← Back to Prince’s Research Excerpts: Temples & Mormonism Index

Prince’s Research Excerpts: Temples & Mormonism – 1902

Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Temples, 1902.” You can view other years here.

Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.

TEMPLES, 1902.

1902:    2 Jan.:  Negro blood could not have temple blessings.

“[Meeting at the Temple] Apostle Clawson desired an expression of the brethren in regard to a case that had come to his attention.  A young man–a member of the church–had sought the hand of one of the daughters of Zion in marriage.  She desired to be sealed in the temple.  It was ascertained, however, that his mother was tainted with negro blood–she being one-fourth negro–while his father was the son of a prominent family in Israel.  Would that be a bar to his entrance to the House of the Lord?  It was decided that he could not have the blessings of the House of God.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 2 Jan., 1902)

4 Jan.:  Reversal of policy on 2nd anointing for dead.

“This is in answer to your note on the back of a letter written by Elder William Asber to Bishop Joseph Hopkin, of Echoe, in which Brother Asber requests the bishop to take steps to procure for him a recommend in favor of Elias Asber and wife, his deceased brother and sister-in-law.

In the first place we would say that recommends for second blessings are not Bishop’s recommends and their names therefore should not appear on them at all.  The President of Stakes alone are held responsible for people recommended for second annointings, and where they are not personally acquainted with the parties to be recommended, it would be in order for them of course to satisfy themselves through other reliable sources.  In the next place we would say that it is not expected that people shall be found asking that this most sacred ordinance shall be administered to them, but you should take pains to seek out the worthy people under your jurisdiction, and this by means of your counselors and Bishops.  In this particular case however you will be perfectly save in issuing the recommends sought for, as we personally know the parties to be worthy.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund to President Moses W. Taylor, Coalville, 4 Jan., 1902.  Bergera notes)

4 Jan.:  Marriage and resurrection.


A correspondent at Moab, Utah, requests an explanation of Luke xx:34, 35, and particularly of verse 35, which he says he does not understand.  For the benefit of others we will quote the passages to which he refers, and then make some explanations.  The subject touched upon by the Savior was that of a woman who had seven husbands in succession, and the question asked of Him was, ‘Therefore in resurrection whose wife is she?’

34–And Jesus answering said unto them, the children of this world marry, and are given in marriage.

35–But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.

The difficulty in the mind of our correspondent is doubtless occasioned by a comparison of those texts with the doctrine of celestial or eternal marriage, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But when the matter is fully understood the apparent conflict between them entirely disappears.

It should be observed that the remarks of the Master were in reference to ‘the children of this world.’  He is not speaking of the Saints, who are ‘not of the world,’ because He had ‘chosen them out of the world.’  In the resurrection from the dead, they–the children of the world–neither marry nor are given in marriage.  But as we read in the 36th verse: ‘They are equal unto angels.’  They do not ‘die any more,’ as He said.  They are ‘the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.’  But they are not numbered among those who have part in the first resurrection, who are ‘kings and priests unto God,’ ‘heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, to inherit all things.’  These, will obtain ‘a far more and an eternal and exceeding weight of glory’ than the children of this world, who receive the glory of the moon, or of the stars, as compared with the glory of the sun which is celestial.

The angels with whom the people referred to if found ‘worthy to obtain that world’ are to be made equal, are ‘ministering spirits unto the heirs of salvation.’  They are ‘separate and single in their saved condition.’  The Saints when crowned with glory will judge angels and direct their ministrations.  They will be far above the angels in might, and power, and dominion, and ‘of their increase there will be no end.’  ‘The man will not be without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.’  In the resurrection, everything essential to perfected being will be restored to each exalted one and made perpetual.  The spirit and the body will be reunited, nothing will be lost, but every faculty and function of the entire personality will be revived and made eternal.  The ordinance and ceremony of marriage, in which God joins man and woman together, through the authority which He confers by revelation, belongs to this life as do the ordinances of baptism, confirmation ordination, etc.  It is performed in mortality but reaches to immortality.  That which by this authority is sealed on earth, is sealed in heaven and is of virtue and force in the world to come.  The ‘marriage and giving in marriage’ are not performed in or after the resurrection, but attended to, as the Lord ordains, in this life and belong to this sphere.

When Adam and Eve were united in marriage, there was no death on this earth.  They would have been man and wife forever if they had not transgressed.  Christ atoned for their sin.  That which was lost in ‘the fall’ is restored in the redemption.  Adam and Eve will stand at the head of the race as man and woman immortalized, and made one according to the blessing pronounced upon them in their matrimonial union.  Those of their posterity who are joined in wedlock by the same ordinance and authority, will stand at the head of their respective families and possess a kingdom which will increase through endless ages.

The children of this world, when they are accounted worthy of the resurrection, will come forth at the proper time every one in his own order, but without the blessings and dominion and glory of the celestial world.  Such marriages as they enter into in this world, having been only until death did them part, have no force or effect in the world to come.  They neither marry nor are given in marriage after the resurrection from the dead, but become ‘like the angels’ in their several grades and positions in the many mansions of the Father’s kingdom.  They advance in knowledge and happiness along the lines of their own conditions, but henceforth are ministering spirits but are not crowned with the glory of eternal lives, wherein is everlasting increase in the presence of God and Christ on high.

Viewed in the light of latter day revelation, there is no difficulty in the way of understanding the sayings of the Savior, nor is there any conflict between the inspirations of the present and those of the past.  The eternal union of the Saints of God in the celestial family relation is one of the most glorious, encouraging and inspiring prospects opened to view in the manifestations of the last dispensation.  Coupled with the doctrine of vicarious work for the worthy dead who could not, through various circumstances, attend to it themselves, it clears the wayu to comprehension of the purposes of the Eternal Father, as to the future of His children on this earth, which is sublime in its grandeur, and lifts the soul from sublunary things to regions of everlasting bliss, and to the contemplation of realities and possibilities that are eternal and divine.”  (Deseret News editorial, 4 Jan., 1902, in JH 4 Jan., 1902)

5 Jan.:  2nd anointings not for singles. 

“It is not in order for people to ask for recommends for second blessings.  They should be chosen through the Stake Presidency because of their faithfulness, fitness and worthiness to receive this higher ordinance of the house of the Lord.  It is understood of course that you have received second anointings yourself, otherwise you had better refrain from recommending for the present.  We may say however that second blessings are not administered to single individuals or either sex, but to men and their wives.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund to President Thomas E. Bassett, Rexburg.  5 Jan., 1902.  Bergera notes)

5 Jan.:  Negro blood could not have temple blessings.

“[Beaver Stake conference; Rudger Clawson speaking:] . . . related an instance where a young man was barred the privilege and blessing of the house of the Lord because he was tainted with the blood of Cain–his mother was one-fourth negro; he could not bridge the gulf and get into the House of God.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 5 Jan., 1902)

9 Jan.:  Woman sealed to two men.  

“Sister Grant Ham says:  she married her first husband in Dundee.  Had a number of children:  After the death of first husband she was sealed to Whittaker, and the children were sealed to them.

Whitaker has since died.  The woman now wishes to be sealed to her first husband and the children desire to be sealed to their father and mother.

A special decision was made granting their desire, without any cancellation of the record of the former sealings.”  (from book of Temple Ordinances on file in Historian’s Office, p. 54.  9 Jan., 1902.  Bergera notes)

28 Jan.:  “The husband who has the best claim on her.”

“Dear Sister:–

Yours of the 21st inst. is received, in which you ask, in substance, the following question.

If a woman be sealed to a man who provides for her, and is kind to her, and who is a good Latter-day Saint; but she tires of him and does not love him, and obtains a legal separation from him, and marries another man who is also a good Latter-day Saint, whom she loves, but her first husband still loves her and claims her for eternity.  Who shall she belong to in the next world?

The simple answer to this question would be thus:  The husband who has the best claim on her.

But we would not have it understood that we use the word ‘claim’ in the ordinary since, the since, for instance, in which it is used in referring to a chattel a piece of land or an animal; for it must be borne in mind that a woman is a free agent and that she will forever enjoy the freedom of that agency, as man himself does and will.  For instance, a couple who are properly married and in whom the principle of love is begotten and developed through the marital relation may claim each other in this life as husband and wife and the propriety of the use of the word claim in this instance never be questioned, for the reason that the principle of love has united them as one.  But if either of them should for some reason or other, with or without justification, take it into his or her head to separate, and be fixed in that determination and remain in this state of mind, to claim each other under such conditions would amount to nothing at all.  If the separation should be found to be justifiable it would be within the power of the injured party to make the state of separation perpetual or to condone the transgression and be come reunited, provided of course both parties desire to be reunited should be and worthy of each other.  But if the separation should be found to be unjustifiable, say, on the part of the woman, no self respecting man would want to compel her to live with him against her will, even if he had the power to do so.  After reaching the perfected state of life people will have no other desire than to live in harmony with the righteousness of every wrong, including that which united them as husband and wife.  It is true a woman may say, I do not love my husband in this world, and I know I shall not love him in the world to come.  This may or may not be true.  It will depend entirely upon his worthiness.  Those who attain to the first or celestial resurrection must necessarily be pure and holy, and they will be perfect in body as well.  In other words every man and woman that reaches this unspeakable condition of life will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God; and therefore there will be no reason than for a woman not loving her husband; she will be able to love him in the first place because he will be a perfect being, and she would have no desire to associate in the marriage relation with anyone else, for the weaknesses of the flesh will then have been overcome and forgotten; and both be in harmony with the laws that united them.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund to Christine Eggleston, Afton.  28 Jan., 1902.  Bergera notes)

4 Feb.:  Further instructions concerning 2nd anointing.  

“As far as possible the person recommended ought to be personally known you and persons recommended should be instructed to regard their business to the temple as strictly private.  It is taken for grandid that you will confer with your counselors about such matters, also in cases where the parties are not sufficiently known to you to justify your recommending them, it is understood that you will be free to talk with their bishops or anyone else in whom he may have confidence about them for the purpose of satisfying yourself as to their worthiness to receive these higher blessings:  but it whould not be known why you make your inquiry about them.  It was never intended that bishops should recommend for second blessings; neither that people should ask for recommends to obtain them.  On the contrary, they should be sought out, and the strictest privacy should be observed in everything pertaining to this matter.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund to President Thomas E. Bassett, Rexburg.  4 Feb., 1902.  Bergera notes)

11 Feb.:  Son tells father of imminent 2nd anointings.

“Today I got a letter from my son Levi [Mathers] Savage saying he would like to meet me in Salt Lake City at next April Conference.  Said he would bring his wives Adeline and Nora and get their second anointings in the S. L. Tample, and attend the conference on the 6th of April.”  (Levi Savage diary, 11 Feb., 1902; LC Collection)

28 Feb.:  Marriage for time and the law of chastity.

“President David H. Cannon said to all present, You are welcome to the house of the Lord this morning.  I desire to say something to you that is very important to all the saints:  Prest. Cannon read a letter that he wrote to the First Presidency and also one in answer to his, to the effect that persons, who have had endowments and afterwards wish to be married for time only must go to a temple to be married or they will violate the law of chastity and the children born to such parents will not be in the covenant.”  (St. George Temple Minute Book, K9368R, p. 201, 28 Feb., 1902)

1 Mar.:  Who will have claim on her?

“Question:  If a woman be sealed to a man who provides for her and is kind to her, and who is a good Latter-day Saint, but she tires of him and does not love him, and obtains a legal separation from him, and marries another man who is also a good Latter-day Saint, whom she loves, but her first husband still loves her and claims her for eternity, whom will she belong to in the next world?

Answer:  The simple answer to this question is: The husband who has the best claim on her.

But we would not have it understood that we use the word ‘claim’ in the ordinary sense, for instance, in which it is used in referring to a chattel, a piece of land or an animal; for it must be borne in mind that a woman is a free agent and that she will forever enjoy the freedom of that agency, as man himself does and will.  A couple who are properly married and in whom the principle of love is developed through the marital relation, may claim each other in this life as husband and wife, and the propriety of the use of the word ‘claim’ will never be questioned, for the reason that the principle of love unites them as one.  But if either of them should for some reason or other, with or without justification, take it into his or her head to separate, and be fixed in that determination and remain in this state of mind, for one to claim the other under such a condition would amount to little or nothing.  If the separation in a case of this kind should be found to be justifiable it would it would be within the power of the injured party to make the state of separation perpetual, or on the other hand to condone the transgression and become reunited with the offender; provided, of course, that both parties desired to be thus reunited and that they were found worthy of each other.  But if the separation should be unjustifiable, say, on the part of the woman, no self respecting man would desire to compel her to live with him against her will, even if he had the power so to do.  After reaching the perfected state men and women will have no desire other than to live in harmony with every law of righteousness, including that which unites them as husband and wife.

A woman may say, ‘I do not love my husband in this world, and I know I shall not love him in the world to come.’  This may nor may not be true; it will depend largely upon his worthiness.  Those who attain to a resurrection in the celestial glory must necessarily be pure and holy; they will also be perfect in body.  In other words, every man and woman that reaches this exalted condition will be as beautiful and glorious as the angels of God; and therefore there will be no reason then for a woman not loving her husband or a man his wife, for the weaknesses of the flesh will have been overcome and forgotten; and both he and she will be in harmony with every law of their being.”  (JI 37(5):145, 1 Mar., 1902)

7 Mar.:  Remove shoes before entering temple.

“President [David H.] Cannon said I wish to talk to you about the habit we have acquired as ordinance workers in this temple.  I was coming into the house a few mornings ago at the same time and brother and his wife entered.  The doorkeeper told them to take off their shoes.  I felt that he should have said the same words to me.  I am no better than the people who come here, neither are the rest of you brethren and sisters who labor here.  We should take off our shoes before entering this house for it is a holy Place.  This is the Lord’s House.  He said to Moses when Moses drew near to Him on the Mount:  Moses, ‘take off  thy shoes for the ground whereon thou stands is holy.’  I say brethren and sisters take off your shoes for this is a holy House.”  (St. George Temple Minute Book, K9368R, p. 202, 7 Mar., 1902)

8 Mar.:  Telestial Kingdom, progression between kingdoms.


There appears to be a general spirit of inquiry among the young men and women of the Church.  This is very pleasing to observe.  The principles of the Gospel, commonly called ‘Mormonism,’ will bear thorough investigation.  Indeed, the closer they are analyzed the clearer their truth becomes.  They will also bear comparison with ‘that which was written aforetime.’  But there is a disposition among some of our folks to raise quibbles and queries about unimportant points, and questions are asked which, even if answered, would still be open to a difference of opinion and, after all, would be of no practical benefit to anybody.

The Deseret News receives bushels of communications, many of which have to be cast aside without reply either in the paper or by letter, because we have not time nor inclination to answer them.  If we were to attempt to do so, the pages of the ‘News’ would be occupied thereby with space for little or nothing else.  We trust our friends will not be offended when they do not find any response to queries of that character, for it would take all our time in letter-writing to answer them.

A frequent question of late, which may appear important to some people, is this: ‘Is it necessary for a person to be baptized to get into the telestial kingdom?’  Now, suppose we were to take up this subject and discuss it in all its bearings; what good would that be to the inquirers?  Do they want to enter the telestial kingdom?  Do they know anybody who does?  Are they in communication with spirits who, when redeemed, can only receive that degree of glory?  Those who are interested in this subject can find all that is definitely revealed about it in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 76 and 88.

The class which, through the redemption by the Savior are to be quickened in the resurrection by the telestial glory and receive of it in its various degrees, are those who had been ‘thrust down to hell’ and suffered punishment for gross sins and iniquities.  After paying the just penalties for their transgressions, the Eternal Father has provided the means for their ultimate salvation, and He has said:

These all shall bow the knee and every tongue shall confess to Him who sits upon the throne forever and ever; for they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared.  And they shall be servants of the Most High, but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

The birth of the water and of the spirit, pronounced essential by Jesus of Nazareth, is for entrance into the kingdom of God.  That is not what we understand as the telestial kingdom.  It is into the Church of Christ which is the spiritual kingdom of God.  Those who come in by that door may attain to the highest glory, which is the celestial, and obtain the crown of eternal lives and dwell in the immediate presence of the Father and the Son.  This can never be reached by those who only receive the telestial kingdom and glory even in it fullness.  This ought to suffice for those who have raised this question.

