"We have no means of knowing to what extent the practice of plural marriage has been discontinued in the 'Mormon' Church, since no records of such marriages are kept by the Church that are accessible to the public. That there have been instances of such marriages ever since the agreement of the Church to discontinue them, we know; that they cannot be celebrated without the sanction of the Church accredited officials, is unquestioned; that, so far as the public knowledge goes, no officials who may have celebrated such marriages have been disciplined therefor is certain."
Throughout one cannot help believing that these gentlemen are not quite candid with reference to this subject. I do not believe that in the State of Utah there is any one, in the Church or out of it, who does not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stopped the practice of, or sanctioning and performing plural marriages. I am of the opinion that everybody is settled in his conviction in relation to that matter.
It requires time for the settlement of such questions as those involved in the system of plural marriage, as once practiced in the Church. No proclamation is at first understood. Differences of opinion and variety of interpretation are bound to exist concerning matters of this description. And when the announcement was made in President Woodruff's manifesto of the discontinuance of plural marriage, and the advice was given that our people should contract no marriages contrary to the law, the question arose in the minds of some whether that prohibition was not limited to marriages within the United States, and whether by refraining from contracting such marriages within the United States would not fulfill the covenant and agreement implied in the manifesto. The matter was discussed pro and con. Ultimately, however, the conclusion was inevitable that the manifesto forbade plural marriages in all the world; because the Church is not a local Church: it is not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the United States alone; but it is a world-wide Church; and when its general conference speaks, it speaks for the entire Church in all the world. Hence, I say, the conclusion was inevitable that plural marriages were everywhere forbidden; and when some men held tenaciously to the view that that was not the case, but that the Church fulfilled her agreement to discontinue plural marriage by abstaining from performing plural marriages within the United States—when that view was persisted in, I say, there was but one thing left, and that was to conclude that such persons were out of harmony with the Church. Two of the twelve apostles held that view; they were declared by their associates to be out of harmony with their brethren in these matters, they tendered their resignations which were accepted; and since that time there has been no question in the Church, or out of it, as to where the Church stands on the subject of discontinuing plural marriages, and I do not believe that there is any doubt on that subject existing in the minds of the gentlemen who formulated this review.
In confirmation of this I submit the letter of resignation of John W. Taylor:
"SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER 28, 1905.
"To the Council of the Twelve Apostles:
"DEAR BRETHREN:—I hereby tender to you my resignation as a member of the council of the twelve apostles, as it is clear to me that I have been out of harmony with you on some very important matters which have apparently brought reproach upon the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"I wish to state in the first place that I have not violated the laws of the United States, nor of the State of Utah, in relation to polygamous or plural marriages; also that the authorities of the Church have not directed or authorized me to do so, or to do anything contrary to the rules of the Church as adopted by that body.
"But I find that I have been out of harmony with the said authorities as to the scope and meaning of the manifesto issued by President Woodruff and adopted by the general conference, on October 6, 1890, and also as to the meaning of the last clause of the petition for amnesty to President Benjamin Harrison in December, 1891. I have always believed that the government of the United States had jurisdiction only with its own boundaries, and that the term 'laws of the land' in the manifesto meant merely the laws of the United States. I find now that this opinion is different to that expressed by the Church authorities, who have declared that the prohibition against plural marriages extended to every place and to every part of the Church. It is doubtless true that this view of the matter has been given by President Woodruff and others, but I have never taken that as binding upon me or the Church, because it [such interpretation] was never presented for adoption by 'common consent,' as was the manifesto itself, and I have disputed its authority as a law or a rule of the Church.
"I acknowledge that I received a request from President Joseph F. Smith, by letter, to appear as a witness in the Reed Smoot case before the Senate committee on Privileges and Elections, but I declined to do so because, while I recognized his right to direct me in Church affairs, I did not think his authority extended to civil affairs to the extent that I should expose my family concerns and be questioned and be held up to public ignominy as some of my brethren were before that body, and I still hold the same views upon that matter.
"Inasmuch as I have not been in harmony with my brethren on these subjects, and I have been called in question concerning them, I now submit to their discipline, and, to save further controversy, tender this my resignation, and hope for such clemency in my case as they may deem right and just and merciful.
"Your brother,
(Signed) "JOHN W. TAYLOR."
The explanation accompanying the resignation of Elder Cowley was of similar import.
Another complaint of our reviewers is that polygamy is only abrogated as to practice, and that belief in the divinity of the principle is still held by the Latter-day Saints.
Well, gentlemen, what of it? Whose business is it? Do you hold that you may enter the sacred precincts of the mind and uproot our opinions? Your law gives you the right to punish overt acts; but you have no law and no right to enter the domain of conscience and interfere with what is held there as the truth. Hands off here! Our belief is our own. We have a right to our opinions. If you don't believe them, that is nothing to us, we do. And if you have not succeeded in converting us, we can't help that. You have got all you deserve out of this controversy on our marriage system. Properly this was a question which belonged to the dominion of reason, scripture and polemics. You should have convinced us, as ministers of Christ, from the word of God and from the nature of the things involved, that the principle itself was untrue. But you were not content to leave it to the arbitrament of discussion and reason; you must needs play upon the prejudices of the masses and induce them to belabor Congress with their petitions until your inimical legislation was put upon the statute books; and the crusade against the practice of our marriage system was declared, and those who practiced it were raided with unabated vigor for years. We yielded at last to superior force, not to your arguments, because we successfully met them. You remember the occasion, do you not, of the chaplain of the Senate of the United States coming to this very forum, and here discussing the question, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" That your champion was vanquished in the contest is evidenced from the fact that we publish as a campaign document both sides of the Pratt-Newman discussion. If you have not convinced us of the incorrectness of our principles, it must be because of the lameness of your reasoning, the weakness of your argument, and you must be content with the result so long as we do not carry into practice that principle which we believe. We have a right to our belief in that or any other doctrine as abstract principles, whether our belief suits you or not, and we have the right to freely express that belief, and if you don't like it, you may go hang.
Again the review says: "No denial is made of the practice of polygamous living. The 'Address' admits that authoritative figures officially collected show 897 male polygamists in the year 1902. The fact that later reports are not quoted leads to the reasonable belief that since that date the number of male polygamists has not diminished but rather increased."
It is true the address brings down the figures no further than 897 in 1902; but the address does say "and many of these have since passed away." Besides, there was a statement made upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, based upon official figures, to the effect that the number had been reduced to at least 500. Here is the passage: