Lectures on Faith - A Brief History

The Lectures on Faith have always captivated and intrigued me.  The writings, the teachings, the ideas that were and are explained from them just fascinate me.  Because of this, I decided that I wanted to learn a little bit more about the history behind them - that's what this post is about.

History of the Creation of the Lectures on Faith
 
In December 1832, a revelation was given to Joseph Smith that instructed him to establish a "School of the Prophets" to instruct the presidency, officers of the church, and all who are called to the ministry (high priests on down to deacons).  The current LDS version of the D&C has this revelation (reference:  D&C 88:117-127).

The School of the Prophets began meeting on January 23, 1833, in Kirtland, Ohio, and was intended primarily for leaders of the Church.  Joseph typically led the instruction in this class as it ran from January through April of 1833, in an upper room of the Newel K. Whitney store.  Some very amazing things happened during this time with the school.

To fulfill the rest of the revelation, the School of the Elders began the next winter and was held from November 1834 through March 1835, and November 1835 through March 1836.  With this school, it is believed that some 200-300 people passed through.  It is for the School of the Elders that the Lectures on Theology (to be called Lectures on Faith later) were written.  Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, W.W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, and probably others participated in the creation of these lectures.  However, the ultimate responsibility for the lecture content belongs to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Zebedee Coltrin stated in 1883, that the Lectures were not given in the original location of the School of the Prophets, "but in a larger school on the hill afterwards, where Sidney Rigdon presided" (Coltrin's Testimony, 11 October 1883; The School of the Prophets:  Its Development and Influence in Utah Territory, BYU Master Thesis, 1970).  This "larger school" referred to the printing office built on a lot near the temple site, on land of much higher elevation than the valley where the store was located.

The content of the lessons with the Elders was both theological and secular in nature.  English grammar, Greek, and Hebrew were topics in addition to the course in theology that were studied.  English grammar was studied due to the fact that many adults of this time period could neither read nor write.  It was quickly recognized by the prophet that all missionaries going forth needed to know how to read and be educated to communicate with other educated people.  If the missionaries couldn't actually read the Book of Mormon, they would have a hard time convincing people to do the same.  This was a class to teach people how to be missionaries so that, as Joseph said, "they might be more perfectly instructed in the great things of God" and these students "gave the most studious attention to the all-important object of qualifying themselves as messengers of Jesus Christ" (History of the Church 2:169-170, 176; hereafter HC).

Joseph records this of the Lectures given in the school: "Our school for the Elders was now well attended, and with the lectures of theology, which were regularly delivered, absorbed for the time being everything else of a temporal nature" (HC 2:175-176).

There are 7 lectures in total, and from a few studies conducted, it would appear that the authorship for them is as such:

1. Lecture 1 - Sidney Rigdon
2. Lecture 2 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
3. Lecture 3 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
4. Lecture 4 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
5. Lecture 5 - Joseph Smith (another study suggests W.W. Phelps)
6. Lecture 6 - Sidney Rigdon (Joseph edits)
7. Lecture 7 - Sidney Rigdon

The authorship of the Lectures is reviewed by Alan J. Phipps in a Masters Thesis at BYU entitled, The Lectures on Faith:  An Authorship Study, April 1977.  Phipps' conclusion of the matter is as follows:

The study showed that Sidney Rigdon's use of function words corresponded very closely with that in Lectures One and Seven, and fairly well with Two, Three, Four, and Six.  Joseph Smith's use of function words matched closely those in Lecture Five, with some evidence of his having co-authored or edited Two, Three, Four, and Six ... The data and tests appear, therefore, to assign the authorship of the Lectures on Faith mainly to Sidney Rigdon, with Lecture Five and perhaps some parts of the other lectures, except One and Seven, to Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith's role may have been more than to author Lecture Five and to add a few explanatory paragraphs to the ending of Lectures Two, Three, and Four and several paragraphs to Lecture Six.  It is possible the Lectures were produced by discussion, with Sidney Rigdon as scribe or as the reworker of the rough draft.  After reading the rough draft, Joseph Smith could have suggested changes and decided to author his own lecture, the fifth, to round out the series ... If they had been entirely Joseph Smith's or Sidney Rigdon's or any other person's, it seem probable their authorship would have been divulged.

The study says many more things about the analysis, methods used, etc.; however, the main point and conclusion are all that matter to me at the moment (Phipps, pp. 66-67.  Link:  here).

Brief Doctrinal Overview of the Lectures:

1. Lecture 1 - Explains what faith is.
2. Lecture 2 - Shows the object on which faith rests.
3. Lecture 3 - Details the character, perfections, and attributes of God.  What is necessary to exercise faith.
4. Lecture 4 - True faith in God depends upon correct ideas and knowledge.
5. Lecture 5 - Declaration of the nature of God.
6. Lecture 6 - Why the knowledge of one's course in life is acceptable to God is necessary.
7. Lecture 7 - Shows the effects or results that flow from true faith.

Inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants

Joseph Smith's journal records that: "During the month of January [in 1835], I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants" (HC 2:180).  It seems that Joseph was taking the lectures delivered in the school, and was reworking them for publication in the Book of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church.

On September 24, 1834, the High Council at Kirtland met (HC 2:165).  Among some of the things they talked about, one was specific to the creation of a book of revelations with a committee of four men comprised to choose what would be included in the book.  Here is a section of the minutes from that meeting:

The council then proceeded to appoint a committe to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints, which Church was organized and commenced its rise on the 6th of April, 1830.  These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made.

Councilor Samuel H. Smith nominated President Joseph Smith, Jun., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams to compose said committee, which was seconded by Councilor Hyrum Smith.  The councilors then gave their vote in the affirmative, which was also agreed to by the whole conference.

The council then decided that said committee, after arranging and publishing said Book of Covenants, have the avails of the same.

Approximately one year later this same committee of four recommended to the Church the publication of a book they had compiled.  The book was to be known as The Doctrine and Covenants, and would consist of two parts:

1. THEOLOGY.  LECTURE [number, like FIRST].  On the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints of Faith.  ==> This is what we know today as the Lectures on Faith, and each Lecture had a title page for it individually (LECTURE SECOND, etc.).
2. PART SECOND.  Covenants and Commandments of the Lord to his servants of this church of the Latter Day Saints.  ==> This is what today we call the Doctrine and Covenants and currently contains some 138 sections of revelations from the Lord.

From the title pages of the 1835 edition, it is evident that the Lectures composed what the prophet considered the doctrine of the Church, and the modern day revelations composed the covenants and commandments to the Church; combined, this book was the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church.

It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith was deeply involved in the creation and publication of the Lectures for the Church.  Of the Lectures, John Taylor said that they were "published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

The preface to the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants reads, in part, as follows:

To the members of the church of the Latter Day Saints -
DEAR BRETHREN:
     We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe.
     The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place [Kirtland, Ohio], and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we arranged them into the following work.
     The second part contains items of principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones.

The preface was signed by the First Presidency of the Church:  Joseph Smith, Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams - the same who were appointed to the committee.

The recommendation of the committee was given in a Conference of the Church on August 17, 1835.

A general assembly of the Church of Latter-day Saints was held at Kirtland on the 17th of August, 1835, to take into consideration the labors of a committee appointed by a general assembly of the Church on the 24th of September, 1834, for the purpose of arranging the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the Church ... [the committee] having finished said book according to the instructions given them, deem it necessary to call a general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the authorities of the Church; that it may , if approved, become a law and a rule of faith and practice to the Church.

The last sentence does not differentiate which part of the book becomes law and rule of faith and practice.  This acceptance would be for the entire Church.  President Joseph Smith, Jr., and Frederick G. Williams were away from Kirtland at this time in Michigan.  Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were in Kirtland to preside at this meeting of the Saints.  As an aside, this is the meeting where the section on marriage was read and included in the Doctrine and Covenants by vote of the membership.

After some priesthood organizations, the following is recorded:

President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter-day Saints," in behalf of the committee.  He was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book.
...
Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.