The question of whether those who receive the telestial glory will advance to the terrestrial, and the terrestrial to the celestial is also discussed in many quarters.  It is a subject of no present moment to candidates for the highest degree of glory and exaltation.  But to settle the matter so far as it has been presented to us we will say that there is no revelation which favors the affirmative of this proposition.  Eternal progress, it is true, is the law of our being, as it is of all the Divine creations.  But each advances along its own lines.  The evolution which is commonly understood by that term, is not proven by science or by religion.  No animal of any species, however it may be improved, evolves into the family of man.  Its progress is limited to its own particular kind.

Reasoning from this standpoint and consulting that which has been revealed, we believe the recipients of the glory of each of the three kingdoms into which the inhabitants of this globe will ultimately be divided, will progress in those divisions, being added upon therein, but not evolving into the higher kingdoms, which will each be progressing and keep above the lower forever.  It is written concerning those who are saved in the telestial kingdom, that they will receive a glory beyond present comprehension, but ‘where God and Christ are they never can come worlds without end.’  This we think should settle the question.

We think the time of our students in the Mutual Improvement Associations and in the Sunday schools, can be more profitably spent in the investigation of principles and doctrines on which we have the direct word of the Lord, than in trying to see how many smart questions they can ask, or in endeavors to exhibit their own acuteness and to puzzle their instructors.  The proper answer to many inquiries that are made can be found in the very sections, or chapters, or lessons which seem to suggest the queries that are propounded.  A little common sense with a clear understanding of what is written will render unnecessary many foolish controversies.”  (Deseret News Editorial, 8 Mar., 1902, in JH 8 Mar., 1902)

15 Mar.:  Plea for 2nd anointing of dead, in spite of current policy.

“David John, President

Jos. B. Keeler,

L. Holbrook,



Provo, Utah, March 15, 1902

President Joseph F. Smith

Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Brother:

We are often requested to grant the privilege, or rather to give recommends, to persons to get second annointings for worthy persons who are dead. Up to the month of December, 1900, there was no question, so far as we know, in our Stake about granting this privilege for the worthy dead.

On December 1, 1900, however, the Presidency of this Stake received a letter from President Snow, in which he made the following remarks:

“I would also suggest that for the present you will confine your names to men who are living, and their wives, living and dead, who are worthy,–to assist them to be more faithful and energetic in the future, and not so much for the dead. The time will come when the dead will be properly cared for.”

Since the receipt of the above mentioned letter, the Presidency of this Stake have followed President Snow’s instructions. But yesterday we received a very pressing request from the family of Brother Franklin Merry Whitmore, of Springville Third Ward, who died Feb. 15, 1902. He leaves one wife living; one died before him. The family has requested that he be permitted to receive his second annointings. Shall we give recommends for this purpose or not?

Respectfully your brethren,

/s/ David John      

/s/ Joseph B. Keeler”

[Handwritten note:] “If in their judgement he is worthy it will be O.K. to do so.”

(Letter to President Joseph F. Smith From the Utah Stake Presidency, March 15, 1902.  Bergera collection.)

18 Mar.:  2nd anointings only for those who gathered.

“Referring to yours of the 15th inst. we would say that President Woodruff’s instructions to Stake President on the subject of recommending for second anointing limited them to persons who had gathered with the Church, whether dead or alive, and this was the policy adopted by President Snow, although he may have made exceptions to it.  And it is our mind that faithful men who have gathered with the Church, who can be recommended as worthy to receive these higher blessings, but who through death were deprived of them, should receive them by proxy.  It would be in order therefore to extend your recommends to Franklin P. Whitmore, deceased, inasmuch as you knew him to be worthy.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, to Presidents David John Joseph B. Keeler, Provo.  18 Mar., 1902.  Bergera notes)

19 Mar.:  “Shoes off” required in all temples.

“Prest. [David H.] Cannon wished to say a few words:  He had instructed the Doorkeeper of this temple to see that all persons take shoes off from their feet–They must conform to this rule.  I was pressed about this, my brethren and sisters, as the ‘House of God’ is a House of Order.  This is required in all the other temples.”  (St. George Temple Minute Book, K9368R, p. 205.  19 Mar., 1902)

27 Mar.:  Can people be sealed outside of a Temple?

“At 10 a.m. I went to the Temple.  The question of sealing people outside of the Temple came up.  Pres. Smith holds that it is but a temporary arrangement and that whenever person so sealed can get to a Temple they should avail themselves of the opportunity.”  (Anthon H. Lund diary, 27 Mar., 1902)

7 Apr.:  Secret societies and temple recommends.

“[General Conference, Joseph F. Smith speaking]  Members who join secret societies after being taught better should not be recommended to temples.”  (Anthony W. Ivins diary, 7 Apr., 1902)

“Priesthood meeting of General Authorities, stake and ward authorities, &c., was held this morning in the Assembly Hall. . . .

Question:  Is it right to recommend to the temple those who have joined secret societies?

Answer:  [Joseph F. Smith speaking] Members of the Church who have been taught to the contrary, that is, that they should not join such societies, but have done so, should not be recommended to the temple.  If a member join ignorantly of the instructions of the Presidency and manifested a willingness to cut loose, whenever it might be wise for him to do so, I would be merciful to such a man.  But there is no cast iron rule, and to all rules there may be exceptions.  The letter kills but the Spirit giveth light.”  (JH 7 Apr., 1902)

7 Apr.:  Marriage of endowed woman to non-member.

“Priesthood meeting of General Authorities, stake and ward authorities, &c., was held this morning in the Assembly Hall. . . .

Question:  Is a Bishop justified in performing the marriage ceremony in behalf of a woman who has had her endowments, uniting her to a non-member of the Church?

Answer:  [Joseph F. Smith speaking] If she is determined to marry, that ends it.  If the Bishop refuse to marry them, they would go to a justice of the peace.  The Bishop should marry them, and thereby hold some influence over them.”  (JH 7 Apr., 1902)

15 Apr.:  Secret societies.

“A delegation of brethren from Bountiful waited on the First Presidency.  They were members of the A.O.U.W., a secret society, which they had joined, for the sake of insurance.

After hearing them at some length President Smith said he did not wish to crowd them because of their connection with this organization; at the same time he showed them the danger of allowing their feelings and hearts to go out to this institution or any other institution out side the pale of the Church.  And he advised them to do all they honorably could to withdraw from the society, and thus show by example that they have a desire to respect the counsel of the First Presidency.”  (JH 15 Apr., 1902)

21 Apr.:  Concerning early temple garment.

“Some people have denied that there was any such thing as endowments or endowment clothes before the time of Brigham Young, but I know there was. They were of the same pattern, had the same marks and were the same in every way as now. I was living with Father [John] Smith, the Prophet’s uncle and on one occasion the Prophet wrote a letter to his uncle [asking] him to meet him the next morning in Nauvoo, [they lived] twenty-five miles from [Nauvoo]. Mother [Clarissa] Smith, . . . was sick and [since] I was the hired girl I had to get these clothes and fix them in time for Father Smith to meet the Prophet Joseph in Nauvoo. Mother Smith told Father Smith to explain to me about this clothing, what they were for and what they did with them, the reason he had to have them and have them in good condition, before I got them out, and he did so. That was the first I knew about endowment clothes but they were the same as they are now. Sister Smith told me where they were and how to prepare them for him. They were in a chest locked up, inside of a little cotton bag made for the purpose and were all together. Then I got the clothes and pressed them out and put them in good condition and he went to meet the Prophet. These clothes were never put out publicly, in the washing or in any other way. When we washed them we hung them out between sheets, because we were in the midst of the Gentiles.”  (George S. Brimhall to Joseph F. Smith; Church Archives transcript of the testimony of Maria Jane Johnston Woodward, Huntington, Utah; 21 April 1902; Bergera Collection.)

25 Apr./18 May/3 Aug.:  2nd part of 2nd anointing.

“[25 Apr.]  I with Nora, and Adeline entered the Salt Lake Temple and there received our second anointings. . . .

[18 May]  I and Adeline completed the ordinance begun in the Salt Lake Temple on the 25th of last month. . . .

[3 Aug.]  I and Lydia Lenora [Nora] completed the ordinance begun in the Salt Lake Temple on the 25 of last April.”  (Levi Mathers Savage diary, 25 Apr. & 18 May, 3 Aug., 1902; LC Collection)

9 May:  Clothing for 2nd anointings.

“From First Presidency to temple president David H. Cannon, 9 May 1902, in answer to a series of questions propunded [sic] by him to them.

Re: must a person administering the Second Anointings in the Temple be clothes [sic] in his Priestly apparel when administering same?

Ans: President Young considered that it was absolutely necessary ‘before the completion of our Temples,’ but that when done in the Temple this was optional and no longer required.  ‘after the completion of the Temples this was changed under the direction of President Young himself.'”  (Church Archives; CR 343/19 {vault} contains book with information about building, dedication and beginning of temple work. From the Temple Book {Apparently this prepared by Wilford Woodruff himself using his diary as one source. It closes “Salt Lake City March 26, 1883 signed. Wilford Woodruff.” Prepared by him and copied into the St. George book.}; the above entry is from 9 May 1902.)

15 May:  Baptism for dead children.

“Question:  If a child becomes eight years of age in the winter and baptism is postponed until warm weather, and the child dies in the meantime, is it necessary for that child to be baptized for, by proxy?

Answer:  Yes, and the parents should not delay having the ordinance attended to.  If they omit to do so, they place themselves under a very grave responsibility, for the Lord will not hold them guiltless, and they will have to bear the burden resulting from their neglect.”  (JI 37(10):307, 15 May, 1902)

28 May:  Women in heaven.


‘Are there any women in heaven?’ is the almost silly question asked by one Mr. A. D. Kinsman, said to be a Bible student of Erie, Pa.  And then, after some consideration of the various phases of the subject, he arrives at the stunning conclusion that women, after having passed through their probation on earth, become men.

According to a synopsis of his argument, given in the San Francisco Call, Mr. Kinsman finds support for his theory in the Bible.  Nearly all absurdities can be covered with Bible texts, if these are handled to suit the emergency.  So there is nothing new in that.  He argues: ‘We know that the members of the Trinity are always spoken of as men, and the disciples of Jesus were all men.  In both the Old and New Testaments, when occasion offered to speak of one who had passed to the other side, it was always a man who had been so fortunate.  And, likewise, when a prophet, saint or disciple had occasion to mention any one who had reached heaven the name of a man was chosen.’

Angels, too, he invariably finds to be of the masculine gender.  And so are the spirits of evil, and further, a man when departed, is in Biblical language always spoken of as ‘gathered unto his fathers,’ not unto his ‘mothers.’

Then, he puts the question, what becomes of the women at death?  Are they annihilated?  Or, do all human beings become sexless after death?  Or, do the women, after death, become men?  The theory suggested by the last of these questions he considers the most plausible.  ‘It is,’ he says, ‘a theory which merges the mysteries of love and life into those of death and resurrection.’

The reasoning is valuable as a specimen of the absurd conclusions to which a false conception of the Deity, and our relationship to God, may lead logically.  When much of the Bible teaching is rejected, as is the case in the ‘Christian’ world, and all stress is laid upon other parts, merely for the sake of establishing a theory, error is the inevitable result.  And that is just what is commonly done.  The Bible is studied, not as a divine teacher, to be heard and believed, but it is read for the purpose of finding support for already formed theories.  That is, this is too often the case.  People are ‘critics,’ rather than students.  They accept what they can use and reject the rest.

As to the subject under consideration, the Bible expressly states that God created man in HIs own image, and lest someone should misconstrue the word ‘man’ here to mean only Adam, the historian adds:  ‘Male and female created He them,’ thus including both our progenitors in the statement that ‘man’ was created in the image of God.

The English language is at a disadvantage not having a separate word to denote all human beings.  The word ‘man,’ is therefore ambiguous.  But when it is said ‘man’ is mortal, it is well understood that ‘man’ means both men, women and children, and in the same way when we are told in Genesis that ‘man’ was created in the image of God, the word includes both male and female.  But if the divine image, to be complete, had to reflect a female as well as a male element, it is self-evident that both must be contained in the Deity.  And they are.  For the divine Spirit that in the morning of creation ‘moved upon the face of the waters,’ bringing forth life and order, is in the original language of the sacred historian represented in the feminine gender, whatever modern theology may think of it.

But apart from this, when the Scriptures represent God as ‘our Father,’ does that not of necessity imply a mother?  There are some words, the meaning of which necessarily implies that which other words denote.  Such are, child and parent, husband and wife, father and mother, etc.  A man may exist alone, and so may a woman, but there can be no fatherhood without motherhood, no husband if there is no wife.  Is an exception to be made in the case of Him who is called ‘the Father of spirits’?

As to the angels, it is true that they are generally referred to as in the masculine gender.  And that is not surprising.  For invariably, when there is occasion to mention any of them, it is in connection with some work they were to accomplish of such a nature as properly belongs to the so-called stronger sex.  They are engaged in warfare, ‘or pouring out vials of wrath,’ or announcing the decrees of the Almighty.  The work of warriors, of executors of justice, of heralds, etc., is on earth, too, assigned to men, but that does not argue that there are no women on earth.  There may be something in the old hypothesis that the chrubims and seraphims of the Scriptures, really denote two different sexes among the hosts attending the heavenly courts.

But an important truth is undoubtedly taught in the fact that in the apocalyptic revelations given to John the Revelator, the Church of Christ and the church of the world are both represented as women–one clothed with the sun and crowned with stars, and the other sitting upon a scarlet-colored beast.  We may well say that this representation would be eminently absurd, were woman’s role so insignificant, so transient as to last but a moment and then pass away.  Christ gave Himself for His Church, and when He wanted to represent the glory, the splendor, the triumph of that Church, He chose to do so under the image of a woman arrayed in light.  In the same way, a fallen woman was the fit representation of the other church.  If this does not prove the importance of womanhood in the affairs of the world both here and hereafter, it has no meaning at all.  It is simply an absurd picture.

But there is no need of further argument.  The explicit teachings of the Scriptures is that neither man, nor woman, is without the other in the Lord.  And that condition death cannot change.  They are both equally needed for the future glory, development and exaltation.  They both are in the image of God.  Such are the Scripture doctrines, which, however, must remain more or less of a mystery, as long as theologians refuse to accept the God of the Bible, preferring an image of their own creation.”  (Deseret News editorial, 28 May, 1902, in JH 28 May, 1902)

31 May-2 Jun.:  Votes of opposition to bishopric.

“[Stake Conference, Juarez Stake] In presenting the names of the bishoprick Bros. A. Martineau Jas. Coolton David Brown & Hy. Moorman [?] voted no to Bp. Haws & B. J. Johnson.  I invited these Brethren & any others who are opposed to the bishoprick to meet me at Bishop Haws at 8 o’clock tomorrow morning. . . .

[1 Jun.] The brethren who were invited to meet at Bro. Haws came in & were invited to speak giving their reason for opposing the bishoprick.

Bros. Carlton, A. Martineau, & H. Martineau made remarks making general accusations against the bishoprick in general and counselor B. J. Johnson in particular.  at 10 a.m. ad[j]ourned to S[unday]. S[chool]. without adjusting the difficulties which exist. . . .

After meeting I met again with the brethren & Bishoprick to endeavor to effect reconciliation.  After a long talk we dispersed for dinner. . . .

[2 Jun.] Meeting at 10 a.m.  After remarks I presented the ward authorities. There were very few contrary votes.”  (Anthony W. Ivins diary, 31 May-2 Jun., 1902)

May:  Authority of Melchizedek Priesthood.

“The leading fact to be remembered is that the Priesthood is greater than any of its offices; and that any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood may, by virtue of its possession, perform any ordinance pertaining thereto, or connected therewith [including temple ordinances?], when called upon to do so by one holding the proper authority, which proper authority is vested in the President of the Church, or in any whom he may designate.”  (First Presidency, May, 1902, IE 5:549)

5 Jun.:  Plural marriages NOT being authorized.

“[Meeting at the Temple] Pres. Smith said that an impression seemed to be among the saints that plural marriages were being authorized by the authorities at the present time.  He was emphatic in saying that such was not the case.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 5 Jun., 1902)

11 Jun.:  2nd anointings for dead females.

“for females.  ‘In cases of those who are not members of the Church at their death.  On evidence of their chaste and moral conduct in life any Woman who has been sealed, in life or by proxy to a worthy man, whether she has lived with him or not may have the privilege of being anointed to him, provided he has had his second blessings.

Signed by First Presidency under date of 11 June, 1902.”  (Journal of J. D. T. McAllister, BYU Special Collections, 31 Dec., 1902)

“Office of the First Presidency of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Salt Lake City Utah June 11, 1902

President John D. T. Mc.Allister,

Manti Temple.

