Why Did the Mormon Church Stop Polygamy?

For most of the 19th century, the Mormon Church preached polygamy—referred to by leaders as “the new and everlasting covenant,” “the principle,” or “celestial marriage”—as a divine commandment. It wasn’t just a lifestyle; it was taught as a requirement for exaltation in the highest level of heaven. Church leaders claimed they stood immovable on God’s law, unshaken by public backlash or governmental opposition. Yet when the U.S. government passed and enforced increasingly severe anti-polygamy laws—imprisoning leaders, threatening to seize Church property, and revoke legal protections and status of the church—the supposedly eternal doctrine was abruptly abandoned, at least in mortality. The 1890 Manifesto, framed as a revelation, was less about spiritual guidance and more about institutional survival. This polygamy banning manifesto attempts to walk a fine line between following the lustful ways of the church founder, “Praise to the Man,” and remaining a solvent church.

Polygamy began with Joseph Smith’s secret affairs—justified and codified in revelation and hidden behind religious language—and grew into a formalized system that coerced women and girls into submission as “sister wives.” Ending it wasn’t about protecting women, seeking equality, or following God’s will; it was about keeping leadership out of jail and church property in their hands.

How could an alleged eternal law from God be reversed under legal pressure from man? What does that say about the authority of a prophet, or the legitimacy of a church that claimed to answer only to God yet ultimately bowed to a secular government? What if, instead of preserving the doctrine in heaven while discarding it on earth, the Church had truly denounced polygamy? What if it had admitted the harm, apologized, acknowledged it was never from God, and fully renounced the plurality of wives? Imagine the difference today if the Church had prioritized compassion over control. Would the church even have survived such an about face?

Where was the angel with the flaming sword when we really could have used one-when women needed saving?

Defining Marriage

In the 1850s, federal law in the United States did not yet specifically prohibit polygamy, but many state and territorial laws implicitly or explicitly defined marriage as monogamous and criminalized bigamy (being married to more than one person at the same time).

Common Law and State-Level Bigamy Statutes

In the early 19th century, most U.S. states followed English common law, which recognized only monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.

Bigamy laws—laws making it illegal to marry while already being legally married—were common. These laws existed in New York (1788), Pennsylvania (1790), and other states before the 1850s. For example, New York’s 1830 Revised Statutes defined bigamy as a felony and imposed prison terms for offenders. These laws were generally morality-based and intended to preserve Christian monogamy, which was the dominant cultural and legal norm.

Territorial Law: Utah and Mormon Conflict

When the Utah Territory was established in 1850, it was given the latitude to enact its own laws. The Mormon Church publicly acknowledged polygamy in 1852 when Orson Pratt announced the practice on behalf of Brigham Young. Utah’s territorial legislature (heavily influenced by LDS leadership) didn’t prohibit polygamy, but protected it.

During the 1850s, Marriage was defined in civil and religious terms as the union of one man and one woman. Most states did not codify a formal definition, but the assumption of monogamy was embedded in bigamy laws, court rulings, and Christian norms. In the 1850s, there were no federal anti-polygamy laws yet, but state laws criminalizing bigamy were widespread. Marriage was understood to be monogamous by default, rooted in common law and Christian tradition. The Mormon introduction of polygamy in Utah clashed with these norms and triggered growing national and political backlash, culminating in federal legislation in the 1860s.

Mormon church leadership even complained about the bigotry of such norms and laws. Imagine that! The LDS church complained about the narrow view of marriage being defined as between two specific individuals. They regularly preached that the plurality of wives was commanded by God and that they were unable to simply stop. Heber C. Kimball stated that “The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away.” Wilford Woodruff had even stated that it would not be stopped until the second coming of Christ!

The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away although some sisters have had revelations that, when this time passes away and they go through the veil, every woman will have a husband to herself. I wish more of our young men would take to themselves wives of the daughters of Zion, and not wait for us old men to take them all; go ahead upon the right principle, young gentlemen, and God bless you forever and ever, and make you fruitful, that we may fill the mountains and then the earth with righteous inhabitants.

Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Volume 3, Discourse 17: Iniquity—Saints Living Their Religion—Early Marriages, Salt Lake City, October 6, 1855
https://journalofdiscourses.com/3/17

Thus saith the Lord all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; for I the Lord am everlasting & my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand for ever…

I the Lord do not change & my word and my covenants & my law do not & as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must & shall obey my law & have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed &
would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting & those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so amen.