At this point many men stood and testified as to the truthfulness of the book and that it should be accepted and "acknowledged as the doctrine and covenants of their faith," including a written letter signed by the 12 apostles (included in the Introduction to current versions of the D&C).  The testimony of John Smith is often cited as showing a difference between the revelations and the lectures that were included in the book.  Notice:  The revelations "were true," and the lectures "were profitable for doctrine."  He didn't say they were true - I realize that is a very small gnat that I'm straining at there.  After all of the testimonies were given, the following is recorded:

The several authorities and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted the labor of the committee.

Unanimous by the authorities and general assembly of the Church in the affirmative to accept the committee recommendation for the book.  I find no other explanation of that sentence other than to say that this is simply the canonization of the book which includes the Lectures on Faith as the doctrine and the revelations from God as the covenants and commandments (HC 2:243-251).  The Saints finally have their doctrine, and their covenants, in a single book which has been accepted and canonized by all in attendance at conference assembled.

Decanonization of the Lectures on Faith

I say "decononization" because that is what I consider the removal of the Lectures from the D&C to be, a lowering of the standards at which the LDS Church considered the text of the Lectures.  No longer were they considered on par with the revelations Joseph received; they were not quite scripture anymore.

It would stand to reason that if the Lectures were included by a unanimous vote of the Church assembled in conference in 1835, that they could and should be removed by a unanimous (or maybe a majority) vote of the Church assembled in conference.  It didn't happen that way.  In 1921, a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was printed with the Lectures removed, and a note attached explaining why; no conference vote was taken.

In the Introduction of the current edition of the D&C, the following paragraph is found:

Beginning with the 1835 edition a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the “Lectures on Faith.” These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1834-1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church. 

I don't mind the removal of the Lectures, that's fine.  However, I do scratch my head about the method in which they were removed.  It seemed ... rather ... sneaky; even with the attached note about the removal.  Unless Joseph recorded the history wrong, I thought they were "given or presented" to the whole Church as doctrine, and they were voted upon, thus they were binding to the whole church.  Right? 

If the Lectures weren't a revelation, then was section 134 a revelation?  Or section 135?  How about the Articles of Faith - revelation?  They are all canonized and hold the exact same position with other sections of the Doctrine and Covenants as being scripture for the Church.  D&C 68:4 has the definition for scripture:  "whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture."  If Joseph didn't have the spirit when he helped create the Lecture content, then something was definitely wrong.  However, I don't think being classified as a revelation or scripture is the key to being canonized - it is acceptance by the Church in conference assembled. 

As I understand it (can't find the reference now), the 1921 committee was interested in including possibly up to 20 other "new" revelations in the D&C that had not been included before.  None were allowed or deemed advisable to include.  These were revelations received by other prophets (John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff spring to mind immediately), and although they were doctrinally sound, already agreed as revelations by previous administrations of the Church, they were not put in.  I'm okay with that as well; but, I would like to read them eventually.  The point is, being classified as a "revelation" is not good enough.  Being classified as "doctrine of the Church" is not good enough.  The Church must ratify whatever doctrine or rule or revelation before it becomes binding.


Reed Smoot Testimony Helps Clarify the Church Rule on Doctrinal Canonization

I've put in a quote from the Reed Smoot hearings from President Joseph F. Smith.  This comes from Day #4 of the hearings (March 5, 1904).  Mr. Worthington is asking about how rules/revelations become binding upon the Church as a whole:

Mr. Worthington. Let me ask you whether anything which is intended for the government of the church and proceeds from the president and has first been approved by the apostles -
Mr. Smith. How is that?
Mr. Worthington. When it has been introduced by the president, submitted to the apostles and approved by them, and is then submitted to the body of the church and in general conference approved by the church, whether it is binding upon the members of the church - whether it is a revelation or a rule.
Mr. Smith. It is equally binding on the church, whether it is a revelation or a rule.
Mr. Worthington. And a man who disobeys it would be just as much out of harmony if it were a rule as if it were a revelation?
Mr. Smith. Just the same.

Submitted properly.  Voted on properly.  It doesn't matter if it is a revelation or a rule or a doctrinal point - it is binding (I added the last one, because that makes sense).  It doesn't matter what is presented, if the conference votes and accepts - it's binding.

This next section of qutoes is from Day #1 of the testimony given by President Joseph F. Smith:

Mr. Smith. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.
Mr. Worthington. What do you mean by being presented to the church?
Mr. Smith. Presented in conference.
Mr. Tayler. Do you mean by that that the church in conference may say to you, Joseph F. Smith, the first president of the church, "We deny that God has told you to tell us this?"
Mr. Smith. They can say that if they choose.
Mr. Tayler. They can say it?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; they can. And it is not binding upon them as members of the church until they accept it.
Mr. Tayler. Until they accept it?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.

Not much I can comment on here, it just reinforces what was quoted before.  This is the rule/law of the Church.  It was followed in Kirtland, and appears to have been, well ... not followed in Salt Lake.  Again, I don't have a problem with the removal, it was the right move, I just scratch my head about the method.


I'll see if I can review the history of what happened here.

In 1879, Orson Pratt proposed to President John Taylor that perhaps the Lectures should be removed from the Doctrine and Covenants and published separately, outside of the binding of the Doctrine and Covenants.  President Taylor responded to the question with the following reply:  "The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard, at any rate, not at present" (Woodford 1:86-87).  President Taylor was staunchly opposed to anything that would go against what the Prophet Joseph had done.  He would not remove the Lectures - they would stay where they were for now.

In 1917, a committee was appointed by the First Presidency consisting of George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, James E. Talmage, and Melvin J. Ballard to review and revise the entire Doctrine and Covenants.  Later on Joseph Fielding Smith and John A. Widtsoe were added to the committee. 

In July, 1940, John William Fitzgerald spoke with Joseph Fielding Smith and John A. Widtsoe about the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the Doctrine and Covenants.  Elder Smith gave the following reasons for their removal:

1. They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
2. They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith.  They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
3. They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the godhead.  More complete instructions on this point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876, and all subsequent editions of The Doctrine and Covenants.
4. It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments of revelations which make up The Doctrine and Covenants.

The above 4 reasons were "verbal statements made to the writer by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles and present, 1940, Historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  This statement was given to the writer July 22, 1940.  Elder Smith and Elder John A. Widtsoe were both members of the above mentioned committee"  (A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, John William Fitzgerald, BYU Masters Thesis, 1940, pp. 345-346 [emphasis added by me].  Link: here).

I want to spend a little bit of time just documenting what Elder Talmage thought was problematic with the Lectures on Faith, doctrinally.  The Lecture that is at the center of the controversy is Lecture 5.  Earlier in this post I documented that Joseph Smith was most likely the author of this Lecture, so that makes the doctrine talked about here all the more interesting and relevant to the reasons it was removed.  Quoted below is a piece of a verse from Lecture 5:

Verse 2.  There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme, power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.  They are the Father and the Son - the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man ... and is called the Son because of the flesh ... And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one ...

That is the verse, or section of text, that I believe there are the most problems with.  First off this is not congruent with current LDS beliefs.  The above statement is even in contradiction to other statements made by the Prophet Joseph Smith.  This statement (above) was made in 1834-1835 time frame.  By 1843, Joseph reframed the doctrine of the Father and the Son with this statement:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.  Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us (D&C 130:22).

Comparing the two statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith for doctrinal differences, it is obvious they are completely different in their understanding of God.  The first speaks of the Father as a personage of spirit and the Son as having a body.  The second records that both the Father and the Son have bodies.  The first states that the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Father and the Son together.  The second states the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, making three distinct beings that comprise the godhead.

It is also helpful to know that section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants was added in 1876, under the direction of Brigham Young.  At that time twenty-six additional revelations were added to the canonization of the scriptures (sections:  2, 13, 77, 85, 87, 108–111, 113–118, 120–123, 125, 126, 129–132, and 136).  I mention this because the Lectures were still part of the D&C in 1876.  So, with the Lectures in the front, and section 130:22 contradicting Lecture #5, something had to be done.  I believe this is why Orson Pratt wrote to President John Taylor some 2 years after Brigham Young's death asking his opinion about removing the Lectures.  He may have asked Brigham the same question ("Can we remove the Lectures?") and been told no then as well.  Inconsistencies in the scriptures would lead to "confusion and contention" on this extremely vital point of doctrine; Elder Talmage was correct.