Dear Brother:–

In answer to yours of the 29th ult, we would say that under the following ruling by the Council of First Presidency and Apostles you would be authorized to administer Second Anointings in behalf of deceased women, after receiving the usual Sepcial temple recommends in their favor signed by the Stake President and endorsed by the President of the Church.


No person, Males or female, living or dead, can receive [the] highest blessings in the House of the Lord without special recommend for this purpose signed by the President of the Stake and endorsed by the President of the Church. The recommend, for dead as well as living, should be based on competent evidence of faithfulness and, in cases of those who are not members of the Church at their death, on evidence of their chaste and moral conduct in life.

Any woman who has been sealed, in life or by proxy, to a worthy man, whether she has lived with him or not, may have the privilege of being anointed to him, provided he has had his Second Anointings.

Your Brethren,

Jos. F. Smith,

John R. Winder,

Anthon H. Lund.

First Presidency.

P.S. Bishop Madsen’s letter herewith Returned.”

(Manti Temple, Historical Record. Church Historical Department. CR/348/21/v.2/p.106.  Bergera collection.)

15 Jun.:  Those who cut sleeves off garments.

“[Meeting at the Tabernacle; Pres. Jos. F. Smith:] . . . did not believe in killing animals for the fun of the thing; it may be alright to kill for the purpose of appeasing hunger; word of wisdom; the value of holding the Priesthood; those who mar their garments by cutting off the sleeves are covenant breakers, and will forfeit their blessings if they do not repent.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 15 Jun., 1902)

15 Jun.:  Extravagance at funerals.


There have grown up of late among the Saints certain extravagant practices in the conduct of funeral ceremonies.  The existence of instances in which Latter-day Saints are greatly distressed by reason of expenses incurred in the ceremonies connected with the burial of their dead is the reason for these words of admonition.  It is not the intention to here discourage any appropriate and deserving respect which our people may desire to pay to their loved ones who have departed this life, and if the display at funerals were wholly a result of a desire to honor the dead and manifest sincere mourning perhaps little could be said against certain practices that prevail among us.  But it is to be feared that much of the pomp and display at funerals is really a desire to follow the precedents of others and imitate certain practices that have grown up connected with these occasions.  It may also be that some are actuated by a fear that they may be subjected to public criticism if they do not make all the display that their more prosperous neighbors and friends make on such occasions.

In the first place wise and thoughtful Latter-day Saints who have means to gratify an ambition to have a grand funeral procession, imposing ceremonies, and a great display of flowers, will realize that their example will be imitated by their poorer brethren so far as these brethren can imitate the example set, and the more prosperous will not therefore embarrass those less well to do by striking contrasts, or force them to undertake a display which will involve them in debt and bring financial distress.  Those, likewise, whose means are limited, should refuse to follow the example of those who are indiscreet and love display.  Besides extravagant demonstrations are too frequently manifestations of insincerity and pride.  Whenever therefore a father or a mother undertakes an extravagant display at the funeral of a child or other relative, a display which one’s means do not warrant, the funeral loses its solemn significance and its heart-felt mourning.  The simpler and more heart-felt our ceremonies over the dead the more consistent they are with the character of our lives and our religion.  Simplicity characterizes all that is true and genuine in our faith whether it relates to the living or the dead.  If those who are well-to-do would first stop and ask themselves the question, when they are about to pay their last tribute of respect to the dead, ‘What effect is my example likely to have upon my brethren and sisters generally, who will try to imitate me, and who will reason that their dead are entitled to as much respect (no not respect–display–) as I give to mine?’ it is believed that many would be much more conservative and simple in their demonstrations.  There are instances in which it has required the strictest economy and great self-denial to meet in a year or two the extravagant outlay incurred at a single funeral.  Such instances are too numerous and should serve as a warning against extravagance that is robbing many of our people of that simple, sincere mourning which is more truly heartfelt, and therefore more approved by God.  There are instances of funerals of a public character in which the demonstrations are more general and more pretentious, but the display at such funerals should not be a guide to those ceremonies which should be more strictly private and reserved.  Bishops who know the condition of the families of their wards should not hesitate to offer words of caution and counsel on this subject to the people and to restrain those who are disposed to be extravagantly unwise in family funerals.  Sincere mourning naturally seeks seclusion and shrinks from all public display.  The attitude of the Latter-day Saints toward the living and the dead is so well understood and so comprehensive that all efforts to follow the exmple of the world should be discouraged.

Even in the days of President Brigham Young the growing tendency among the Saints to extravagance at funerals was attracting the attention of the presiding authoritie.  President Young at various times, especially at meetings of the Priesthood, strongly deprecated this tendency.  With the desire to stem the tide in the direction of unnecessary display and consequent expense on these sad occasions, the President at one session of the School of the Prophets asked the members of that School to express in writing their wishes with regard to the manner of their funerals, and to hand what they wrote to him.  Many of the brethren complied with this request.  Their wishes, though expressed in different terms, were practically unanimous in favor of economy, neatness and the avoidance of display.  We append a few of those answers:

In response to a request at our last School by President Brigham Young I earnestly desire my family and friends to observe the strictest economy in my funeral expenses, viz.: I wish to be interred in a good, plain, unadorned coffin.  I wish my family and friends to meet in their ordinary Sunday-going apparel, without the addition of black crape on their persons, no pall thrown over the coffin, or black cloth to adorn the stand, or expensive monument at the grave.  I wish it entirely optional with my friends as to who comes to the funeral services, no one especially invited to preach on the occasion, or to conduct the singing.  No solicitation from friends for the use of their carriages and no hired hacks for the occasion.  The manner of conveying my remains to the cemetery I leave to my family’s choice.

My desire is to live to a good old age, that is, as long as I am able to do good and magnify the Priesthood and calling placed upon me, and when I have faithfully performed my work here below, and filled up the measure of my creation upon the earth, that I may fall asleep and depart in peace, to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection.  My body to be washed and dressed in my temple robes and put into a plain coffin of redwood mahogany.  My funeral to be conducted by one or more faithful fellow laborers in the Gospel to speak words of comfort and consolation to my family and friends, to encourage them to faithfulness.  No deep sorrow, grief or tears, but rejoice that I have been faithful; then to be taken to the place in a plain hearse or spring wagon, the grave dug deep with a box or case for the coffin.  My family and friends not to go to any extra expense in buying black dresses, crape or otherwise.

At my death my desire is to be washed clean and properly dressed, and put in a plain coffin stained.  My funeral to be at my own residence if possible.  I also wish that no member of my family wear anything on that occasion as an emblem of mourning, especially anything black, and as many of my friends to attend as can make it convenient.

I request the School will see that at my demise, there be no ostentatious parade at my funeral and that the coffin and everything be plain and with as little expense as possible.

It is my request that when I am dead that my family will have wisdom to inter me in plainness and in decency and in accordance with my means.

As I expect to live always among the brethren, I ask to be buried among them should I require burial, avoiding ostentation and according to the simplest forms and ceremonies then prevailing.

Joseph F. Smith.”

(Juvenile Instructor, 15 Jun., 1902, in JH 15 Jun., 1902)

26 Jun.:  Liquor and fellowship (and temple recommends?).

“Meeting of First Presidency and Apostles. . . .

A letter was read from Prest. R. G. Miller of Emery Stake, asking advice as to what action, if any, should be taken against members of the Church who engage in the liquor business?