John Taylor, President of the Church, 1886 Revelation
https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1886-Revelation-article.pdf

“We are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the coming of the Son of Man.”

Wilford Woodruff at the Manti Temple dedication, May 17, 1888
Heber J. Grant Diary, May 17 1888
John Henry Smith Journal, December 20, 1888

Federal Response Begins in the Late 1850s

While there was no specific federal law prohibiting polygamy during the 1850s, the U.S. government began to react to growing national outrage over the LDS Church’s plural marriage practices:

In 1856, the newly formed Republican Party platform condemned polygamy and slavery as the “twin relics of barbarism.” President James Buchanan sent federal troops to Utah in 1857 in what became known as the Utah War, partly due to concerns about Mormon theocracy and polygamy. The first major federal anti-polygamy law was not passed until 1862: the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which criminalized plural marriage in U.S. territories.

“Every person having a husband or wife living who marries another, whether married or single, in any Territory or other place over which the United States have jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy.”

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bigamy_and_Polygamy

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862) was the first federal legislation to address polygamy directly. It prohibited plural marriage in U.S. territories:

That every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso to this section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding live hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years…

And be it further enacted, That the following ordinance of the provisional government of the State of Deseret, so called, namely “An ordinance incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” … and all other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the said legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah, which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy, be, and the same hereby are, disapproved and annulled … annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other contrivances.

Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/12/STATUTE-12-Pg501.pdf

This was followed by the Edmunds Act (1882), which strengthened the Morrill Act by making polygamy a felony and introducing penalties for unlawful cohabitation.

Every person who has a husband or wife living, who, in a territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter marries another… is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act

Church leaders complained about these “bigoted” laws to define marriage so narrowly as between one man and one woman. The membership is instructed to obey the laws of the land, but also that God’s laws are higher than man’s laws. This caused some dissonance for members and non-members alike.

Latter-day Saints sincerely desired to be loyal citizens of the United States, which they considered a divinely founded nation. But they also accepted plural marriage as a commandment from God and believed the court was unjustly depriving them of their right to follow God’s commands.

Confronted with these contradictory allegiances, Church leaders encouraged members to obey God rather than man. Many Latter-day Saints embarked on a course of civil disobedience during the 1880s by continuing to live in plural marriage and to enter into new plural marriages. The federal government responded by enacting ever more punishing legislation.

Between 1850 and 1896, Utah was a territory of the U.S. government, which meant that federal officials in Washington, D.C., exercised great control over local matters. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which made unlawful cohabitation (interpreted as a man living with more than one wife) punishable by six months of imprisonment and a $300 fine. In 1887 Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act to punish the Church itself, not just its members. The act dissolved the corporation of the Church and directed that all Church property over $50,000 be forfeited to the government.

This government opposition strengthened the Saints’ resolve to resist what they deemed to be unjust laws… This antipolygamy campaign created great disruption in Mormon communities. The departure of husbands left wives and children to tend farms and businesses, causing incomes to drop and economic recession to set in… Between 1885 and 1889, most Apostles and stake presidents were in hiding or in prison. After federal agents began seizing Church property in accordance with the Edmunds-Tucker legislation, management of the Church became more difficult.

LDS Church Website: Gospel Topics Essays: The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