I also find it interesting that this verse in Lecture 5 starts out very much like the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed.  Perhaps this is the "Mormon Creed" of that era.  Here's the original Nicene Creed from 325 A.D (thank you wikipedia).

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say:  "There was a time when he was not;" and "He was not before he was made;" and "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence," or "The Son of God is created," or "changeable," or "alterable" - they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

I also find it odd that the Joseph Smith translation of John 4:24 disagrees with the above statement.  That scripture says the following (KJV - link):

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.

The JST for that verse says the following (link):

For unto such hath God promised his Spirit.  And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.

By July of 1833, Joseph had finished his translation pass-through of the Bible.  Most of this time when he worked on it, Sidney Rigdon was by his side.  It was at the end of this year [1833] that the revelation recorded at the beginning of this post was given.  I point this out only because Joseph had gone through the scriptures and retranslated John 4:24 - he knew that the "God is a Spirit" phrase didn't fit; and yet, he still wrote out Lecture 5.  I have no explanation for that.  Some things, like a better explanation of this seeming contradiction, will just have to wait until later - perhaps much later.

However, it was a simple, relatively, matter taken up by the D&C committee appointed by the First Presidency.  This had to be fixed, and it was.  James E. Talmage made the correct decision by recommending that the Lectures be removed from the same binding as the revelations in the scriptures.  In my opinion, all of the points made by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith make sense in light of a full review of the facts.

Yes, there was some things that probably could have been handled better; for instance the removal without Church approval (body of the Church approval).  However, all in all, since the right move was made, I find no fault.

I close with a quote from Larry E. Dahl:

The Lectures on Faith were written and published in the Doctrine and Covenants by men called of God to lead the Church in 1834.  The decision not to print them in the Doctrine and Covenants was made by men called of God to lead the Church in 1921.  I submit both actions were appropriate (Larry E. Dahl and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., The Lectures on Faith in Historical Perspective, p.19).

Conclusion for me:
I had a blast running through this history learning about the Lectures, the D&C history, and the evolving of LDS doctrine (specific to the Godhead) over the course of time.  It's been absolutely a great time learning this history.

Laws Against Polygamy - 1882 (Edmunds Act)

Other posts in this series:

• Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862
• Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887
• Manifesto of 1890
• Supreme Court Cases (1878-1893)

History and Background to this Bill:

Mormon people passionately believed that passage of the 1862 Morrill anti-bigamy act was unconstitutional, and that God would set it right punishing the nation that enacted it.  They were following God's commandments, and He would protect them from all evil for so doing.  Because of this belief, and their faith in God, they began to live in defiance of the law and hide the law-breaking of it; a tradition that would carry on until the present day with some break-away Mormon fundamentatlist groups.

These people believe the law to be an infringement by the government on their constitutional right to freely practice religion.  Marriage, they claim, is an institution declared by God, and is therefore a religious observance and rite.  It necessarily follows that government has no business to regulate or legislate the religious practice of marriage.  The LDS leaders and people were counting on the fact that the court system would agree with them and strike down this law based upon its unconstitutional attempt to legislate a religious practice - even if they had to appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the end, God would "make bare His arm" (scripture references:  I Nephi 22:11; D&C 133:3) and clear the path for those of His children attempting to live His revealed religion, and the interpretation of the First Amendment, would be the safety line for the Saints of God :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." (Bill of Rights:  First Amendement of the U.S. Constitution).

The Constitution of the United States was an inspired document (D&C 101:77, 80); therefore, the Lord would not destroy it, but fix the laws that corrupted it - the Saints hoped the Supreme Court would be inspired to right this wrong.

In the end, this belief would not prove to save the Saints.  The courts would not overturn the law of 1862, but would rather uphold it - religious outward practice is liable to be legislated for/against, and the law is therefore constitutional.  It is a man's religious belief that was protected with the law.

Currently [1862+], the government of the United States could do nothing in the short term to address this issue of defiance.  Prosecution of this law proved extremely difficult.  Obtaining proof that an actual wedding ceremony occurred was almost impossible given that the ceremonies took place secretly (and were not publicly recorded), the parties themselves would never admit the offense, and the community at large protected and shielded the couple and the practice of this religious ceremony.  Congress was urged to do more to stop this situation, and accordingly several pieces of legislation were introduced as an attempt to resolve what became known as the "Mormon Problem" or "Mormon Question." 

As an aside, due to the increasing hostility between the Federal Government and the Utah Mormons, several full-time lobbyists were employed by the Church in Washington so as to present their case to the leaders of this nation.  With all of the legislation on this list, it would seem an appropriate counter-measure tactic by the Church.

 The following is a very brief overview of some legislation and other events in between the passage of the Morrill Law in 1862, and the passage of the Edmunds Law in 1882.


1866 - Wade bill
The purpose of this bill appeared to be the destruction of local self-government in Utah.  The militia would be put under control of the Governor, with all officers of the Territory to be chosen by him, including members of both grand and petit juries and probate judges in all counties.  Additionally, Mormon religious officers would not be allowed to solemnize marriages, and the church trustee-in-trust  would be required to report once a year for an accounting of "all church properties, moneys in bank notes, deposits with the church, etc."

The bill died on the Senate calendar.


1867 - Utah Territorial legislature
The territorial legislature asks Congress to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862.  Instead of repealing it, the House Judiciary Committee wants to know why it is not being enforced.  Oops, that kind of backfired.


1867 / 1869 - Cragin bill (introduced twice)
This was an amendment to the Wade bill in that everything it had, the Cragin bill did as well; with a few other additions that even today seem rather outlandish.  To wit, a trial by jury would be done away with for those accused of violating the 1862 Morrill anti-bigamy act.

The bill never came up for vote; although there were many that did approve of its draconian measures of law enforcement.


1869 - Ashley bill
This bill's objective was for a near total dismemberment of the territory of Utah - blot out Utah almost completely allowing it to be swallowed up into surrounding territories.  However, it was believed that by doing this the Mormons would then politically control the other territories (Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado), and therefore the bill was abandoned.

"The idea of dividing the territory up among the ajoining territories is not practicable now; under it, the Mormons, instead of being divided and conquered, would divide and conquer; for with their number and discipline, they could out-vote and out-manage three territories."

1869 (May 10) - Transcontinental Railroad completed
Promontory Point, Utah, was the location for the completion of the transcontinental railroad.  The railroad brought people, goods, and a greater degree of civilization (Babylon in the eyes of Mormons) to Utah.  It permanently connected Utah with the outside world.  No longer was the Great Basin hidden and secluded.  It was now a part of the rest of the continental United States, and accessible like the rest.


1870 - Julian bill
Washington had the impression that polygamy in Utah existed only because the women were degraded and had no choice in it.  They postulated that if women could vote in Utah, polygamy would be destroyed because the women would vote it out of existence.  The response to their theories were met with extremely positive reviews in Utah.  After Utah's representative supported the bill, and positive editorials were published in the Deseret News, the ardor of the anti-Mormons was dampened, and the bill never came up for vote.  The fever was caught though, and the Utah territorial legislature passed a measure allowing women to vote in 1870 - a first.


1870 - Cullom bill
The bill is reported (rumored?) to have been written by Robert N. Baskin of Salt Lake City; he was regarded as a very bitter opponent of the Church and would properly be labled, anti-Mormon.  Most of the provisions of the Cragin bill are incorporated in the Cullom bill.  Some of the previous bills on this list also have their origin in Utah with anti-Mormon political activists.

Finding a summary of what was actually in this bill wasn't as easy as I hoped.  No online site that I could find (easily available via Google's search engine), had a listing of the bill's full text.  All I found were comments to the effect of:  "It's bad, and it didn't pass."  All of the books I read had similar summaries.  Well, that's fine and dandy, but not good enough for what I wanted to know.  Now that it was not easy to find, I wanted to see the whole thing - top to bottom, front to back and decide for myself.  So, I found the Congressional Record for 1870 - courtesy of my local university law library.  On February 16, 1870, the bill was introduced (House bill number 1089) by the chairman of the Committee on Territories, Representative Shelby Moore Cullom of Illinois. 