After discussing the question, it became the sense of the Council, on motion of Bro. Woodruff, that we do not fellowship any member of the Church who runs a saloon for the sale of liquor; and President Smith added, neither those who frequent and patronize saloons.”  (JH 26 Jun., 1902)

29 Jun.:  No recommends for members of secret societies.

“Pres. Jos. F. Smith:  Asked for assistance of our faith and prayers.  Secret societies are wrong.  Mormonism is sufficient.  No need to go outside of the organization of God.  Had found persons who belonged to such organizations who have protested as to their loyalty to the Church.  They have done this so vigorously that he commenced to doubt their protestations.  They told the good things of their club such as help to the poor and sick and said the Church did not look after the poor and sick so well, putting their secret organizations ahead of the Church. The 2000 dollars may prove a curse to the widow instead of blessing.  If we do not look after the widow and fatherless then we are neglecting our duties.  The secret society has nothing to give you outside of insurance.  They can not give you the Priesthood nor spiritual blessings.  If a man persists when warned in fostering such organizations he can not be recommended to the Temple.”  (Anthon H. Lund diary, 29 Jun., 1902)

15 Jul.:  Regular baptism in Logan temple.

“I am a little girl eight years old.  I was baptised in the Logan Temple on my birthday.”  (Flora Watkins, JI 37(14):448, 15 Jul., 1902)

15 Jul.:  Complete tour of Salt Lake Temple for children.

“We went on the train last summer to Salt Lake City.  We went to the Temple and went in nearly every room.  It was the most beautiful sight I ever saw in my life.”  (Flossie Evans, age 8 years, JI 37(14):448, 15 Jul., 1902)

17 Jul.:  Secret societies and temple recommends.

“[Meeting at the Temple; Joseph F. Smith:] . . . we objected to our people joining secret societies for the insurance benefits to be derived therefrom or for any purpose whatever, and that those who identified themselves with these organizations would be denied the blessings of the House of the Lord.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 17 Jul., 1902)

19 Jul.:  Secret societies.


The head of the dominant church in Utah has given notice to his people that men who belong to secret societies will not be received in fellowship in the church.  This is in the face of the fact that the whole Mormon church, if not a secret society, has secret attachments much more profound than have any of the societies against which the chief of the church inveighs, and if most direct evidence can be believed, oaths are administered and taken in the Mormon Temples much more terrible than were ever heard in any lodge or any secret society in America, except some of those in which the Anarchists and canaille of our great cities congregate.

We know of no secret society that interferes with any man’s worship of God.  If this is true and we do not think it will be denied, then it is an unwarranted piece of insolence and despotism for President Smith to seek to interdict the personal liberty of any man who desires to join a secret society whose objects are friendship, charity and a closer drawing of man to his fellow men.”  (Goodwin’s Weekly, 19 Jul., 1902, in JH 19 Jul., 1902)

21 Jul.:  Sealing outside of temple:  status of children.

“The temple rule governing the case referred to by you is in substance this:  Where children are born to parents who have been sealed by an Apostle outside of the temple before receiving their endowments, all such children should be sealed to their parents over the altar whenever the opportunity presents itself, and the fit and proper time to have this work done would be when the parents receive their endowments; but should the opportunity never be given to such parents and children to be thus sealed, the children will be in the covenant of the holy priesthood just as though they had been born to their parents after their parents had been sealed and received their endowments.

The child born to the parents referred to before they were sealed by the Apostle should of course be sealed to its parents.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund to President Andrew Kimball, Thatcher.  21 Jul., 1902.  In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 4:45)

22 Jul.:  Sealing in marriage challenged by Court.


The decision of the Supreme Court of Utah in the ‘Hilton’ case has occasioned a great deal of comment and much diversity of public opinion.  It is founded on an erroneous conception of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in relation to mariage.  The court says:

It is thus clear according to the revealed law that to be ‘sealed’ was to be married for time and eternity, and that the ‘sealing ceremony’ is a marriage ceremony which is good at common law, the part referring to eternity, as we have seen, being regarded as simply surplusage.  It seems also clear upon careful scrutiny that neither a sealing nor a marriage for time whereby the parties are to become husband and wife for this world only, nor a sealing or marriage for eternity, whereby the parties are not to become husband and wife until after death, that is in the next world, was authorized by this revealed law, and hence any and all such unauthorized marriages would be a violation of the revelation and would subject the contracting parties to the penalty provided for disobedience, for the express revealed covenant is that sealing or marrying shall be (both and not one or either) for time and eternity.

In order to reach these conclusions the court had to go outside of the record of the case, and consult reports of discourses and writings of some of the leaders of the Church.  In doing this the court formed opinions which may be in accord with what the judges read, but those works treated only one side of a somewhat complicated subject.  Ordinarily, the sealing ceremony in a marriage for eternity includes time as well.  That is to say, the words ‘for time and all eternity’ are usually expressed, and time is comprehended in eternity.  But the inference which the court has drawn from this, and from explanations of it in sermons and writings of Church authorities, is incorrect because based upon a consideration of but one side of the question.

In this Church there are numerous cases of sealing in which the parties were united for time only, and not for eternity.  This is so well known by members of the Church, and by many people who are non-members, that there is widespread amazement at the declaration of the Supreme Court of the State that no such marriage or sealing is authorized by the Church.  The statement of the court as to this point is not true, as thousands of witnesses coiuld testify if necessary.

On the other hand, it is also a mistake to say that ‘sealing or marrying shall be (both and not one or either) for time and eternity.’  A sealing may be solemnized for eternity and not for time.  This is not explained in Church writings, perhaps, or proclaimed in public discourses, but is a matter of religious faith and practice that concerns only individuals who formed that relation.  It is something over which the courts have no jurisdiction.  It is for the world to come and not for the present state of existence.  It does not involve a principle of civil law, and therefore the opinions of lawyers and judges have no effect upon it and it is out of their province.

As to the particular case before the court, that body had the right, according to the evidence produced in the trial, to decide whether a legal marriage had been solemnized between Dr. Part and Miss Armitage.  We admit that the question was open to dispute.  But these facts, which were in evidence, are clear:  The intention of the man and the woman was to be united by the sealing ceremony for the world to come.  There was a physical reason why the man did not wish or intend to contract the marriage for time, and the woman was supposed to be on her death bed, and therfore there was no expectation that she would be a wife in this world.  The certificate given by the minister who performed the ceremony states that he ‘sealed’ the parties.  It does not say ‘for time and all eternity,’ so there is nothing in the document that settles the question as to the scope of the ceremony.  But the circumstances were unusual and the understanding of all persons present was to the effect that it was a union for the next world only, and therefore the inference is legitimate that it was not performed as a marriage for this world.

The very fact that what is known as a ‘church divorce’ was obtained when the young lady recovered instead of dying from her affliction, is evidence that the marriage was not considered binding for this world, because the President of the Church never issues such documents in the case of a legal wife, unless it has first been passed upon by a civil court.  It is held in the Church that a marriage which is valid under the civil law, whether common or statutory, stands good in the civil law until it is dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.  A Church divorce between a man and his plural wife holds good in the Church, because when plural marriage was practiced it was not under the civil law.  It was a religious ordinance and ceremony.  The Church divorce therefore severed the connection made by the Church and none other.

The decision of the Supreme Court in reference to the validity of a Church divorce when the parties had been legally married, is perfectly correct.  The Church never claimed the right to divorce parties to a legal marriage and thus usurp the functions of a civil court.  After a legal divorce has been obtained, the Church may perform its part in the separation so far as its spiritual authority extends.  The statement in the Salt Lake Herald that the decision in relation to ‘Mormon Church divorces deals a blow at one of the Saints’ teachings,’ is entirely untrue and shows great misunderstanding of the subject touched upon.

The decision of the court that ‘sealing’ is legal marriage is neither new nor surprising, as announced to the public.  An Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has just as much right to unite in marriage persons competent in law to enter that relation, as any minister, or magistrate, or other public functionary so authorized by law.  A sealing performed in the Temple by an appointed servant of God for time and all eternity, is legal and binding for this world so far as secular law is concerned, and has the further power of extending into the world to come.  Courts will recognize the sealing as a marriage for this world, but they will not have anything to do with that which pertains to the eternal world.

If the ceremony between Dr. Park and Miss Armitage was simply a sealing of the parties to take effect only in a future state, there was no marriage between them under the civil law.  If they were sealed for time and all eternity, the union was a marriage before the law to all intents and purposes, and nothing but death or the decree of a civil court could sever that ‘time’ relation.  If the evidence had been conclusive as to this fact, the decision of the Supreme Court could not be legally or rationally complained of.  But being based upon a misunderstanding of Church doctrine and only partial information derived from works outside of the records in the case, it is open to criticism by the press and the public, and the comment upon it editorially in the Salt Lake Tribune is an impartial and sensible review of the case.

