Report of committee consisting of
A[nthon] H. Lund, O[rson] F. Whitney, B. H. Roberts and James E. Talmage, read
as follows:
To the First Presidency of the Church,
Dear Brethren:—With reference to the question submitted to your Committee
concerning the use of the term “celestial marriage” and “patriarchal marriage”,
we beg leave to report as follows:
There is no use made of these terms in
the “Revelation on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including plurality
of wives,” nor in any of the books recognized as the authoritative scripture of
the Church. The use of the term “celestial marriage” like the use of the term
“Mormonism”, while admissible, is not authoritative. In some books of a
secondary character, written by prominent elders in the Church, and in the
affidavits given on the subject of plural marriage, (See affidavits of Joseph
B. Noble, B[enjamin] F. Johnson, John Benbow, et al, “Historical Record,” page
221, et seq) there has grown up a use of these terms which requires
explanation. Perhaps the term “celestial marriage” naturally arose from the
statement in section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants wherein is recorded
certain remarks of the Prophet Joseph Smith at Ramus, Illinois, May 16th and
17th, 1843, namely, “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees,
and in order to obtain the highest a man must enter into this order of
Priesthood (meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage), and if he
does not he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end
of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.”
It is held that the words in
parenthesis in the above quotation are an interpolation, and doubtless that is
true, since they do not occur in the passage as it stands in the Prophet’s
History. (See Millennial Star, Volume 21, page 108). But that the doctrine
that the prophet here refers to is the everlasting covenant of marriage rather
than to a plurality of wives is evident, or else we would have him stand
committed to the doctrine that only those who have a plurality of wives can be
blessed with the power and privilege of eternal increase, a doctrine that we
venture to suggest is untenable; and we are further inclined to the view that
the Prophet had in mind marriage as an everlasting covenant rather than plural
marriage, in the above passage, because under the same date and at the same
place and time of the Prophet’s delivery of the passage already quoted, he also
said: “Except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be
married for eternity while in this probation, by the power and authority of the
Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will
not have any children after the resurrection, but those who are married by the
power and authority of the Priesthood in this life and continue without
committing sin against the Holy Ghost will continue to increase and have
children in the celestial glory.” (Millennial Star, Vol. 21, page 108).
Elder Orson Pratt in the “Seer”
published in Washington, in 1852, wrote a series of articles under the title
“Celestial Marriage”, with this as a sub-title: “A revelation on the
Patriarchal order of Matrimony and Plurality of Wives”, and then throughout the
articles, judging by the spirit of them, however, rather than any definite
expression in terms, speaks of “celestial marriage” and “patriarchal marriage”
as synonymous with plural marriage. Orson Pratt’s “Seer” however was expressly
and formally repudiated by the Church Authorities over the signature of the
First Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles, Elder Pratt himself
sanctioning the repudiation, (See Deseret News of August 23rd 1965); so we
assume it may be held that his use of these terms is not approved by the
Church.
In the later writings of prominent
elders in the Church a distinction has been drawn between “Celestial Marriage”
and “Plural Marriage”, and this with the approval of the Church Authorities, as
follows:––
“It was in Nauvoo that the Prophet
introduced celestial marriage—the marriage system which obtains in the
celestial worlds. It consists of the eternity of the marriage covenant; that
is, the marriage covenant between a man and his wife is made for time and all
eternity, and being sealed by that power of the priesthood which binds on earth
and in heaven, the covenant holds good in heaven as well as on earth, and by
reason of it men will have claim upon their wives, and wives upon their
husbands in and after the resurrection. Celestial marriage may also include a
plurality of wives.” (See Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, Section LX, page
394.)
Knowing this statement to be published
with the sanction of the First Presidency, Elder James E. Talmage makes
substantially the same distinction in his “Articles of Faith” pages 457-8. But
his treatment of the subject was also submitted to the First Presidency and
published with their approval.
When Elder James E. Talmage went to
Washington [D.C.] to testify before the Senate Committee on Privileges and
Elections in the [Reed] Smoot Case, he went as an instructed witness to perfect
as far as possible the record in the matter of Church doctrine, and that there
might be a perfect understanding as to what his answers should be on several
important points of doctrine, a committee went through the evidence (so far as
then published) of the Smoot case, and several questions were submitted to the
presidency of the Church and a number of the Twelve to know if the answers
formulated in substance by the committee would be consonant with their views.
Some of these points related to this question of marriage, namely, as to
whether the revelation, in so far as it related to a plurality of wives, was
mandatory or permissive. It was agreed that the answer should be mandatory as
to the Prophet Joseph Smith; as to all others permissive. And as to the phrase
“Celestial Marriage” it was agreed that it should be held to mean a “marriage
for eternity”, and that “celestial marriage” is not synonymous with “polygamous
marriage”. (See Smoot Hearings, Volume 3, pages 42 to 45)
This was the answer agreed upon by the
present Authorities of the Church, and would seem to commit the Church to the
view here expressed as to “celestial marriage”, namely, that “celestial
marriage” primarily is an eternal marriage covenant, and may or may not include
plurality of wives. Plurality of wives is not essential to the fact of
“celestial marriage”. “Patriarchal marriage” we hold is susceptible of the same
definition. It is the marriage custom that obtained among the Bible Patriarchs,
and was primarily a marriage custom that was everlasting, and may or may not be
a plural marriage; the eternity of the marriage covenant, not the number of
wives, being the determining factor in Patriarchal as well as in “celestial
marriage”.
As to the effect of these definitions
upon the case of Brother Budge, we would say that the fact as to whether his
celestial marriage is plural or single would be the determining factor as to
whether or not he could hold office under the Idaho Constitution, since the
term “celestial marriage” used in the Idaho Constitution and statutes, also in
the congressional enactments on the subjects, means only plural marriages. The
use of the terms “celestial marriage” and “patriarchal marriage”, as being
synonymous with “Plural Marriage”, and meaning no other than plural marriage,
is an invention of the legislators and came into existence because of the
extreme desire to cover every possible description of title in their
legislation under which polygamous marriages could be performed. But this use
of the term is the legislators’, and the Church may not be charged with it.
In proof of the correctness of the
statement that “celestial marriage” in congressional enactments means only
plural marriages, we call attention to the fact that during the period of the
severest anti-polygamy prosecutions in Utah and Idaho, and in the extreme
interpretation by the Utah Commission on qualifications of electors, at no time
was any person disfranchised, nor was anyone prosecuted for entering into
marriage relations for eternity.
All of which is respectfully
submitted.
(President [Joseph F.] Smith,
commenting on the word “doubtless” in the third paragraph on the first page,
said, that there was no question about this being an interpolation, and it was
well known that the interpolation was made by Bro[ther] Orson Pratt, in order
to make clear the fact that the remarks of the Prophet referred to the new and
everlasting covenant of marriage.) (Minutes, February 17, 1908 in Minutes of
the Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1835-1951
[rev. ed.; Salt Lake City, 2020], emphasis in bold added)