In 1888, Mormon leaders sent out mixed messages about continuing the practice of plural marriage. In February, the Salt Lake Stake President Angus M. Cannon testified that President Woodruff had stopped “for nearly a year” giving recommends for plural marriages in the temple; and yet Cannon married another plural wife in the Salt Lake Endowment House the day before he testified and again five months later. During that year polygamous marriages continued to be performed in the Logan Temple by Marriner W. Merrill, in the Salt Lake Endowment House by Franklin D. Richards, aboard ship by Francis M. Lyman, and in Mexico by Moses Thatcher and Alexander F. Macdonald. In April, Wilford Woodruff expressed dismay that some speakers at the general conference had referred to plural marriage, despite a decision by the apostles to avoid such expressions, yet at the dedication of the Manti Temple on 17 May 1888, President Woodruff said, “We are not going to stop the practice of plural marriage until the Coming of the Son of Man.” Nevertheless, in July the Church’s emissaries in Washington, D.C., obtained the commitment from the U.S. Solicitor that the temples would be safe from confiscation under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, and in August 1888, Utah’s delegate to the House of Representatives, John T. Caine (who was also an unofficial representative of Church authorities) stated in the House: “Mr. Speaker, there is no longer a possibility of objecting to Mormons on account of polygamy. That is a dead issue. It cannot be vitalized . . . . because it has ceased to exist.” Yet when the apostles met before October 1888 conference to discuss the question: “Shall we repudiate plural marriage to save the half Million dollars the U.S. has seized,” they decided to let the Church lawyers conduct the legal challenges as best they could without an officially announced end of polygamy, “and we retain our honor before men, and our integrity to God.”

D. Michael Quinn, LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904. Dialogue Journal, Volume 18, #1
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/lds-church-authority-and-new-plural-marriages-1890-1904/

The Manifesto of 1890

The decision by the church to stop practicing polygamy was driven by external factors, including legal and societal pressures, as well as pragmatic considerations.

The end of polygamy in the Mormon Church is often framed within the faithful narrative as a revelation from God, a divine shift in commandment to meet the needs of the time. But from a critical perspective, this explanation rings hollow when one examines the political and legal pressures that led to the 1890 Manifesto. The claim that “God’s laws are higher than man’s laws” is central to Mormon theology, yet when the U.S. Government began seizing Church property, disincorporating the Church, and threatening its very existence through legislation like the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the so-called unyielding law of God was suddenly negotiable. If polygamy truly was an eternal commandment, a higher law, then the Church’s abandonment of it under duress exposes a profound inconsistency in its claim to divine authority.

The Church’s leadership had picked a fight with the U.S. Government, likely believing that God would deliver them just as He had, according to scripture, delivered ancient Israel. But when federal marshals raided settlements, jailed Church leaders, and seized assets, the long-promised divine intervention never came. Instead, Church President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto not out of bold prophetic vision, but under immense pressure to preserve the Church’s temporal interests. This move, while politically savvy, utterly undermines the image of a prophet who communes with God and stands above the influence of earthly powers. It suggests instead a leadership that talks of heavenly mandates but folds under the threat of real-world consequences.

For faithful members at the time, this reversal was more than political—it was spiritual whiplash. Many had been imprisoned, driven from homes, or ostracized by broader society for living “the principle.” They were told it was the highest form of marriage, the “new and everlasting covenant,” required for exaltation. The sudden declaration that it was no longer necessary, and that compliance with U.S. law was now God’s will, left a trail of confusion and betrayal. Members were forced to rationalize the contradiction, believing either that God had changed His mind or that the prophet had been misunderstood all along—neither of which aligns well with a theology that preaches an unchanging God.

This moment raises uncomfortable theological questions: Did the U.S. Government bend the will of God? Or did it merely break the will of mortal men who believed their authority to be divine? If God’s eternal laws can be overridden by court rulings and congressional acts, then how eternal or divine were they to begin with? The very idea that God’s “one true Church” would be so easily subdued by secular power is a deeply unsettling notion for a faith built on the idea of prophetic fortitude and divine backing.

Even today, some Latter-day Saints struggle to reconcile this episode with their belief in prophetic authority. It introduces a persistent dissonance in the Church’s narrative: either God’s laws aren’t higher than man’s, or the leaders who claimed to speak for God were never truly doing so. The legacy of the Church’s capitulation in the face of U.S. legal threats is a reminder that power, not revelation, was the real force that ended polygamy. That, more than any theological justification, should give pause to anyone still looking to the Church for unshakable moral guidance.

Antipolygamy laws enacted by the United States federal government in the 1870s and 1880s targeted Church-sponsored enterprises and the Church as a corporation and eventually threatened to disenfranchise the Church and confiscate its properties. President Wilford Woodruff worked with lawmakers and court officials to comply with new laws, discontinue the practice of plural marriage, and transition Church-affiliated enterprises into private business entities, a process his successors continued.