What the effects of the decision will have upon real estate transactions by the deceased during the period when the signature of the wife was necessary to make conveyances legal, remain to be seen.  The case cannot be taken to a higher court, as it is a matter that pertains to this State and not to the United States.  There may be no difficulties in this particular and there may be many.  The court could not properly take this into consideration.  We believe the judges have acted conscientiously in this matter.  Having reached strong conviction on the chief point under consideration, they acted courageously in rendering a decision which, in the very nature of things, was liable to meet with much public criticism.”  (Deseret News editorial, 22 Jul., 1902, in JH 22 Jul., 1902)


The decision of the Utah Supreme court in the case of the suit of Mrs. Hilton for wifely dower in the estate of Dr. John R. Park is one that will surprise the public.  The lower court held that there was no marriage, and that Mrs. Hilton is not entitled to dower, as she was never Dr. Park’s wife.  The Supreme Court holds that there was a marriage, valid and binding, and that Mrs. Hilton became Dr. Park’s widow at his death.  To those who understand that there is an ordinance sealing in the Mormon church, which binds the couple for eternity, taking effect only at death and not effective as a marriage in this life, the decision of the District Court will seem sound and that of the Supreme Court unsound, for that is the sort of marriage the Park-Hilton marriage was understood to be.  But the Supreme Court, investigating the doctrines, sermons and revelations of the Mormon church on this subject, concludes that there is no such sealing ceremony, separate from the usual marriage ceremony; that the Mormon doctrines, revelations and expositions all speak of but the one ceremony–‘for time and all eternity.’  That is, sealing and marrying are precisely the same, there is no difference between them; the words are used interchangeably by Mormon authorities, in speaking and writing, and as a matter of fact the ceremony is the same.  This is a curious and very penetrating result, for it is understood that there have been cases of women married to one man for time, and to another for eternity; but it is patent from this decision that such a woman would be in polyandry, theoretically at least.  This result, we judge, will not be accepted by the Mormon church as an exact interpretation of their sealing system, and it is to be observed that the church, as such was not represented in the case, as it might reasonably have claimed to be where so important a tenet of its faith and practice was under determination.  It is quite likely, we should say, that there will be a rehearing or an appeal, for the situation is made very acute by this decision.  Justice Bartch wrote it, and Chief Justice Miner and Justice Baskin concurred, so that it was unanimous throughout.”  (Salt Lake Tribune editorial, 22 Jul., 1902, in JH 22 Jul., 1902)


The more one considers the opinion of the Supreme court in the Park case, the greater appears its importance and strength.  The core of the matter at issue was, as stated yesterday, the question of the precise meaning between sealing and the usual understanding of marriage.  Sealing has been understood to be solely a church affair, affecting only the relations of the parties to it after death; that is, such sealings have been performed; but at the same time, a sealing could be both for this life and the next, if the parties thereto so desired, and were eligible to such relation in this world.  It follows, therefore, that there have been two kinds of sealings, practiced and claimed to be by authority.  It was the after-death sort of sealing that Dr. Park evidently understood he was engaging in with Miss Annie Armitage.  But the supreme court says there is no difference in the kinds of sealing, but that sealing and marriage are one and the same, and that both relate to this world, the court disclaiming any power or intent to go further.  It is evident, moreover, that Dr. Park woke up to his mistake when his sealed wife began to get well, and that he recognized himself a married man.  For, in the alleged ‘church divorce’ (which in fact was not any sort of divorce, and did not purport to be, but simply an agreement between the two that they would separate) the parties to it are expressly recited to be John R. Park and Annie, his wife,’ to ‘dissolve all the relations which have hitherto existed between us as husband and wife, and to keep ourselves separate and apart from each other from this time forth,’ could not possibly be held to be a divorce, or in any way to affect the legal status of the two in matrimony.  Brigham Young openly proclaimed the same thing, in general terms, that the so-called church divorces had no legal effect; that they were as so much blank paper.  As we said yesterday, the church might properly be heard on this question before its final judicial determination; but the copious quotations made in the decision, and their unvarying tenor, would seem to be conclusive, and to establish that there is, in fact and in law, but one form of sealing, wedding, or celestial marriage in the Mormon church.  The News showed a disposition on Monday night to denounce the decision, but last night it was much milder in tone, while still contending that the court failed to fully understand the church’s position on this relation.  It also suggested complications in land titles through unexpected widows’ dowers; but we do not believe that there can possibly be much of that, for the courts would recognize in that regard the claims of legal wives, and these legal wives are of course also recognized by the church.  Besides until 1887 there was no widows’ dower right in Utah; and when it was established the next Legislature provided a statutory release of dower, which was quite generally made use of.  We do not, therefore, look for much complication of this sort.  But what puzzles us in the whole business is that Dr. Park did not secure a legal divorce, as it would have been so easy for him to do in later years.”  (Salt Lake Tribune editorial, 23 Jul., 1902, in JH 23 Jul., 1902)


The decision of the Hilton-Roylance case by the Supreme court, it seems to us, is the only one that could have been made under the law.  The parties under the rites of the church to which they belonged were united by a covenant called sealing.  It is explained that this was merely a spiritual adjustment intended to give the lady a certainty of possession a husband in the world to come.  But evidently this was distrusted even at the time, because a church divorce was resorted to to break the tie.  The proceedings for divorce were a full acknowledgement of the marriage.  The laws prescribe but one way through which a divorce can be obtained and this way was not resorted to.  But there is much more to this matter.  The Mormons proceed under a so-called prophecy which to them is a real prophecy.  When that is examined we discover that the prophecy makes sealing a marriage for time and eternity, and pronounces fearful penalties against all who would change its expressed command in the least.  It is clear that this was perfectly understood by the parties at the time else no form of divorce would have been resorted to.  Again, there can be no other understanding of the ceremony, for construed as it was sought to be construed, there could be no possible legal check on wholesale polygamy under the name of sealing.  It is clear that the man and woman who were principals in this matter were absolutely married.  The officiating priest had power to perform the ceremony, the form followed was the accepted one in the church.  Nothing more would have been necessary had they began and continued to live together.  That they never did does not alter in the least the legal status of their relations.

The truth is they were married and never divorced.  To deny the marriage is to fly in the face of the prophecy of Joseph Smith, and the expounding of the prophecy by all the distinguished successors of Joseph Smith in the Presidency of the church.  Being married, they were never by any legal process, by any process accepted by the law, divorced.  And there you are.

The News says that in order to reach its conclusions the court had to go outside the record of the case.

That is true.  The court was called upon to pass upon the validity of a marriage that was solemnized when Utah was practically under ecclesiastical rule.  The court naturally had to investigate what made a valid marriage at that time.

The News tells of ‘numerous cases of sealing in which the parties were united for time only.’  Has that been where both the man and woman were Mormons?  If so, by what authority was the marriage revelation as given by Joseph Smith set aside?

Again, the News says, ‘a sealing may be for eternity and not for time; that this is a matter which is not explained in church meetings and with which courts have nothing to do.’

That may be true, but the case in hand was so manifest that the parties sought a divorce.  The fact of their seeking a divorce was prima facia evidence that they believed they were husband and wife.

The argument of the News, that there is nothing in the certificate given by the minister who performed the ceremony ‘that settles the question as to the scope of the ceremony.’  That was why the court went to the books of the Mormon creed to ascertain just what scope such a sealing had.

Again the News says:  ‘The President of the Church never issued such documents (a certificate of divorce) in the case of a legal wife unless it has first been passed upon by a civil court.’  That may be true now, but how was it when this divorce was granted?  Is it not true that divorces were given with as little ceremony as the old Israelites employed when they gave their wives a writing that they were tired of them?

It is one of the painful reminders of what transpired in Utah when the power that ruled here defied the power of the sovereignty of our Republic.  It may be unpleasant and uncomfortable to have such things sprung at this date, but the law is law.”  (Goodwin’s Weekly, 26 Jul., 1902, in JH 26 Jul., 1902)

1 Aug.:  Qualifications, recommend for 2nd anointings.  

“Brethren recommended to the temple for second anointings should be men of experience whose integrity to the work of the Lord is beyond question, and who are known for their continued faithfulness, as it would be very unfortunate thing indeed for a man to receive the higher blessings and afterwards apostatize.  The question of age would naturally be a consideration in recommending for the higher ordinances, but it is not to be understood for a moment that you should wait until brethren become old before recommending them to receive these blessings.  The chief qualifications are worthiness, fitness and unshaken integrity, and these should be combined in man thus recommended whether they occupy presiding positions or not; but as a matter of course the brethren occupying presiding positions, such as those of the stake presidency, high counsilor president of the high priest’s quorum, patriarch and bishop are suppose to be in possession of these qualifications.

