The Manifesto - Not a Revelation
Posted: September 30th, 2023, 3:30 pm
Not much commentary is needed from me on this - the quotations speak for themselves. First of all, let’s see what the Church editorials had to say at the time:
- “Passing this by, with the simple comment that such low reflections indicate the sort of person who cast them, we reproduce some of the closing remarks of the Commissioner as reported in the Globe Democrat:
‘It has been shrewdly suggested “to President Woodruff,” concluded Commissioner Robertson, ‘that it would be exceedingly profitable for him to have another revelation, declaring that the doctrine of polygamy should be no longer adhered to by the Saints. Such a revelation would greatly assist his case and put him in the light of one willing to abide by the law that seeks the extinction of the horrid crime of which he is the chief apologist. But no revelation has as yet been forthcoming . . .’
The suggestion which the Commissioner thinks is ‘shrewd’ is neither original nor sensible. It has been offered many times for several years. It is an evidence of the thoughtless and flippant manner in which anti-‘Mormons’ attempt to regulate the creed of the Latter-day Saints. A quotation here from the New Testament ought not to be considered out of place, especially by persons who profess respect for Christianity. It is this:
‘For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’
Revelation, whether it relates to the past, present or future, is not at the command of men. If Col. Robertson knows of any means whereby the Almighty can be compelled to reveal something that will suit him and other persons who make this demand, we would like him to use them without delay. Disbelievers have the right to reject anything purporting to be revelation that does not appeal to their reason or their faith. But they have not the right to expect a revelation to order nor to find fault because such an absurdity is not forthcoming . . .
When President Woodruff receives anything from a Divine source for the Church over which he presides, he will be sure to deliver the message. And there is no power on earth that can compel him to make a counterfeit, or pretend to anything which to him is not as genuine as the pure light of heaven.” (“A Utah Commissioner’s Perversions”, Deseret Evening News vol. 23 no. 5 <1 October 1890> page 2)
- “I have read what has been said pro and con of late touching this topic and ask permission to say something about it as a disinterested party.
The controversy has grown out of President Woodruff’s recent ‘Manifesto,’ and the assumption of his critics is that he should have issued instead a ‘revelation.’ That is, the anti-Mormon writers and talkers insist that the declaration should have come from God instead of from Mr. Woodruff. Let us see where this leads.
If God can be dictated to and compelled to furnish revelations to suit the requirements of any persons who desire to back their schemes with divine authority, he ceases to be God and becomes the tool, so to speak of designing men. If, now, these men (who insist that President Woodruff should have demanded a revelation instead of issuing his own manifesto) are honest in their position, they either have a most degrading conception of God, or they do not believe in God. . . . But should President Woodruff’s critics insist that they do believe in God, in the only true God, as their claim has been so long, then they must concede that ‘revelation’ can only come, not when man wills, but when and how God wills.
Such being the case, they must admit, if they are honest in their claims, that in the absence of revelation, President Woodruff’s manifesto is all that they have any right to ask.” — Charles Ellis (“Concerning Revelation. A Few Pertinent Thoughts From an Able Pen”, Deseret Evening News, 4 October 1890, page 1)
- “The Tribune is in a grotesque and dreary muddle about the manifesto. It has been declaring for days that the official declaration of President WOODRUFF was simply the opinion of one man, albeit that man was the head of the church, and therefore had no particular significance. It declared that unless the assembled people of the church should formally ratify that declaration, it would take no stock in it. To its infinite chagrin and rage, the assembled people did that very thing, and now it is at a loss what to say next. It declared first that inasmuch as the manifesto was not given by the president as a revelation to the church, it was of no avail and the people would not be guided by it. But the people did accept it, and the disappointed plotter is biting his fingers in vexation thereat.
However, the disgruntled sheet must do something, and it now says that the scenes of Nauvoo will have to be repeated against the Mormons, because, forsooth, it is pleased to allege that the Mormons have given their consciences to the priests. The proof of this final crime of which the Mormons are said to be guilty is that they do not vote Liberals into office—do not vote for men who are trying to disfranchise them!
Then the sheet pretends the declaration is a revelation, and proceeds to jest about it on that ground; though it declared two days ago that the declaration was not a revelation; and although no one to day has heard any one except the lying sheet say it was a revelation. Then it proceeds to discourse on dreams and visions, led by President WOODRUFF’S reminiscence that he had seen JOSEPH SMITH in a vision.