LDS Website: Church History Topics: Church Incorporation
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/church-incorporation

The most significant factor was the legal pressure placed on the church and its members. Polygamy was illegal in the United States, and the practice brought about significant legal challenges and conflicts. The legal actions taken by the U.S. government, combined with the potential dissolution of the LDS Church, placed immense pressure on church leaders. The U.S. government’s efforts to suppress polygamy were seen as a direct threat to the church’s existence and freedoms.

After two decades of seeking either to negotiate a change in the law or avoid its disastrous consequences, Church leaders began to investigate alternative responses. In 1885 and 1886 they established settlements in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law, where polygamous families could live peaceably. Hoping that a moderation in their position would lead to a reduction in hostilities, Church leaders advised plural husbands to live openly with only one of their wives, and advocated that plural marriage not be taught publicly. In 1889, Church authorities prohibited the performance of new plural marriages in Utah.

Church leaders prayerfully sought guidance from the Lord and struggled to understand what they should do. Both President John Taylor and President Wilford Woodruff felt the Lord directing them to stay the course and not renounce plural marriage.

This inspiration came when paths for legal redress were still open. The last of the paths closed in May 1890, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, allowing the confiscation of Church property to proceed. President Woodruff saw that the Church’s temples and its ordinances were now at risk. Burdened by this threat, he prayed intensely over the matter. “The Lord showed me by vision and revelation,” he later said, “exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice,” referring to plural marriage. “All the temples [would] go out of our hands.” God “has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.”

LDS Church Website: Gospel Topics Essays: The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

Wilford Woodruff stated he was acting “for the temporal salvation of the Church”. This meant he was issuing a statement renouncing plural marriage to avoid federal persecution of the Church. The manifesto was a direct response to government actions and legal pressure aimed at suppressing the practice of plural marriage within the Church. Woodruff’s statement aimed to protect the Church from legal and social repercussions of polygamy. He also emphasized that God would not allow a Church leader to lead members astray to appease the members who were hesitant about this abrupt change.

“I have arived at a point in the History of my life as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints whare I am under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church. The United State Government has taken a stand & passed Laws to destroy the Latter day Saints upon the subject of poligamy or Patriarchal order of Maraiage. And after Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued the following Proclamation…”

Wilford Woordurff, LDS Church President, Journal, September 25, 1890
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/8eee1db1-409c-43b2-ac32-1d344bc519c7/0/328
https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/7ef08b17-80eb-431b-ad57-4d09b0497b7f/page/ea64cd01-57b5-4e19-b4d0-84b4e0e8ef41

Wilford Woodruff, who served as the President of the LDS Church, received what he called a revelation as the “1890 Manifesto” or “Official Declaration 1” where he declared his “intention to submit to those laws” In this declaration, he stated that the church was no longer teaching or permitting the practice of polygamy. This declaration marked the official end of polygamy within the LDS Church for the specific purpose of retaining the temporal salvation or existence of the Church. The manifesto was a turning point in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, marking the official end of the practice of plural marriage. It required great faith and personal decisions from members and leaders as the Church adapted to new circumstances. This is at least in part because the leadership has so staunchly defended polygamy until this point.

Did the US Government bend the will of God? Or just the stubborn will of men thinking themselves as prophets? These questions unsettled not only Mormon leadership but the general membership. Members of the church had sacrificed so much in order to live what was taught as the celestial law of marriage and the new and everlasting covenant. But now, their prophet had seemingly backed off in submission to the US Government.

Not all the Twelve accepted the document immediately. John W. Taylor said he did “not yet feel quite right about it” at first. John Henry Smith candidly admitted that “the Manifesto had disturbed his feelings very much” and that he was still “somewhat at sea” regarding it. Within a week, however, all members of the Twelve voted to sustain the Manifesto.

The Manifesto was formally presented to the Church at the semiannual general conference held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle in October 1890… The assembly was then asked to vote on this motion. The Deseret News reported that the vote was “unanimous”; most voted in favor, though some abstained from voting.

Rank-and-file Latter-day Saints accepted the Manifesto with various degrees of reservation. Many were not ready for plural marriage to come to an end… Having lived, taught, and suffered for plural marriage for so long, it was difficult to imagine a world without it.

LDS Church Website: Gospel Topics Essays: The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

The practice of polygamy led to the church’s isolation from mainstream society. Mormons were often viewed with suspicion and hostility, and the practice of polygamy contributed to this negative perception. Church members faced social ostracism, economic difficulties, and challenges in their interactions with non-Mormon communities.