There were a total of 34 sections in the bill.  As I mentioned before, this bill had a lot of similarities to the previoulsly discussed Craigin bill.  I wanted to point out 2 interesting sections from the bill:

Sec. 13.  And be it further enacted, That any man in said Territory who shall after this act goes in effect live or cohabit with one woman or more, other than his lawful wife, as his wife or wives, shall be adjudged guilty of the crime of concubinage, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000, and by imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor not exceeding five years, and in all prosecutions for the violation of this section the alleged concubines of the accused shall be competent witnesses to establish or disprove the charge.

Sec. 32.  And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is empowered and directed, when in his judgment it shall be necessary to enforce the laws of said Territory, or the convictions and sentences of the courts thereof, to send such a portion of the Army of the United States to said Territory as shall be required therefore, and, in case a sufficient portion of said Army cannot with safety be detached from duty in other portions of the country to accomplish the same the President is empowered and directed further to accept and receive into the military service of the United States volunteers to the number of not exceeding forty thousand, and for such term of service as he may deem proper, not exceeding two years.  And the Secretary of War is directed and required to make such rules and regulations for the movement and transportation of the troops and the enlistment of volunteers as shall be necessary.

Those convicted of polygamy could not vote or hold office.  Before taking office, an oath would be administered that said you never have taken arms against the U.S., and that you are not a polygamist.  Only people appointed by the government could perform marriages (no Mormon Elders), etc.  The rest is a fair summary of previous bills.  It is interesting that plural wives are now called concubines.

Even the Missouri representative, never a friend of the Mormons, complained of the bill's sweeping unfairness:

"The superfluous wives of Young and his followers are declared concubines and their offspring bastards and both women and children are literally turned out of doors and consigned to the cold charities of the world.  The punishment of these comparatively innocent parties is actually more severe than that inflicted upon the more guilty.  The male polygamist may escape scot free by simply giving up his female companions, but in any event [the wives and children] are reduced to pauperism at once, and forced to beg, starve, or do worse."

The New York World recognized that if the Cullom Bill passed, it could mean war:

"If we force them into a hostile attitude, the Mormons can give us a very disagreeable, a very wearisome, and tremendously expensive war.  The government should not forcibly interfere with polygamy or Mormonism at all."

The bill was allowed to die on the Senate calendar after passing the House.


1871 (October) - Brigham Young indicted for adultery
He was under house arrest from January to April of 1872.  The charges were eventually dismissed.


In 1873 and 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant believed the situation in Utah had reached a tipping point.  Where were the convictions for polygamy?  How can Brigham Young and so many other of these Mormon leaders openly defy the law and not be brought to trial and convicted?  What is going on out there?  He was willing to intervene militarily and compel the people of Utah to obey the law unless Congress could pass legislation to control the Mormons.  He talked with Congress about this problem and urged them to act, and act soon.


1873 - Logan bill and Merritt bill
The logan bill was similar to previous bills that had been presented and failed.  It removed the ability of the people of Utah to self-govern.  It did not pass. 

Merritt's bill was very much like the Cullom bill of 1870.  It likewise received the same treatment - filed in the garbage can of congressional history; it also did not pass.


1874 - Brigham spends the night in the penitentiary
Brigham Young was brought to trial, not convicted, fined $25 for contempt of court and ordered to spend one night in prison.  The fallout over this was almost immediate:  Chief Justice McKean, Land Registrar George Maxwell, and the Judge of the trial were replaced.


1874 - Poland law
House bill 3097 was introduced, and shortly thereafter passed.  It passed Congress on June 23, and was signed the next day by President Grant.  This was the first law against the Mormons in Utah since the 1862 bill - it only took 12 additional years to find agreement on this.

This law removed from the probate courts of Utah all criminal, civil, and chancery jurisdiction.  The territorial marshal and attorney general of the territory were abolished and their duties were assigned to the United States marshal and the United States assistant district attorney.  The bill essentially dismantled the judicial system in Utah.  There were many people in both Utah and Washington that did not believe the law was harsh enough to be effective; however, individuals could now be brought to trial for breaking the Morrill law.

Immediately the United States attorney tried to bring leading Church officials to trial, but experienced problems.  Many of the brethren had married before the 1862 law was passed, and could not be tried ex post facto.  Furthermore, the wives could not be required to testify against their husbands, and the marriage records for the temple(s) were not public record.  These frustrations at prosecution of polygamy helped form the backbone of the next bill that would become a law.


1874 - George Reynolds "test case" 
Church leaders, confident in the unconstitutionality of the Morrill law, were anxious to have a "test case" brought before the Supreme Court concerning their First Amendment rights to practice religion.  They did not want to wait around for legislatures to get their polygamy bill right while many of their followers were being harassed.  So, when U.S. attorney, William Carey, promised to stop his attempts to indict Church leaders during the test case trial, the First Presidency (Brigham Young, George A. Smith, Daniel H. Wells) chose 32 year old George Reynolds, a secretary in the office of the Church president, and recently married for a second time to a plural wife, as a defendant (he volunteered) to stand in for the Church.  Reynolds cooperated completely with the prosecution's efforts against him.  He provided witnesses and other evidence necessary to prosecute the case successfully.  Reynolds was convicted in 1875, and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison and a fine of $500 dollars (later changed to 2 years imprisonment only).

The resultant conviction wasn't completely unexpected, but it just meant that appeal would be made to a higher court in the Territory.


1875 - President Ulysses S. Grant visits Utah (October)
After his arrival by train (large tangent:  I can't help but think of Wild Wild West with Jim West and Artemus Gordon protecting President Grant out in the west), he was driven into Salt Lake in an open carriage, and witnessed several thousand Sunday School children lining both sides of East Temple, dressed in white, welcoming him to Utah.  The children impressed him.  He turned to Governor Emery and said:  "Whose children are these?"  "Mormon children," answered the governor.  For several moments the President was silent, and then he murmured, in a tone of self-reproach, "I have been deceived!"  (History of Salt Lake City, pg. 623).


1876 - George Reynolds "test case"
Utah Territorial Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling.  Appeal is made to the United States Supreme Court for a hearing on First Amendment rights.

1877 August 29 
Brigham Young dies, never knowing if the law of 1862 was overturned, seeing the completion of the Salt Lake Temple, or knowing if the "social experiment" of the Mormons was actually going to succeed in building a Zion people and place.

1878 Joseph F. Smith sermon
This is the type of instruction that Latter-Day Saints of this day received about plural marriage.  I wouldn't call this typical, because many other topics were discussed; however, this wouldn't be atypical either:

     "The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part - and is good so far as it goes ... But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it."
     "... it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful."
     "I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that"  (Journal of Discourses, Volume 20, page 28-31; July 7, 1878).

1879 (January 6) - Reynolds vs. United States:  98 U.S. 145 
Reynolds' case is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Short answer:  The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862, is constitutional; George Reynolds is guilty.

The Supreme Court went to the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) to determine the scope of influence for government in legislating religious practice and to find a definition of what religious freedom meant in the mind of the framers.  This case was the first challenge to the interpretation of the First Amendment right of religious freedom - they wanted to be sure.

Thomas Jefferson defined the scope of religious freedom thusly:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.  Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote the court opinion (there was one dissenting justice - Justice Field - but only on one point of the case for evidence allowed of Amelia Jane Schofield; point number 4):

Coming as this does [the above Jefferson quote] from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.  Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress.  It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control.

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

Upon a careful consideration of the whole case, we are satisfied that no error was committed by the court below.

Judgment affirmed

Above quotes are all from the opinion rendered by the United States Supreme Court.  Because there was not a minority dissenting opinion, exception above noted on one of 6 points in the case, this was as close to a unanimous decision as could be expected.  Every member of the court believed that polygamy could be legislated against and could not be used as a religious defense in court.


1879 - George Q. Cannon publicly responds to the Supreme Court decision

"Our crime has been:  We married women instead of seducing them; we reared children instead of destroying them; we desired to exclude from the land prostitution, bastardy and infanticide. If George Reynolds is to be punished, let the world know the facts.  Conceal them not under the thin veil of hypocritical pretense.  Let it be published to the four corners of the earth that in this land of liberty, the most blessed and glorious upon which the sun shines, the law is swiftly invoked to punish religion, but justice goes limping and blindfolded in pursuit of crime."

