Did Plural Marriage End in 1890?
Woodruff’s 1890 Manifesto advised Church members to refrain from marriages forbidden by U.S. law. Existing families often stayed together. Some new marriages continued, especially in Mexico and Canada, and some had the approval of individual Church leaders. A smaller number took place in the United States. Official Declaration 1 · Church historical essay
What Changed in 1904?
Joseph F. Smith’s Second Manifesto expressly forbade entering into or performing a new plural marriage and announced excommunication as a consequence. Some members continued against that direction. The Church increasingly used discipline to enforce the prohibition. 1904 conference statement · Church historical essay
A Reply You Can Use
“Yes, new marriages continued after 1890. Some Church leaders approved them privately, and I understand why that raises questions about the public pledge. The two declarations made different commitments. Woodruff pledged to comply with U.S. law, and Joseph F. Smith later prohibited all new plural marriages under Church discipline. Woodruff’s journal describes both the danger to the Church and the inspiration he felt. I believe him about the inspiration, and I take the gap between the first announcement and what happened afterward seriously.” Woodruff’s journal
The Short Answer
In 1890, Wilford Woodruff publicly pledged to obey U.S. law and advised Church members to refrain from marriages it forbade. Federal prosecution and property seizures threatened the Church. Woodruff wrote that he prayed and felt inspired to act. Some new plural marriages continued with the approval of individual leaders. In 1904, Joseph F. Smith explicitly forbade new plural marriages and made entering or performing one grounds for excommunication. Official Declaration 1 · Church historical essay · 1904 conference statement
What Changed, and When?
| Date | What the record shows |
|---|
| May 1890 | The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the dissolution of the Church corporation and the government’s power to take certain Church property. Supreme Court opinion, 136 U.S. 1 |
| September–October 1890 | Woodruff issued the Manifesto, dated September 24. It was released September 25 and sustained October 6. His advice was to “refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.” Official Declaration 1 |
| 1890–1904 | Many existing plural families remained together. New plural marriages also took place, particularly in Mexico and Canada, and occasionally in the United States. Some had the approval of individual Church leaders. Church historical essay |
| April 1904 | Joseph F. Smith’s Second Manifesto made a worldwide prohibition enforceable through Church discipline. Some new marriages still occurred, and the Church subsequently disciplined members who continued the practice. 1904 conference statement · Church historical essay |
One documented example after the Second Manifesto is Hannah Grover Hegsted. Julie Hemming Savage cites a ward record dating Hannah’s marriage to Victor Hegsted to May 1, 1904, less than a month after Smith’s announcement. Savage also draws on Hannah’s journal and Victor’s letters to describe the couple’s experience. The ward record dates the marriage. Savage’s argument that the couple received an apostle’s endorsement depends on other evidence and inference. Savage’s study, pp. 112–114
Why Did the First Manifesto Leave Room for New Marriages?
Woodruff was responding to U.S. law. His declaration also denied specific reports of recent marriages in Utah Territory. Some leaders understood the directive to leave room for marriages abroad. The Church’s historical essay says that, for a time, approval of new plural marriages required a member of the First Presidency. Surviving records leave the approval process, the full Presidency’s role, and the number of ceremonies uncertain. The distinction is between what leaders actually did and what they publicly authorized. It matters even in cases where the same people held the highest offices. Official Declaration 1 · Church historical essay
Living with a wife from an existing marriage was a separate matter. The 1890 declaration told members to refrain from contracting marriages forbidden by law. It gave families no instructions to separate. If a source reports a plural household or a birth after 1890, check the date of the ceremony before counting it as a new marriage. Church historical essay
Did the Church Keep Its Public Promise?
The strongest objection is that the public pledge implied a break with the practice while some leaders continued approving marriages privately. Historian D. Michael Quinn traces the ambiguity of the Manifesto’s application and documents continuing involvement by Church officers. In 1904, amid scrutiny over Apostle Reed Smoot’s seat in the U.S. Senate, Joseph F. Smith denied that the Church as an institution had sanctioned, consented to, or known of such marriages since the Manifesto. Compare that statement with the evidence of individual leaders’ participation. A distinction between corporate action and individual action can explain how leaders used the word sanction. It leaves a fair question about what the public was led to believe. Quinn’s historical study · 1904 conference statement
The evidence supports a public change in 1890, uneven implementation, and an explicit disciplinary prohibition in 1904. To judge a particular claim of deception, compare the public assurance with what the speaker knew at the time. Continued marriages establish that the practice continued. Knowing misrepresentation requires evidence about the statement and the speaker’s knowledge.
Was It Revelation or Pressure?
Federal pressure is part of Woodruff’s own explanation. His journal on September 25 describes the need to act for the Church’s survival and says he felt inspired after praying. In later remarks, he described the prospect of losing access to temples and ordinances. Utah became a state in 1896, and the change in policy helped improve relations with the federal government. Those facts explain the stakes and the timing. They leave the question of divine guidance open. As a Latter-day Saint, I believe God can direct a prophet in a crisis. I can hold that belief and still ask hard questions about what leaders did after the announcement. Woodruff’s journal · Woodruff’s later remarks · Church historical essay
For the earlier practice, see Joseph Smith and plural marriage and Doctrine and Covenants 132.
