. . .
by the 1880s the saints had a well-established hierarchy, and government
persecution of the saints for plural marriage made it better for John Taylor to
uninvolved himself from plural marriage. In 1884, President Taylor was
subpoenaed to answer questions at the trial of Rudger Clawson about the
Church’s priesthood authority and records pertaining to plural marriage. In the
trial, he made a number of interesting and informative remarks about these
subjects:
“Q.
Now are there no other places than those you have mentioned [i.e. the temples
and the Endowment House] where the church authorizes the rite of plural
marriage to be performed?
A. The
right of plural marriage can be performed in other places. There is no place
set part specifically for it. . . .
Q. Is
there any other proper places for the performance of these rights?
A. The
ceremony of marriage can be performed outside of any of those places.
Q.
Would [members] not require a [special] dispensation from the church to
authorize its celebration elsewhere?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What are the circumstances necessary to the obtaining of a dispensation?
A. It
would be very difficult for me to say. There might be twenty or thirty different
circumstances.
Q.
Well, do you know some circumstances that would authorize such a dispensation?
A. I
do not know particularly.
Q. Did
you say it would require a dispensation?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q. For
the performance of the act, but not for a specific place?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Who
gives the authority?
A. I
gave that authority.
Q. In
call cases?
A.
Generally in all cases.
Q. Is
there any other person authorized to grant the dispensation?
A.
There are persons I might appoint.
Q.
Have you conferred upon any person that authority within the past three years?
A.
Yes, Sir.
Q.
Who?
A.
Sometimes Joseph F. Smith, sometimes George Q. Cannon.
Q. Do
you remember any others upon whom you conferred that authority within that
time?
A. I
do not remember any at present.
Q.
When this authority is conferred upon any one by you, is it an authority
limited to some particular case, or a general authority?
A. It
would be a general authority until rescinded. . . .
Q. I
understand it is you from whom the authority comes?
A.
Yes, sir; but I have nothing to do with the details of the matter.
Q. But
you are the person who confers the authority?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Then you do know upon whom you do confer authority?
A.
There are hundreds of people who have authority.” (Published in the Deseret
Weekly News, 22 October 1884 and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol.
31 page 723)
In the
above excerpt, President Taylor makes it clear that he was the ultimate source
of authorizing “dispensations” of the sealing power, and indicated that an
individual’s authorization could be “rescinded” by him. He indicates that he
did not personally confer the ”dispensation” of this “authority” but that he
had authorized Joseph F. Smith and George Q. Cannon to do so, and that
“hundreds” had been given authority to seal by them. Later on this testimony he
would reiterate this:
“Q.
Who in this city is authorized to celebrate plural marriages?
A. A
great many have been appointed—hundreds.
Q.
Could you give me the names of those in this city who are now authorized to
perform plural marriages?
A. I
could not.
Q. Do
you mean there are so many?
A.
There are a great many that would be authorized under certain circumstances.” (Deseret
Weekly News, 22 October 1884 and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol.
31 page 724)
In
cross examination, he further explained that this delegated authority that
“hundreds” held to perform plural marriages was the authority to perform all
temple ordinances in general (This is with the possible exception of the second
anointing. John Taylor likely believed that this delegated sealing authority
was not enough to perform the “highest” ordinance unless an individual had
received their second anointing themselves), that delegated plural marriage
sealing authority was not a distinct or separate authority:
“Q.
President Taylor, in your direct examination you spoke of having appointed or
authorized persons to celebrate plural marriages. State whether or not such
authorization of appointments extended only to plural marriages, or whether the
appointees had had the authority to celebrate first marriages also. In other
words, was the authorization general as to marriage or confined to plural
marriages only?
A. It
was general in all these matters, and things performed in the house.
Q. And
as to all classes of marriage, Mr. Taylor?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Whether plural or first marriage?
A.
Yes, sir.
. . .
Q. You
stated in answer to Richards’ question as to the scope of the authority?
A. My
answer was that it pertained to all matters performed in the house. I refer to
the Endowment House or to the Temple.” (Deseret Weekly News, 22 October
1884 and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol. 31 page 724)
Shortly
after President Taylor’s testimony, George Q. Cannon was called on the stand
and gave similar answers, including an interesting comment that “formerly the
apostles were the ones who attended to these marriages, but latterly a great
many others have been authorized” (Deseret Weekly News, 22 October 1884
and re-published in Saints’ Herald vol. 31 page 726) Cannon’s statement
that “formerly the apostles were the only ones who attended to these marriages”
is a telling echo of the Nauvoo statement of Wilford Woodruff to William Smith
on October 9, 1844 that marriage sealings were a “right exclusively belonging
to the quorum of the Twelve or the president of the quorum” and the reality in
the early 1850s that marriages were almost universally only sealed by the
Quorum of the Twelve.
Thus
President Taylor originated the policy that would be adopted by his
successors—Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith—where they would
publicly deny performing plural marriages and uninvolved themselves from the
details of new polygamist unions, all while privately indicating approval of
the secret perpetuation of plural marriage. (Jacob Vidrine, “The One Anointed
and Appointed over the Sealing Power,” One Eternal Round: A Magazine
Dedicated to Mormon History and Theology, issue 7 [15 December 2019]:44-48)