I'm sure the Church was shocked, as is evidenced by the response from George Q. Cannon.  This judgment was not expected.  It was not supposed to happen this way. 

Reference to the above quote -- which are the final words of a pamphlet written by Cannon:  A Review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of George Reynolds vs. The People of the United States, pg. 58; published 1879 by Deseret News Printing and Publishing Establishment.


1880 - Revelation to Wilford Woodruff (Jan. 26) - pieces of it quoted below:

     "The nation is ripened in iniquity and the cup of the wrath of mine indignation is full and I will not stay my hand in judgments upon this nation or the nations of the earth.

     "And I say again, woe unto that nation, or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal law of Abraham, which leadeth to Celestial Glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto me void.

     "The blood of my servants Joseph and Hyrum and of mine Apostles and Elders which has been shed for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, cries from the ground for vengeance upon the nation which has shed their blood.  But their blood shall speedily be avenged and shall cease to cry unto me, for the hour of God's judgment is fully come and shall be poured out without measure upon the wicked."

--> Reference:  Wilford Woodruff's 1880 Revelation
--> Reference:  LDS Church News (they mention the revelation in passing, but do not quote it). 

"In 1880, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation 'which virtually nailed the flag to the flagpole of plural marriage.'"

Comment:  With revelations like this, it is easy for me to see why the Saints and their leaders would continue to resist the laws of the United States.  They believed that the Lord would fight their cause for them and not allow their religion to be tainted and/or destroyed by the unrighteous gentiles of the same nation that killed the prophet Joseph and his brother Hyrum in Carthage, Illinois.


1881 (January) - Church authorities fulfill instruction from 1880 revelation:

The above revelation from 1880, had specific instructions in it on what the Lord wanted these men to do.  On January 19, 1881, they fulfilled these instructions.  The full prayer offered can be found in the Journal of Wilford Woodruff 7:621-625.

Someday I'll have to get better access to the Journals so I can read this.  For now, I can only accept that it was something that I need to read.  Update:  I read the Woodruff journals (the part in book 7 with the prayer - it's at the very end of the book), and was interested to know if a list of names were included; they were not - well, so much for seeing who the Saints believed their enemies were exactly.  Here are a few pieces of it that I found pertinent (all spelling, captialization, etc., is Wilford Woodruff's):

Now our Father who art in heaven we bear testimony unto thee that from the hour that Moroni gave into the hands of thy servant Joseph the sacred Record from the hill Cumorah wicked and ungodly men sought his life and Continued to persecute him up to the hour of his death and finally shed his Blood and martered him with his Brother Hyram in Carthage Jail for the word of God & Testimony of Jesus Christ.  And the wicked of this Nation have Continued to persecute thy servants from time to time, until the present hour.  The wicked of this Nation have driven thy people from town to town from state to State and finally driven them from the Nation into the wilderness, into these Mountains of Israel.

And now our Enemies are not satisfied because we still live and prosper.  Even Our Nation itself is taking a stand against thy Church and Kingdom and has passed laws forbidding us to obey the Law of the Celestial Patriarchal Order of marriage which thou hast Commanded us to obey.  The blood of one of thy servants has been shed.  Others have been imprisoned because they would not deny thy word.
...
The list of Names are in print & I omit recording them here.

O Lord our God these Classes of Men whether living or dead have made war against Thee and thy kingdom and thine anointed ones.  Some have shed the blood of thy Prophets and Apostles.  Others have Consented unto their death and have persecuted the Saints of God and have driven them from place to Place and finally driven them into these mountains of Israel and barren deserts and many of our Nation their Presidents Governors and judges still seek our destruction and still wish to pass laws to prevent us from Building up thy Kingdom and keeping thy Commandments and from redeeming our dead and performing the work which thous has Commanded us to do and to deprive us of our freedom as men and our rights as Citizens.

Our Father in heaven we Pray unto thee and ask thee in the name of thy son Jesus Christ that thou wilt protect thy Church, thy Kingdom and thy people from the Power of the wicked. O Lord may this Nation not have power to prevent thy Saints from keeping thy Commandments, from building the Temples of our God and redeeming Our dead.

That was a lot of background and history.  There are still important events that I have skipped over - a blog post is only so long.  I may add them later, or create a new post with additional information.

In 1882, Congress put together a bill designed to control, and hopefully limit, the practice of polygamy in Utah.  This bill worked around some of the problems of the 1862 bill and the 1874 bill; namely, it had instructions on enforcement - it finally had teeth.  Also, unlawful cohabitation was defined as "supporting and caring for more than one woman."  After the passage of this bill, unlawful cohabitation would become the main focus of prosecutors in the Utah Territory.

In summary, here are the main points of this law:

• It is an amendment to the 1862 law, not a new law.
• Polygamy (marriage to more than one woman) is a felony:  5 years in prison and/or $500 fine.
• Unlawful cohabitation (living with more than one woman) is a misdemeanor:  6 months in prison and/or $300 fine.
• Polygamists disqualified from jury service, voting, and public or elective office of any kind.
• Children of polygamous families legitimized if born before January 1, 1883.

The law is copied below in its entirety.


The Statutes at Large of the United States of America
From December, 1881, to March, 1883
Volume XXII [22] - reference below, pages 30-33


March 22, 1882
Chapter 47 - An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes.

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section fifty-three hundred and fift-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows, namely:

     Every person who has a husband or wife living who, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; but this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years, and is not known to such person to be living, and is believed by such person to be dead, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by a valid decree of a competent court, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been pronounced void by a valid decree of a competent court, on the ground of nullity of the marriage contract.

     Sec. 2.  That the foregoing provisions shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any offense already committed against the section amended by the first section of this act.

     Sec. 3.  That if any male person, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter cohabits with more than one woman, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

     Sec. 4.  That counts for any or all of the offenses named in sections one and three of this act may be joined in the same information or indictment.

     Sec. 5.  That in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, under any statute of the United States, it shall be sufficient cause of challenge to any person drawn or summoned as a juryman or talesman, first, that he is or has been living in the practice of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation with more than one woman, or that he is or has been guilty of an offense punishable by either of the foregoing sections, or by section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or the act of July first, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled "An act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah", or, second, that he believes it right for a man to have more than one living and undivorced wife at the same time, or to live in the practice of cohabiting with more than one woman; and any person appearing or offered as a jurur or talesman, and challenged on either of the foregoing grounds, may be questioned on his oath as to the existence of any such cause of challenge, and other evidence may be introduced bearing upon the question raised by such challenge; and this question shall be tried by the court.  But as to the first ground of challenge before mentioned, the person challenged shall not be bound to answer if he shall say upon his oath that he declines on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate himself; and if he shall answer as to said first ground, his answer shall not be given in evidence in any criminal prosecution against him for any offense named in sections one or three of this act; but if he declines to answer on any ground, he shall be rejected as incompetent.

     Sec. 6.  That the President  is hereby authorized to grant amnesty to such classes of offenders guilty of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, before the passage of this act, on such conditions and under such limitations as he shall think proper; but no such amnesty shall have effect unless the conditions thereof shall be complied with.

     Sec. 7.  That the issue of bigamous or polygamous marriages, known as Mormon marriages, in cases in which such marriages have been solemnized according to the ceremonies of the Mormon sect, in any Territory of the United States, and such issue shall have been born before the first day of January, anno Domini eighteen hundred and eighty-three, are hereby legitimated.

     Sec. 8.  That no polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or appointment or to be entitled to hold any office or place of public trust, honor or emolument in, under, or for any such Territory or place, or under the United States.