By mixing in with the declaration this account of a vision, the sheet manages to insinuate that the manifesto was a revelation, and thence proceeds to ridicule the Mormons for believing in revelation, the final conclusion being that the Mormons ought to be driven from Utah.” — Heber J. Grant (Salt Lake Herald, 9 October 1890, pg. 4)
- “Brother Grant, having had a previous conversation with President Smith, asked him if he was now satisfied with regard to the manifesto being a revelation from God. President Smith answered emphatically no. He then went on to explain how he did regard the manifesto. He believed that President Woodruff was inspired to write the manifesto in consequence of the situation in which we were placed, and that because of the circumstances in which we were placed before the government, the Lord sanctioned it. But he did not believe it to be an emphatic revelation from God abolishing plural marriage. President Cannon, referring the remarks of President Smith, said he regarded President Smith’s understanding upon this matter to be his; that he himself did not regard the manifesto as a revelation abolishing polygamy, for the reason that that was an eternal principle, and could not be abolished by anybody . . .” (First Presidency Office Journal, 20 August 1891, CHL)
- “I do not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by his Councilors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church.” — Marriner W. Merrill (Marriner W. Merrill Journal, 20 August 1891, CHL)
- “The Salt Lake Tribune of January 16, 1906, exposed the plot behind the Manifesto. The headlines read: ‘Manifesto Only Trick to Beat Devil at Own Game.’ The political schemers of the Church decided on a political Manifesto with the Federal Government to ‘beat them at their own game.’ They conceived the idea that if they made the polygamy concession with the Government, they would then obtain statehood. As a state they would introduce a law which would provide protection for those who lived plural marriage. They gained their statehood and finally introduced a bill which would allow a religious practice of plural marriage in the State.” — Ogden Kraut (Compromise and Concession page 159) [To prove this, for example: “George Q Cannon introduced the method of back handed polygamy” — Carlos Ashby Badger (Carlos Ashby Badger Journal, 31 October 1904, CHL)]
- “Brother Wolfe, don’t you know that the Manifesto is only a trick to beat the devil at his own game?” — John Henry Smith (R. C. Newson, Is the Manifesto a Revelation? <1956> page 5)
- “Brother Penrose told me once in the city of Mexico, that he had written the manifesto, and it was gotten up so that it did not mean anything and President Smith had told me the same” — Matthias F. Cowley (Minutes of a Meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve, 10 May 1911, in Fred C. Collier, “The Trials of Apostle John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley”, Doctrine of the Priesthood vol. 4 no. 1 <January 1987> page 27)
- “On Monday morning, the 25th [May 1908], our conference priesthood meeting was held, which lasted four hours and a half. After the preliminary exercises, President Charles W. Penrose asked if any of the brethren had any questions on their minds, and if so, to present them now before he delivered his message to us.
Up went my hand.
‘Alright,’ he said.
‘President Penrose,’ I said, ‘I have heard much discussion on the principle of Plural Marriage, some saying that it is withdrawn from the earth and that the Manifesto was a revelation from God. Dear President, what about this case?’ Then I related to him the testimony of the Sister, which is written above, and then I asked him, ‘Why should she receive this testimony if God has withdrawn that principle from the earth, and the Manifesto is a true revelation from God?’
President Penrose then rose to his feet, scratched the side of his head with his right hand for a moment or so, then stretched out his right hand toward us and said: ‘Brethren, I will answer that question, if you will keep it under your hats. I, Charles W. Penrose, wrote the Manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. It’s no revelation from God, for I wrote it. Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the Devil at his own game. Brethren, how can God withdraw an everlasting Principle from the earth? He has not, and can not, and I testify to you as a servant of God that this is true.’” — Thomas J. Rosser (Thomas J. Rosser letter to Robert C. Newson, 4 August 1956, in Kenneth W. Godfrey, “The Coming of the Manifesto”, Dialogue vol. 5 no. 3 <1970> page 20)
- “I was in the British mission from 1911 to 1914. C. W. Penrose was President of the British Mission prior to my arrival there and he left just before I arrived in the mission field.
It was generally understood among the saints and the Elders of the mission, and repeatedly discussed, in my presence and was fully understood that C. W. Penrose stated at a certain meeting of the Elders: ‘That be wrote the manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White and it was no revelation from God, for I wrote it, and Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the devil at his own game.’” (Truth vol. 19 no. 3 <August 1953> page 94)