The Mormon Church officially renounced the practice of polygamy in 1890 with the issuance of the Manifesto by then-President Wilford Woodruff. This declaration came after years of increasing legal and financial pressure from the United States government, including the Edmunds Act and the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which disincorporated the Church and threatened the seizure of its assets. Though the Manifesto marked a public shift, there was open resistance among members and leaders alike. Some plural marriages continued to be performed in secret, even after the Manifesto, and others were solemnized in Mexico and Canada, where U.S. law held no sway. Eventually, those unwilling to abandon the principle entirely splintered off to form what are now known as “fundamentalist” or “breakaway” Mormon sects. Despite recent Church leadership claiming these groups “don’t exist,” their history and origins are undeniable and trace directly back to the Church’s once-defiant stance on polygamy.

Since the 1890 Manifesto, the LDS Church has publicly maintained a position against polygamy, seeking to distance itself from the practice and those who continue it. However, this disavowal is far from complete. Official doctrines still uphold the idea of celestial plural marriage—that in the afterlife, faithful men may be sealed to multiple wives, and that this form of union is part of the “new and everlasting covenant” required for exaltation. This teaching remains in Church manuals, temple sealings, and the very structure of eternal family theology. The earthly practice may have been abandoned to satisfy federal law, but the theological underpinnings have never been fully revoked. In this way, the Church walks a theological tightrope: publicly denying polygamy while still canonizing it in doctrine and eternal expectations.

The decision to end polygamy, under threat of legal dissolution and property seizure, exposes a striking contradiction in the Church’s foundational claims. For decades, leaders declared polygamy to be God’s law, more sacred and enduring than any law of man. They preached that living “the principle” was a divine commandment, required for eternal life, and that any government demanding its cessation was acting out of bigotry and wickedness. Yet, when the temporal costs became too high, the supposed divine will conveniently aligned with federal mandates. Again, this reversal begs the question: Was it truly God’s will that changed, or the desperation of men trying to save an institution? The Church’s retreat under pressure from the U.S. Government reveals just how impotent its so-called God-given authority is when confronted with actual legal power.

The Church once claimed it would never yield to the “unrighteous” demands of worldly governments, yet it did exactly that, proving that its spiritual convictions could be rewritten to preserve its earthly holdings. For those who grew up revering polygamous ancestors or who have wrestled with the remnants of this doctrine in modern Church teachings, this history may feel like a betrayal. The story many were taught—a story of divine direction and faithful endurance—crumbles under the weight of historical facts and political reality. The truth is that a real government, enforcing real laws, was able to bend the will of an organization claiming to be led by the Almighty.

If you or your family have been affected by the Church’s polygamous history—whether through inherited trauma, doctrinal confusion, or personal faith transitions—please share your thoughts and experiences. If you’ve deconstructed (or even are just starting to) the carefully curated narrative the Church presents, consider adding your voice to wasmormon.org, where others are sharing their stories of awakening, reflection, and reclaiming their own truths.

• https://tokensandsigns.org/the-267-hidden-brides-of-wilford-woodruff/
• https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/documents/7ef08b17-80eb-431b-ad57-4d09b0497b7f/page/ea64cd01-57b5-4e19-b4d0-84b4e0e8ef41
• https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/8eee1db1-409c-43b2-ac32-1d344bc519c7/0/328
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng
• https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2023/09/25/1890-manifesto-mormon-polygamy-woodruff-history
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-thirty-four?lang=eng
• https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-political-background-of-the-woodruff-manifesto/
• https://rsc.byu.edu/banner-gospel-wilford-woodruff/images-wilford-woodruffs-life-photographic-journey
• https://boydellandbrewer.com/9781846157585/the-royal-pardon-access-to-mercy-in-fourteenth-century-england/
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng
• https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/september-25/the-mormon-church-officially-renounces-polygamy
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/official-declaration-1-manifesto?lang=eng
• https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bigamy_and_Polygamy
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/church-incorporation
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act
• https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/lds-church-authority-and-new-plural-marriages-1890-1904/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/15ejwrb/was_it_ever_taught_that_polygamy_is_an_eternal/