     Sec. 9.  That all the registration and election offices of every description in the Territory of Utah are hereby declared vacant, and each and every duty relating to the registration of voters, the conduct of elections, the receiving or rejection of votes, and the canvassing and returning of the same, and the issuing of certificates or other evidence of election in said Territory, shall, until other provision be made by the legislative assembly of said Territory as is hereinafter by this section provided, be performed under the existing laws of the United States and of said Territory by proper persons, who shall be appointed to execute such offices and perform such duties by a board of five persons, to be appointed by the President [of the United States], by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than three of whom shall be members of one political party; and a majority of whom shall be a quorum.  The members of said board so appointed by the President shall each receive a salary at the rate of three thousand dollars per annum, and shall continue in office until the legislative assembly of said Territory shall make provision for filling said offices as herein authorized.  The Secretary of the Territory shall be the secretary of said board, and keep a journal of its proceedings, and attest the action of said board under this section.  The canvass and return of all the votes at elections in said Territory for members of the legislative assembly thereof shall also be returned to said board, which shall canvass all such returns and issue certificates of election to those persons who, being eligible for such election, shall appear to have been lawfully elected, which certificates shall be the only evidence of the right of such persons to sit in such assembly:  Provided, That said board of five persons shall not exclude any person otherwise eligible to vote from the polls on account of any opinion such person may entertain on the subject of bigamy or polygamy nor shall they refuse to count any such vote on account of the opinion of the person casting it on the subject of bigamy or polygamy; but each house of such assembly, after its organization, shall have power to decide upon the elections and qualifications of its members.  And at, or after the first meeting of said legislative assembly whose members shall have been elected and returned according to the provisions of this act, said legislative assembly may make such laws, conformable to the organic act of said Territory and not inconsistent with the other laws of the United States, as it shall deem proper concerning the filling of the offices in said Territory declared vacant by this act.

APPROVED, March 22, 1882

Laws Against Polygamy - 1862 (Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)

This is an off-shoot from the Reed Smoot hearing testimonies that I have been churning through.  Some of the conversations in the hearing deal with the laws against polygamy enacted by the United States Congress.  So, I wanted to have these readily available for review.

Other posts in this series:

• Edmunds Act of 1882
• Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887
• Manifesto of 1890
• Supreme Court Cases (1878-1893)

Some History and Backgound to this Bill:

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew about the doctrine of plural marriage prior to its acknowledgment and being recorded in 1843.  Joseph began the practice of polygamy around 1835 (when he married Fanny Alger plurally), which would be a little after the time when he was going through the Bible and retranslating it, and would put the Saints in both Kirtland, Ohio and Missouri - not Nauvoo, Illinois.  This time frame also matches with the heading in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants which says that the prophet knew of this doctrine since 1831 (reference:  LDS D&C Section 132).  However, this section was not officially added to the D&C until 1876, by Brigham Young.  Prior to this time, the section known to the Community of Christ Church today as Section 111 was included (reference:  CofC D&C Section 111) as the scripture on marriage.

After the Mormons had made their way to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, the practice of polygamy continued, but it was not broadcast.  However, that all changed in Salt Lake on August 29, 1852, when Apostle Orson Pratt gave a talk entitled "Celestial Marriage," which announced officially to the country that the Mormons were practicing polygamy (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, pg. 53 - here).  This declaration was done with the approval of Brigham Young.  At this time, there was no longer the hush and whisper method of containing this practice.  It was now freely and openly admitted, logically backed up with scriptures to justify its practice as a religious institution, and practiced openly in the Territory.

In 1856, the Republican party selected as its national platform the abolishment of the "twin relics of barbarism - polygamy and slavery."  This was the platform that Abraham Lincoln ran on, and it shows the concern of the politicians and the citizens of the country to this growing problem in Utah.

Mormons in the State of Deseret (Territory of Utah) were desperately trying to become a State in the Union so that they could officially legalize polygamy in the State.  It was however, very clear, that one of the main reasons their petitions for statehood were rejected by Congress was due to the practice of polygamy - because it undermined the concept of marriage, an institution that is necessary for a free society.

Many in Washington considered the practice of polygamy and refusal of Brigham Young to deal with it as a rebellion against the Government of the United States.  Because of this, the "Mormon Rebellion" had to be stopped, and military plans were drawn up.  At the urging of many Washington politicians in Buchanan's administration, President James Buchanan sent out troops to replace Brigham Young as the Territorial governor.  The Federal Government in Washingon, D.C., was going to force the hand of the Mormons to obey and honor the correct form of government.  Here is the reaction of Brigham (New York Times article: November 19, 1857) when he was informed that an army was on its way to Utah. 

On April 6, 1858, President Buchanan, issued a proclamation "Respecting the Rebellion and Mormon Troubles in the Territory of Utah." This was in response to Brigham Young's reaction to the troops headed to Utah, and the burning of supply wagons for the army by Mormon raiders.  The Mormons were labeled as terrorists and subversive. They were told that they were given every opportunity to live within the government of a free nation, but refused and rebelled against it.  Every appointed official in Utah could not accomplish their job for fear of retribution and possibly assassination by the commnity. (United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 11, pages 796-798).

     "The great mass of those settlers [pioneers in Utah], acting under the influence of leaders to whom they seem to have surrendered their judgment, refuse to be controlled by any other authority ... the hatred of that misguided people for the just and legal authority of the government had become so intense that they resolved to measure their military strength with that of the Union ... While the troops of the United States were on their march, a train of baggage-wagons, which happened to be unprotected, was attacked and destroyed by a portion of the Mormon forces, and the provisions and stores with which the train was laden were wantonly burnt ... In short, their present attitude is one of decided and unreserved enmity to the United States and to all their loyal citizens.

     "Fellow-citizens of Utah ! this is rebellion against the government to which you owe allegiance.  It is levying war against the United States, and involves you in the guilt of treason ... it is mere madness to suppose that, with your limited resources, you can successfully resist the force of this great and powerful nation ... Do not decieve yourselves nor try to mislead others by propagating the idea that this is a crusade against your religion ... [I offer] to the inhabitants of Utah, who shall submit to the laws, a free pardon for the seditions and treasons heretofore by them committed."

From the "History of Salt Lake City" comes this quote:

"Burning the supplies of an army of the United States, sent by the Government to put down an incipient rebellion, was declared to be an extraordinary overt act of actual war, while the proclamation of Governor Young was considered as a veritable declaration of war as from an independent power.  A terrible wrath was aroused against the Mormon Utah."

Brigham Young's words on to U.S. Captain Van Vliet on this occasion give pause:

"We are aware that such will be the case; but when those troops arive they will find Utah a desert.  Every house will be burned to the ground, every tree cut down and every field left waste.  We have three years' provisions on hand, which we will 'cache,' and then take to the mountains and bid defiance to all the powers of the government"  (History of Salt Lake City, pg. 175 - both quotes).

The reconstituted Nauvoo Legion, led by Major Lot Smith, did delay the approach of the army until June 1858, by capturing and buring supply caravans destined for the main body of the army.  The entire series of events with references can be found at wikipedia.org under Utah War.  This military move was known later as "Buchanan's blunder."  The Mormon leaders and people believed that the Federal Government was finally willing, and able, to carry out plans to completely destroy them, where they had failed before in Missouri and Illinois.  The Salt Lake Temple foundations were buried to hide it from the army (a farmer's field was placed over the top of it for a disguise).  In the end, the army moved in, Camp Floyd was created for the housing of the troops (on the western side of Utah Lake), and after approximately a year, the military left and returned back East.

This military intervention, and many discussions with Mormon leaders both in Utah and Washington D.C., did nothing to disuade them from the practice of polygamy.

That's the background, now the law.

First up is what is known as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act - sponsored by Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont.  It was introduced to the House of Representatives in the spring of 1860, where it passed.  It was sent over to the Senate, but did not make it out before Congress adjourned.  With the start of the 36th Congress in 1862, the Southern States were not represented, and this led to an easier passage of the bill; by a vote of 37 to 2, it passed the Senate.

This bill was signed into law on July 1, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln.  Because of the timing of the bill (rebellion of the South causing the Civil War), distance of the Mormons from everyone else (railroads didn't connect in Utah until 1869), and the general attitude of "let sleeping dogs lie," this law was not enforced at all.  It was a bill created without teeth, and became a law that was ignored by the Mormons.  However, Brigham Young was still concerned when he learned of its passage, so he wanted to know the intentions of President Lincoln in relation to this bill.

"When Brigham Young sent Deseret News assistant editor T.B.H. Stenhouse to Washington, D.C., to ascertain Lincoln's plans for the Mormons, the president told him:

'Stenhouse, when I was a boy on the farm in Illinois there was a great deal of timber on the farms which we had to clear away.  Occasionally we would come to a log which had fallen down.  It was too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it.  That's what I intend to do with the Mormons.  You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.'"   (Church History in the Fullness of Times, pg. 383).

That is exactly what happened.  This law was not enforced.  No officers were appointed to enforce the law and no funds for enforcement were allotted.

I find it interesting that they used the phrases "State of Deseret" and "spiritual marriage" in the text of the bill itself.  That tells me that they did understand, at least a little, what was going on out in the desert.  It is a little confusing why they would want to label and punish polygamy as the crime of bigamy because they are two different crimes.  Mormons knew they weren't practicing bigamy (marrying another spouse without the first one knowing), they were practicing polygamy where everything was above board.

Here's my quick and dirty summary of the law (which has 3 sections):

Section 1:  Defines the marriage of more than one living woman to a man (or living man to a woman) as bigamy and punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment of up to 5 years.

Section 2:  Disincorporates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints due to the fact that this corporation helped establish and shield the polygamous practices occurring in the Territory.  Also any other laws or acts passed by the legislature of the so-called State of Deseret (Territory of Utah) which supported polygamy are automatically annulled.

Section 3:  No religious corporation may own more that $50,000 worth of real estate in a Territory of the United States.  Any real estate owned by such corporations that come in conflict with this law are forfeited and escheat to the United States.

Below is quoted the law in its entirety - it's actually short compared to some laws I've read.


The Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations, of the United States of America
From December 5, 1859, to March 3, 1863
Volume XII [12] - reference below, pages 501-502

July 1, 1862
Chapter CXXVI [126] - An Act to punish and prevent the Practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other Places, and disapproving and annulling certain Acts of the Legislative Assembly of Territory of Utah.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years:  Provided, nevertheless, That this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years without being known to such person within that time to be living; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by the decree of a competent court; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been annulled or pronounced void by the sentence or decree of a competent court on the ground of the nullity of the marriage contract.
    
     Sec. 2.  And be it further enacted, That the following ordinance of the provisional government of the State of Deseret, so called, namely: "An ordinance incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," passed February eight, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-one, and adopted, reenacted, and made valid by the governor and legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah by an act passed January nineteen, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-five, entitled "An act in relation to the compilation and revision of the laws and resolutions in force in Utah Territory, their publication, and distribution," and all other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the said legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah, which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy, be, and the same hereby are, disapproved and annulled:  Provided, That this act shall be so limited and construed as not to affect or interfere with the right or property legally acquired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with the right "to worship God according to the dictates of conscience," but only to annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other contrivances.
    
     Sec. 3.  And be it further enacted, That is shall not be lawful for any corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes to acquire of hold real estate in any Territory of the United States during the existence of the territorial government of a greater value than fifty thousand dollars; and all real estate acquired or held by any such corporation or association contrary to the provisions of this act shall be forfeted and escheat to the United States:  Provided, That existing vested rights in real estate shall not be impaired by the provisions of this section.

APPROVED, July 1, 1862

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 10 - Ogden Hiles

March 12, 1904


Ogden Hiles is a resident of Salt Lake and has been for the past 17 or 18 years (back to about 1886).  He moved to Utah to accept an appointment as assistant United States attorney for the Territory of Utah.  He continued in this position for about 3 and a half years.  In 1895, he was elected as one of the judges of the third judicial district court and served 5 years there.  Currently he practices law in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Tayler wants information on what Judge Hiles did during his time as an attorney for the Territory of Utah.

Mr. Hiles.  From 1886 to 1889, I was in the United States attorney's office as assistant.  And during what were called the polygamy prosecutions I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under the Edmunds law and the Edmunds-Tucker law than any other officer.  My duties called me from Ogden to Salt Lake, to Provo and to Beaver, in all parts of the Territory; and, as I say, I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under those laws than any other officer.  I examined hundreds and I may say thousands of witnesses during that time.
...
Mr. Hiles.  At that time [1886], under orders from the Attorney-General's office here in Washington, we were directed to proceed and prosecute offenders against these laws with as much vigor as we could, and we did proceed, commencing in the forepart of 1886.  There had been some prosecutions in 1885.  We had not proceeded far before it was made very clear as a general fact - it was already pretty well known in the community - that the people of Utah were living under a theocracy, under a government of priests.  This state or condition was disclosed by the examination of witnesses before the grand juries by the examination of jurors touching their qualification to sit as jurors in polygamy cases, as they were called.
Mr. Tayler.  Now tell us definitely what you mean by that - what answers were given?
Mr. Hiles.  Invariably, if we would ask a Mormon whether he would obey the laws of the United States, or the laws of the church, he would say that he would obey the law of the church.  As stated by Mr. Critchlow yesterday, in every case - or in most every case - the judge would offer the defendant who was convicted the clemency of suspension of judgment if he would in future obey the law.  He would say no.  "Why not?"  "Well," he would say, "I choose to obey the law of God rather than man-made laws."  If we suggested that the laws of the Republic were mild and that any lady or gentleman of standing might live under them without coming in hostility to them, he would say it made no difference.  If we asked him what the law of God was, he said it was that which was revealed to them in their Doctrine & Covenants and in the Bible, and was expounded to them by the authorities - that is to say, the authorities of the church ... It was regarded by the Mormons and by the priesthood as a badge of apostasy to agree to obey the law.  I do not know that anyone was disfellowshipped for it, but it was considered an act of apostasy to agree to obey the law.

Commentary:  This testimony is similar to that given by Mr. Critchlow with a few pieces of history that cast more light on this time in history.  Apparently the church had instructed its members to live only the law of God because the laws of man were inferior.  Additionally, if you agreed to live man's laws, you were immediately in a state of apostasy - possibly subject to disfellowship or excommunication.  The only way so many people that were prosecuted would say things like this is if they really believed it - and that comes from their ecclesiastical leaders.


He goes on to say that after the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act that his court took advantage of the added offense of unlawful cohabitation or adultery.  "We immediately took advantage of that in every case where we could bring a case of adultery."  Because of this there was a lot of pressure upon the people of the Territory.  These prosecutions were done against many poor people; people would could not pay fines.  At this time "they commenced, and many of them would promise to obey the law, and did promise to obey the law, and judgment was suspended in every instance."

Mr. Hiles.  After, in 1889, there was a more evident disposition on the part of the Mormon people to obey the law, and, as has been said, the people became restive under the continuous hammering of the Government to enforce the law ... Mormons and Gentiles at that time began to meet and discuss the situation.  Before that they would not discuss the matter at all of the differences between Gentile and Mormon.
     In 1890 it was concluded that something would be done by the church toward an amelioration of these conditions, and upon that the Government seemed to relax its prosecution.  There were prosecutions, however, all the way through 1890 up to the issuance of the manifesto in 1890, but there was some relaxation of the pressure of the law officers upon the people.  There was a general disposition among all kinds of people to do something that would amerliorate these conditions, because it was a hardship upon the Mormon people.
...
     I believe for a time there was an observance of [the manifesto of 1890], I do not know for how long; but gradually since statehood, as it is called, there has been a recurrence of those old conditions.  Polygamous cohabitation has become more flagrant.  We see continually coming on a new crop of polygamous children, and it seems to a great many people ... with whom I talk that they are getting back to old polygamous conditions and that they are not obeying the law of the State of Utah in that respect.
     After the admission of Utah as a State, the polygamists took the position that there was no inhibition in the constitution of the State of Utah against polygamous cohabitation; that the inhibition was against polygamy merely, and that the framers of the constitution, having put in an interdiction a against polygamous marriages, new marriages, having omitted to say anything about polygamous cohabitation or unlawful cohabitation and those other offenses that were mentioned in the Edmunds law, that therefore there was no offense in Utah such as unlawful cohabitation and adultery.  When I was judge a case come up before upon a habeas corpus in which counsel took that position, and I decided that the law was constitutional.

Commentary:  That was a quick history review, and I think was fairly well done.