The usual form of recommend should be used containing the name of the brother recommended, also the name of his wife or those of his wives, dead or alive, as the case may be, to be anointed to him, and all such recommends should be sent this office for endorsement accompanied by a letter of explanation.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund to President C. R. Hakes, Mesa.  1 Aug., 1902.  Bergera collection.)

9 Aug.:  Mission presidents can’t issue recommends.

“We take the earliest opportunity of informing you that presidents of missions are not competent to recommend to the House of the Lord; this prerogative is confined to bishops only.  This is the general rule, which would convey the idea that only members of the Church living within the jurisdiction of a bishop are eligible to receive temple ordinances.  But for your information we may say also that they may be exceptions to this rule.  For instance, you may have living under your presidency members of the Church of long standing and of good integrity, entirely worthy to receive the blessings of the House of the Lord; but it may not be wisdom for them to break up their homes and come to Zion for the purpose of making new ones, as they may be more helpful in the work of the Lord situating where they are that they would were they to gather with the saints.  In all such cases it would be your privilege to correspond privately with us about them withouut letting the parties know of your intent and purpose; and after learning from you all about their antecedents, their worthiness, &c., if we should feel it right to permit such people to receive their endowments, a special recommend might be given to them by ourselves, wich would enable them to come to the House of the Lord to receive their blessings and return in pleasure to their homes.  Such correspondence should be done by you as president of the mission.  Conference presidents and branch presidents have nothing whatever to do with such matters, and the people thus recommended to us by you should be personally known to you for their worthiness to receive temple blessings.  This means of course that they shoulid be men and woman of experience in the Church, strong in the faith and helpful in their wa as well as tith payers.”  (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund to President Joseph B. Robinson, San Francisco.  9 Aug., 1902)

15 Aug.:  Regular baptism in Manti Temple.

“The day I was eight years old I was baptized in the Manti Temple.  One of my grandpa’s baptized me, and my other grandpa confirmed me a member of the Church.”  (Leona Larsen, JI 37(16):511, 15 Aug., 1902)

28 Aug.:  Temple work for Telestial Kingdom.

“[Meeting at the Temple] The clerk read a letter from a brother Earl of Mountain View, Canada, in which he desired to know what temple work, if any, could be done for those who will inherit a telestial kingdom.  The answer was, none.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 28 Aug., 1902)

7 Oct.:  Age requirements for temple endowments.

“[General Conference, Priesthood Session] Prest. Jno. R. Winder: No girl or woman over the age of 18 years or man under [over?] 21 yrs can do work in the temple unless they have had their endowments except to be baptized.  Persons who are married outside of the Church cannot be admitted to the temple for ordinance work of any time [type?].  People should not be recommended by Mission Presidents to the temple.”  (Anthony W. Ivins diary, 7 Oct., 1902)

7 Oct.:  Recommends for 2nd anointings.

“[General Conference, Priesthood Session] Prest. Lund: . . . Second Anointings should be kept secret & not be talked about.  Prests of stakes should give recommends for second anointings & not bishops. . . .

Prest. [Joseph F.] Smith: Recommends for second anointings are in the hands of the presidents of Stakes and not bishops.”  (Anthony W. Ivins diary, 7 Oct., 1902)

7 Oct.:  Mission presidents not to give recommends.

“[General Conference, Priesthood Session, Joseph F. Smith speaking] Prests. of missions & Elders in the field are not authorized to recommend people to the House of the Lord.  If a mission presidents cares to recommend a person to the temple he should first refer the matter to the Presidency of the Church, but should not consult the party at all till the descicion of the Presidency is reached.”  (Anthony W. Ivins diary, 7 Oct., 1902)

7 Oct.:  “Church divorce.”

“[General Conference, Priesthood Session, Joseph F. Smith speaking] The Church divorce is not given to a legal wife till she has been legally divorced.  All marriages are free, but divorces should be worth $10.00.”  (Anthony W. Ivins diary, 7 Oct., 1902)

16 Oct.:  Temple to be used to store museum pieces.

“Bros. James E. Talmage and George Reynolds had been appointed a committee to ascertain where a suitable place could be obtained for the museum properties until a home could be provided for the museum, the present quarters having to be vacated at the request of the State University, to whom it now belongs.  These brethren reported in favor of the Social or the Temple, and that the accommodations at the Temple were ample and highly recommended.  It was decided to remove the museum to the upper room of the temple for the present, and to box the minerals and put them in the basement of the temple.”  (JH 16 Oct., 1902)

13 Nov.:  Black Jane and the endowment.

“[Meeting at the Temple; Patriarch John Smith:] . . . said that Black Jane had called on him and wanted to know when the curse would be taken off that she might have her endowments.  Brother John was instructed to tell her to be patient and wait a little longer; that the Lord has his eye on her and would be far better to her than ever she had dreamed.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 13 Nov., 1902)

18 Nov.:  Rebaptism w/o excommunication; reuse of garments.

“Sister Libbie Willard, late wife of Elder John W. Young, called [upon the First Presidency].  She is here on her way to New York to appear as a witness in the trial of her son, William Hooper Young, who is charged with murder in the first degree, she having been summoned by her son’s attorney.  She called at the office yesterday and told President Winder that for the last three years her mind had been greatly wrought upon in regard to her standing in the Church, and she had fervently prayed that the Lord would open up her way so that she might do whatever might be required of her to be worthy of the fellowship of the Latter-day Saints.  When she had felt this way she had not mentioned it to her husband, Dr. Willard, fearing that he might not like it.  But since she had been summoned to New York, and determined to make an effort to respond to it, she made up her mind to speak to her husband and tell him how she felt, and to her great joy and satisfaction he had encouraged her to obey the mandates of her conscience.  She said that when she lived with Bro. John W. Young she was not in possession of a testimony of the truth of the gospel, but that the Lord had given her a testimony and that it was the only thing that supported her in her present condition.  Her son, John Wesley Young, wrote, under date of December 24th, 1900, inquiring what steps his mother ought to take in order to regain whatever standing she might have lost in the Church.  President Snow answered this letter in effect that after inquiry he learned that his mother’s standing in the Church was not questioned, but suggested that inasmuch as she had drifted off from the body of the Church that she renew her covenants by baptism; and he also told her that in case she had cast off her garments, she would be entitled to put them on again after renewing her covenants.  This letter was shown to President Smith, and President Smith advised that President Snow’s counsel be adhered to.  Sister Willard was invited to go to the temple and have this attended to.”  (JH 18 Nov., 1902)

23/24 Nov.:  Sexual intercourse and cleanliness for temple

“[General Priesthood Meeting; John W. Taylor:] . . . said that those who have sexual intercourse with their wives or touch any dead body are unclean until evening, and therefore during that day should not enter the temple or officiate in the ordinances of the gospel; advised the brethren not to eat pork or use it in their families; dwelt upon the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood; testified that he had seen the face of the Savior in vision by night.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 23/24 Nov., 1902)

18 Dec.:  Rules regarding 2nd anointings.

“[Meeting at the Temple] Pres. Lund felt that the second annointings should be given as a reward of faithfulness.  If this rule were departed from, said he, where could we stop?  Pres. Smith said that the rule laid down by Pres. Young had been more or less departed from.  At that time no two brethren could receive their 2nd annointings at the same meeting.  In each case prayer and the signs were offered at the altar.”  (Rudger Clawson diary, 18 Dec., 1902)

19 Dec.:  Patrons not to put garment on themselves.

“Prest. [David H.] Cannon said I expect you people think I am cross:  I want those who work in the wash-rooms to follow the text given you and allow no person to cloth themselves.  To do so is wrong and it must not be allowed.  If you waht to make changes I must be consulted as the Presidency of the Church holds me responsible.”  (St. George Temple Minute Book, K9368R, p. 261, 19 Dec., 1902)

26 Dec.:  Peter, James, John to call people to the veil.

“Prest. [David H.] Cannon wanted to talk to the workers:  When we come to the vail, a list of names is generally prepared or one for each vail.  I want Peter, James and John to call up to the vail the first name on the list given to each one of them, then hand it to the sister and let her call the next; while she is going through another can be called and so on until all on the papers are through.  This is the Lord’s House and as such is a house of order.  We are responsible for all that we do.  We should be united as the heart of one.”  (St. George Temple Minute Book, K9368R, p. 263, 26 Dec., 1902)