circumstance less vacuums. They live in time and space with the rest of us, and they receive revelations based on the circumstances and we which they find themselves and their people. Yeah, there was external pressure. That's precisely what drove the prophet to his knees again and again. That's what got him to, in his words, go before the Lord and receive the revelation that. That you can read all about in those excerpts that are appended to Official Declaration 1. So, yeah, I love. I love that answer. It's as silly to. To accuse prophets of responding to external pressures to get revelation as it would be to, like, a courting couple, right. College man and woman. They're. They're dating and. And then they. They decided to get married because both of them had gone before the Lord and they. They declared their intentions to the Lord to get married, and they felt peaceful about that. And can you. Can you imagine someone saying, like, the only reason you asked the Lord about. About whether it was wise to marry that person is because of external circumstance of dating them. You know, it's like. It's like, duh. Like, that's how it works. Like, it's how it works.
- [50:39]
A
That's how it works. Circumstances come, cause us to ask the Lord, and then the Lord gives us revelations.
- [50:45]
B
All right, Casey, I got a. I got a hard ball for you. Let me. Let me pitch it at you. There's actually been some. Some recent coverage of this. It's the 1886 revelation of John Taylor. There's recently been some hubbub about that because it was recently digitized by the church. And so now you can actually access this online, which you couldn't before a couple months ago. So apparently this wrote Revelation says that God's never going to discontinue plural marriage. Right. Like, this will always be in the church. At least that's how some people are interpreting it. So I want to hear your response to that thought. That 1890, the thinking goes, contradicts 1886, that John Taylor received a revelation saying this would not go away. And then four years later, it goes away. Like, what do you want to say? Contextualize that however you'd like and. And dig into the 1886 controversy.
- [51:36]
A
Yeah. So this caused a minor hubbub in the summer of 2025 because the church basically put a digital version of the revelation up on the church history library website. And I remember you and I, Scott, were being interviewed on Pastor Jeff's show, hello Saints, about polygamy. We were the only people that he could get to come on and talk about plural marriage because we're just too dumb not to say no to stuff like that. We were asked about it there, and the response we're going to give here isn't substantially different. But let me just address the. Of the matter. Okay. The Revelation was digitized and placed on the church website. And one possible reading of it is that the revelation says that plural marriage will endure forever, that it's an eternal principle. So I want to read the actual text of the revelation, if that's okay. So this is it. And the revelation framed was received by John Taylor, September 27, 1886. Here's how it reads. You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, how far it is binding upon upon my people. Thus saith the Lord, all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves in my name, unless they are revoked by my or by my authority. And how can I revoke an everlasting covenant? By the way, original spelling here. For I, the Lord mine everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. And have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment? And yet have I borne with them these many years? And this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times. And furthermore, it is pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless, I, the Lord, do not change, and my word and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph, all those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham? I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting. And those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof. Even so. Amen. That's the text of the revelation.
- [53:52]
B
That's the whole text. There it is.
- [53:54]
A
This revelation apparently was written down by one of John Taylor and was presented to the church in 1933, which was sort of at the height of the conflict with the fundamentalist groups. It was around this time that the Church just finally cut them off and they were left to their own devices. And so at the time, the leadership of the Church actually said it was a pretended revelation, that it wasn't real. Since then, we've examined the evidence and it seems like it is genuine, that it really did come from John Taylor, and we don't have reason to doubt that it would have. John Taylor was the president of the Church during some of the most extreme, extreme persecutions related to plural marriage. He actually went underground and died underground while federal marshals were searching for him because of the laws that have been passed regarding plural marriage. Now, the big question is, does the revelation say that plural marriage will never be revoked?
- [54:46]
B
It says, Let me read it again. Not the whole thing, but this part. You have asked me concerning the new and everlasting covenant, how far it is binding upon my people. Is it fair to say, Casey, that that's a reference to plural marriage? Or is that the point of. Point of controversy?
- [55:00]
A
That's the point of controversy. Is. What is he referring to when he says the new and everlasting covenant? Because a Latter Day Saint today would say the new and everlasting covenant has to do with eternal marriage, not necessarily plural marriage. But if we're being honest here, a Latter Day Saint from the 1880s might say, no, it refers to plural marriage back and forth. So that's the major thing here. And I'm borrowing from our friends over on Mormoner who have a good little write up on this controversy. They write this fundamentalist Mormons interpret this revelation to mean that plural marriage is an eternal requirement for exaltation and cannot be rescinded by God. However, Latter Day Saints scholars argue that the revelation refers to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage described in section 132 of the doctrine and Covenants, meaning that the principle of eternal marriage itself cannot be revoked, but not necessarily the practice of plural marriage. Specifically, so does this refer to the principle of plural marriage or the practice of eternal marriage.
- [55:58]
B
Isn't it fair to say that plural marriage is, is an example of the everlasting covenant of marriage? Like one expression of that, right? Like every plural marriage done under the keys of authority in the temple would be considered an eternal marriage. So I can see how the lines get blurry if you're talking about the everlasting covenant of marriage, monogamy, or the everlasting covenant of marriage which allowed for polygamy.