Senator Hopkins.  Now, Judge, is it the practice of the church at each election, local and general, in the State to take part and select some for election and others for defeat?
Mr. Hiles.  No; not as a rule.  It is only occasionally.  They do not take up each man on the ticket and say whether he shall be elected or shall not be elected, but if they do take up a man and say that he shall be elected, he will be elected.
Senator Hopkins.  Is it any more than where a good Methodist is running, other good Methodist brothers think he is a little better by reason of that, and give him their vote?  Or do they exert a wider and more potential influence in elections?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; their influence is more effectual because it is an organization which controls large masses of men and women.  It is an organization which is distinct from the Government of the United States and the government of the State of Utah, and exercises political and secular control over the affairs of the people.

And that is the end of the direct-examination of Judge Hiles.  Actually, that was a whole lot shorter than I expected.

Mr. Van Cott does the cross-examination of Judge Hiles and sarts out his questioning with with asking for a specific example of where the Mormon Church has interfered in politics in the State of Utah within the last 5 years.

Mr. Hiles.  Well, the election of Senator Smoot is one.  Smoot would not have been elected to the United States Senate if he had not been approved by the authorities of the Mormon Church.
Mr. Van Cott.  Right there, Judge, before you go on, do you mean by that if Mr. Smoot had been a lay member in the church and had run for United States Senator he would not have been elected, or do you mean if he were an apostle and did not get a leave of absence or consent, that then he would have been defeated?
Mr. Hiles.  I mean that Mr. Smoot would never have been elected United States Senator unless he had been an apostle and had received their consent and their indorsement.  When Mr. Smoot's candidacy was announced and it was known that he had the consent of the church, it was then known that he would become Senator of the United States.
Mr. Van Cott.  But Mr. Smoot was a candidate for Senator, was he not, before he became an apostle?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; a perfunctory candidate.
Mr. Van Cott.  A perfunctory candidate?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes.  He was not seriously considered until he became an apostle and after his candidacy, subsequent to his apostolate.
Senator Hopkins.  Do you mean that his standing in the Republican party of the State was such that he was not seriously considered until they learned that the church was for him?
Mr. Hiles.  His standing in any party - the Republican party, the Mormon party, or any party.  I mean he had no standing as a candidate for the United States Senate, and when it was known that he was a candidate, then everybody said, "Why, that is the end of it.  That settles it."
Mr. Van Cott.  And your opinion is, Judge, that he would not have been selected for United States Senator if he had not been an apostle?
Mr. Hiles.  He would not.
Mr. Van Cott.  And do you mean by that that no Mormon Republican would be selected for United States Senator unless he was an apostle, or do you not go to that extent?
Mr. Hiles.  Oh, no; a Mormon may become a United States Senator without being an apostle, but I say that in Smoot's case he would not have been unless he was an apostle.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  For instance, Judge, name one candidate for the United States Senate belonging to the Mormon Church and to Republican politics who you consider more prominent for the position than Mr. Smoot.
Mr. Hiles.  Why, Governor Wells.
...
Senator Hopkins.  The evidence, as I have undertsood it, is that Mr. Smoot has always acted with the Republican party out there and that his influence has been strong with that party and that he favored the election of men who belonged to that political faith.
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; I think that is the history of it.
...
Senator Hopkins.  Is it or is it not a fact that Mr. Smoot has been a consistent, straightforward Republican all his mature life, or ever since he took any part in politics?
Mr. Hiles.  Well, I have heard so.
Mr. Van Cott.  Do you know anything to the contrary?
Mr. Hiles.  I know nothing to the contrary.

Commentary:  His opinion was stated, and it was then called into question by Mr. Van Cott and Senator Hopkins.  From this reading, it would appear that Mr. Hiles is rather negative toward Reed Smoot and that his testimony (opinion) cannot be trusted in this specific matter.  The previous testimony seemed fair and knowledgeable when he talked about the prosecutions.

Mr. Van Cott.  What are your means of knowledge that he would not have been elected if he had not been one of the twelve apostles?
Mr. Hiles.  Because there are men in politics in Utah who have much more influence simply as politicians than he has and whom the people would prefer.
Senator Hopkins.  Do you mean by that that his position in the party has been such that he had no reasonable claim to such a promotion?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; no reasonable claim to such a promotion, and if he had he could not obtain it, in my judgment.  Of course, that is a matter of opinion.
Senator Hopkins.  You are giving it as your opinion.  Have you anything which you predicate that, which you can give this committee, which will enable us to judge from those facts?
Mr. Hiles.  It is only from the general talk of men in the Republican party and in the Democratic party.

Commentary:  He states this as opinion and not fact and is questioned on that by Senator Hopkins and cannot provide any facts that the committee can use.  This again serves to qualify his testimony on this matter as opinion only.


At this point Judge Hiles makes a flat out mistake.  He's already gone off on his opinion of Senator Smoot's election and standing in the Republican party of Utah.  I kind of feel sorry for him because the hole he's digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper, and consequently his believability or relevancy to this committee, are greatly diminished.  He's being asked by Mr. Van Cott about the Senators that have been from Utah.

Mr. Van Cott.  Now, the next Senator was J.L. Rawlins?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  He is not a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; he is a Mormon.
Mr. Van Cott.  Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir ... I have heard Mr. Rawlins say he was not a Mormon.  He was baptized a Mormon.  He was reared among them.  His father was a bishop - his father was Bishop Rawlins.
Mr. Van Cott.  Becaues he was born of Mormon parentage and because his father was a Mormon, do you understand that that makes him a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Pretty close.
Mr. Van Cott.  Pretty close?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes.
Mr. Van Cott.  So that if persons leave the church and if they happen to be of Mormon parentage, in your opinion they are pretty close to being Mormons.  Is that right?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is right.  Is all the testimony you have given along the line on which you have testified and do you speak with just as much knowledge on other matters as this, namely, that Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  He is a Mormon under the qualifications I have named; yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Under the qualifications you have named?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is, he is pretty close to being a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  And all your other testimony is just along that same line; just as close?
Mr. Hiles.  No; I do not qualify my other testimony as I qualify that.  I know what I am talking about sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  You do know that?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir; I know -

Commentary:  I have a suggestion:  Think before you open your mouth.  On Sunday, March 13, 1904, a letter is received by the committee from Mr. Rawlins on this subject to be read stating that he is, in fact, not a Mormon (see New York Times article on this subject here).  This is just one more piece of the puzzle here that throws doubt on all of the testimony of Judge Hiles - even though I thought his opening statements were very well done.  To close off this section he says:  "I know what I am talking about sir."  Doh!  That just sealed his testimony with a stamp of arrogancy.  I must say I'm not sure the cross-examiner had anything to do with walking the Judge into these mistakes; rather, it was more of the Judge making "unforced errors."


Mr. Van Cott asks him how he knows that polygamy and/or unlawful cohabitation have increased after 1890, and he wants the Judge to state specific instances if he knows of them.

Mr. Hiles.  I know one instance, but I do not want to mention his name, because he is a friend of mine, although he is a polygamist.
Mr. Van Cott.  We will excuse you from mentioning his name.
Mr. Hiles.  That is to say, I have received acts of kindness from him, and I would not say anything that might be to his injury.

Commentary:  Well ok now.  He prosecuted case after case after case for law-breaking Mormon polygamists - with vigor.  However, when it comes down to turning one in that is his friend and has been nice to him, he won't do it.  He only wants to have prosecuted those people that he doesn't know.  I find that very "human" of him and at the same time duplicitous and hypocritical.


One interesting side not here is that there was discussion before the end of the day where Mr. Tayler was anxious to have 8 men who have been subpoenaed appear - but they have not.  Because of this there are no more witnesses currently for the protestants and thus there is about one month of time taken off from the committee meetings.  I assume that two of the men he is speaking of are M. F. Cowley and John W. Taylor - these two never do show up in Washington, they avoid the committee completely by not allowing themselves to be subpoenaed.  I also assume the others he mentions would be Marriner W. Merrill (cannot come for health reasons), George Teasdale (cannot come for health reasons), and John Henry Smith (cannot come for health reasons; he does however, make it out eventually).


The committee adjourned at 4:25 PM.