First Presidency ManifestoEdit
The First Presidency Manifesto, issued in 1890 by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is a watershed document in the history of American religion. It marked a decisive shift in how the church handled one of its most controversial practices—polygamy—within the framework of a federal republic and a rapidly modernizing society. While the move drew praise from many who valued religious liberty and pragmatic governance, it also sparked ongoing debates about doctrine, obedience, and the pace of reform within a large, hierarchical religious organization.
The document is commonly associated with the leadership of Wilford Woodruff, the president of the church at the time, and is often cited as Official Declaration 1. It promised to cease the practice of plural marriages and to abstain from recognizing or performing marriages that violated civil law. In substance, the Manifesto declared that, going forward, the church would honor the laws of the land and that new plural marriages would not be contracted. It did not claim a new doctrinal reform in isolation from the church’s leadership, but rather presented a policy decision seen by its supporters as a necessary step to secure the church’s future within a constitutional order that increasingly restricted polygamy.
Background and context
The late 19th century put the church under unprecedented pressure from the federal government and from broader American society. Polygamy had become a defining issue in Utah and beyond, intertwining religious practice with political power and economic stakes. The federal response was aggressive: the Edmunds-Tucker Act and related enforcement measures stripped church members of voting rights, confiscated church property, and targeted polygamists legally. This climate of legal and political pressure made it clear to church leaders that continued plural marriage threatened the church’s able to operate within the United States, including the push for Utah Statehood.
Proponents of the Manifesto argued that the church should comply with civil law in order to preserve religious freedom for its members and to maintain a robust social order compatible with the broader American republic. They viewed the move as a way to avoid harsher sanctions while preserving the church’s governance and missionary work. Opponents, including some polygamist practitioners and skeptical observers, argued that the policy would dilute a core historical pattern of church practice or reflect capitulation to external pressure rather than divine directive. The tension between maintaining doctrinal continuity and adapting to political reality has been a persistent feature of the church’s history.
The Manifesto and its provisions
The Manifesto articulated a clear stance: the church would abstain from entering into any new plural marriages and would observe the law of the land with respect to marriage. It asserted that the church would honor civil regulations and would not sanction marriages that violated those laws. The document framed the shift as a necessary measure to protect the church’s institutional integrity and to allow its members to participate fully in American civic life without the stigma and legal risk associated with polygamy.
This moment set in motion a longer process of reform within the church, including later, more explicit directions that reinforced the end of polygamy as a formal practice. A subsequent development often linked to this broad reform wave is the 1904 Second Manifesto, which intensified penalties for those who continued or contracted new plural marriages and began to close off all avenues for polygamy within church governance and discipline. The First Presidency’s action did not erase every remnant of past plural marriages immediately, but it established a clear trajectory toward discontinuation and alignment with civil norms.
Reactions, impact, and legacy
In the short term, the Manifesto helped avert a potential constitutional clash with the federal government and fostered a smoother path to full state integration for Utah. It is widely viewed as a pragmatic compromise that allowed the church to maintain its religious identity while accepting the civil framework of the United States. In the long run, the policy helped reshape the church’s public image, moving it from being perceived primarily through the lens of polygamy to being understood as a large, centralized, modern religious organization with global reach.
There were critics on both sides of the issue. Some within the church questioned whether the move reflected a divine mandate or a political calculation. Some outsiders argued that the policy represented capitulation to secular pressure rather than a genuine doctrinal reform. From a conservative perspective, the decision is often framed as a disciplined, orderly adaptation that safeguarded religious liberty and the church’s ability to function within a pluralistic society, while preserving family stability, social order, and the rule of law. Critics who emphasize the continuity of traditional practice sometimes view the Manifesto as a political solution rather than a spiritual turning point; supporters counter that the change was necessary to ensure the church’s survival and its capacity to carry forward its mission in a changing world. The conversation around the Manifesto thus reflects broader debates about how religious communities navigate modernization, state power, and long-standing traditions.
The Manifesto also influenced how the church structures authority and accountability. By consolidating doctrinal and administrative directions under top leadership, the church reinforced the role of the First Presidency and the central governance model. It helped set a precedent for how the church would respond to social pressure while maintaining a coherent, global church-wide policy. The broader legacy includes the church’s ongoing engagement with questions of religious liberty, plural marriage’s place in historical memory, and how a faith tradition reconciles deeply rooted practices with evolving civic norms. For contemporary observers, the episode offers a case study in how a religious organization can reinterpret tradition in the interest of long-term viability and social consonance.