- [56:22]
A
And the other thing is, if we're talking about the principle of plural marriage and not the practice, we never have repudiated the principle of plural marriage. It is well known that Russell M. Nilsen was sealed to two people. Dantzel White and Wendy Watson Nilsson. Dallin H. Oaks is sealed to two people. His first wife, June, passed away in 1998, I believe, and his current wife he is sealed to as well. So as long as there's eternal marriage, the principle of plural marriage remains in some form. And I know the controversial side of this is to say, well, can women enter into plural marriage? Yeah, actually a deceased woman can be sealed to all the people she was married to in her life. So there's that form of plural marriage too. So the principle still endures, just not the practice.
- [57:07]
B
I remember President Oaks was interviewed, it was a PBS special years ago, and they asked him about this and they said, what will be the nature of those marriages where someone like you who are married to two people, sealed to two people, what will that be like in the next life? And he said, I honestly, I don't know. I don't know what the arrangement will be like. And so I guess we should just be cautious and careful not to. To presume that because spouses can be sealed to more than one spouse still, that what that's going to look like in the next life is, you know, plural marriage. Because again, those that are currently living, that are current president of the church who has that, that situation playing out for him, has said, I don't know what that's going to look like in the next life. So I would just be cautious about projecting too much onto the next life, even given that those ceilings are in place.
- [57:54]
A
That's wise. At the same time too, he doesn't, repeat, repudiate the principle of plural marriage. Right. It's still around. It still exists within the church. And if that's the case, then, yeah, President Taylor's revelation upholds that, that in principle, it's always going to exist. Another big challenge with this is. John Taylor is present in the Church when it's received. It's received the year before he dies. But it doesn't seem like he makes any attempt to canonize this or to place it in the Doctrine and Covenants to make it authoritative or binding. And the leaders of the Church afterwards apparently don't make any efforts to either. And so whatever it is, there's revelations received by Joseph Smith, Jr. By Brigham Young, and by John Taylor that aren't canonized and placed into the Doctrine and Covenants and therefore become part of the Scriptural canon. So I, first of all, don't see any contradiction between Official Declaration 1, which ends the practice of plural marriage, and this revelation which upholds the principle of plural marriage. And Further, Official Declaration 1 was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants and was canonized, and this revelation given to President. President Taylor wasn't. So I think it's a legitimate revelation. I think it really did come to John Taylor. But I also think that it doesn't contradict Official Declaration 1, and that Official Declaration 1 reflects the will of the Lord in 1890 and apparently ever since. Because the policies of the Church with regards to plural marriage haven't changed since the Manifesto. Since the second Manifesto, really. So let's talk consequences with Official Declaration one.
- [59:29]
B
Well, we no longer practice plural marriage in the Church. That's a big. A very big consequence that affects our lives every day. Yeah. So that's a big deal. Over a century after the Manifesto was given, President Gordon B. Hinckley stood up in conference. I still remember this. To reiterate the principles here, he said this. He said, if any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excellent excommunicated. The most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. And then he added, 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. Even in countries where civil or religious laws allow polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage. So if there needed to be any more clarification, there it is from President Hinckley. We live in the long shadow of Official Declaration 1, and we are as adamant about that as we ever were since Official Declaration one and the second Manifesto. So that's one consequence. What else would you add?
- [60:51]
A
One thing I would Add is to just say plural ministry. Marriage is part of the history of the church. It's an important part of the history of the church. I'm willing to say that I think it played the role that it was intended to play. And then God instructed the president of the church to end the practice. And the members of the church from the 19th century were courageous in defending it, in uplifting it. At the same time, too, it sort of turned into a very, very important principle, maybe more important than it was intended to be. And they said extreme things in their defense of it. With more than a century of hindsight, we realize that it has a place within the theology of the gospel. Like I said, eternal marriage means that there's always going to be some form of plural marriage. Probably that exists in the church, but it hasn't been the official policy of the church to practice plural marriage among living people. For instance, here's an official statement from the church on the subject. Marriage between one man and one woman is God's standard for marriage unless he declares otherwise, which he did through his process. Prophet Joseph Smith. The manifesto marked the beginning of the return to monogamy, which is the standard of the church today. So it's one of those things where people have strong feelings about this, and I acknowledge that. I get it. You know, it's very foreign to us in our cultural context, especially if you're an American living in the 21st century. At the same time, too, there's a lot of stuff in the gospel and the scriptures that is foreign to our culture, cultural context. I'm not a fan of animal sacrifice. That would be really difficult for me to do, coming from the cultural context that I'm in. But I can extend grace and charity towards people that live in different cultural contexts and understand that the laws of God are based on revelation. And one of the blessings of having revelation is being a living church where things change from time to time based on the needs and circumstances that we're at. So I'm really grateful that I haven't been asked to practice plural marriage and that I probably never will have to grapple with this principle in my own married life. But I'm not going to downplay or disparage those who did practice it or those who had to receive the revelation to end the practice, which was really difficult. I think there were courageous people on all sides of this, and I admire those who defended the principle of plural marriage. And I also admire President Woodruff having having the courage to approach God, to ask about something that he felt was very important and had spent a large part of his adult life defending and then having the humility to take the direction that God gave him and bring it to the church, however difficult that might have been.
- [63:32]
B
Yeah. Well said. So that ends our discussion on Official Declaration one. But this week, we've also got Official Declaration two and the Articles of Faith. So, so what if we what if we pause here on this and call this episode done? And then let's meet everybody over in our next episode where we'll dig Into Official Declaration 2, 1978 revelation from President Spencer W. Kimball.
- [63:54]
A
All right. See you.
- [64:08]
B
Sa.