The Journal of Joseph White Musser: An excerpt of the chapter 'Patriarchal'

Joseph White Musser (1872-1954)

By Joseph W. Musser

I had been nurtured in the Patriarchal Law. I believe it earnestly. It seemed to me I had met Father Abraham and been taught at his knees. He had many wives and concubines. Isaac, the son of Sarah, was Abraham's heir apparent, though not his first born, Ishmael coming before him. 

Early in life I became familiar with the Lord's revelation to His Prophet, Joseph Smith on the subject of marriage...

My father had four wives to my knowledge; though one - the first - I never knew in mortality. She died before my birth. My mother was his first plural wife, and her faith and loyalty were, to my mind, perfect. At the tender age of seven or eight I found myself defending my father in his plural life. Two of my older brothers, one his step-son, were making light of his life when I, a mere stripling, took his part and shamed the older boys. Of course, I could at that time know nothing concerning the principle, its social status, or its biological importance, but the fact that my father and mother, noble and grand creatures, were living it was sufficient justification for my endorsement.

Those were troublesome days. The Federal Government was placing our people in the penitentiary for living the principle. Many were killed by the officers and hundreds of them driven into hiding away from their loved ones. At the age of 12 I was frequently called upon to take plural wives with their babies from one place to another, to hide them from the law. A very sad incident occurred when I was called upon to take a mother with her dead baby to the city cemetery at midnight, where the child was buried away from the sneaking and sensual eyes of the officers.

The right to motherhood by a husband of her choice is as sacred and positive to me as is the right to fatherhood by the wife of his choice. And if two women choose the same man, and the arrangement is agreeable with him, it is positively nobody's business but their own. This is true whether the parties involved are in or out of the Priesthood authority or the sealing power of Elijah. So that when men attempt to interfere with nature's laws and prescribe marriage under the law or otherwise, they are distinctly out of order and should be penalized, be they Mormon, Jew, Gentile, Athiest, or Heathen. "Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

When Father Adam came to earth, he came as a resurrected and immortal being. He brought with him some of his wives. They became the father and mothers of the human race. Thus the first family was a patriarchal family. That was the order. It is the order of heaven today. All who attain to the Celestial glory must accept the celestial law, one feature of which is plural marriage. To go where Abraham is means that one must live the law of Abraham pertaining to marriage, and not to go where he is means not to go where God is. These principles were burned into my soul in youth - indeed, as I now view it, long before I came to earth in mortality.

Personally I was brought up in the most puritanical fashion with reference to morality. To lose one's virtue was an offence in the eyes of God next to murder - the shedding of innocent blood. To take advantage of a girl, not one's wife, was a terrible act. I believed this doctrine and I lived it completely - and I still believe it. And now, when I simply state that I am now and always have been a natural polygamist I want my children to know that it was not the call of a sexual urge that made me so; rather the urge of higher impulses calling me to admit the rights of women, and do my part in seeing that every woman who wished to, enjoyed the rights of motherhood. The urge was offspring, not sexual gratification.

When the Wilford Woodruff "Manifesto" was adopted (October 1890), I was not married. I had been promised in the name of the Lord, by my Stake President, some days after the Manifesto was published, that I would yet enter the law. I believed it. And later, while courting my young lady, I told her I expected to enter that law of marriage; that when the time came I would take it up with her and we would make the selection of other wives together. Although I was taking her out of a plural family, she took the matter quite coolly, but she was true to her promise on that occasion. 

On December ___, 1899, after receiving my "Second Blessings," a messenger came to me from President Snow, stating I had been selected to enter plural marriage and to help keep the principle alive. Apprising my wife of the situation we both entered into prayer for guidance. At this time I hadn't the slightest idea whom to approach. The "Manifesto" had been issued, and word had gone out from Bishops and Stake Presidencies that a definite stop had been put to the practice. Those assuming to enter the principle would be "handled". I was placed in a peculiar situation. God's Prophet told me to accept the law and keep it alive. His subordinates said if I did so, they would cut me off the Church. I could not argue with them and divulge the source of my authority. It was a time when every man was in honor bound to carry his own burdens and yet live every law of the Gospel. 

In answer to prayer, Mary Caroline Hill, a daughter of William Hood Hill, a member of the Mill Creek Ward Bishopric, came within our horizon. She was a beautiful young lady, about 25 years of age; had refused many proposals - had been waiting for the right man. Her father had done time, presumably with my father, in the penitentiary for polygamous living. I was astounded, when asking Brother Hill for the hand of his daughter, to be flatly refused. He said it could not be done; they were handling people for proposing it. I was greatly taken back. I had been at his home, with other Stake and General Officers of the Church on numerous occasions and eaten at his table. I rather took it for granted that he knew my hidden motive in being there so often and thought he was in harmony with it.

I  said, "Well, Brother Hill, it can be done, and now the responsibility is upon you. Your daughter is agreeable to the situation."

Back Row: Louis Kelsch and Charles Zitting; Front Row: John Y. Barlow and Joseph Musser.

The conversation took place in the office where I was employed, in town. He left and in about one half or three quarters of an hour here turned and assured me it was all right and that I might go ahead. Astonished and yet grateful, I asked what had happened to change his mind so quickly. He said after leaving me he "bumped into Apostles John Henry Smith and M. F. Cowley;" he put the question to them. They assured him it was all right and advised him to return to me and give his consent to the marriage. Thus Mary entered into my family in the year 1901. She was "true blue." She gave me 6 children, five daughters and my son, Guy, himself "true blue," and now carrying on my work in a most manly manner.

Later, I was courting my wife Ellis (R. Shipp). She had been called into Wasatch Stake to introduce kindergarten work; having received her diploma from the University of Utah I had been called to Heber to assist in the clerical work of the stake. It was at this time that President Joseph F. Smith issued his famous statement of 1904, as follows:

"Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into contrary to the official declaration of President Wilford Woodruff, of September 24, 1890, commonly called the Manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff and adopted bythe Church at its general conference of October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriage violative of the law of the land, I Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof, and excommunicated therefrom."

It will be noted that the statement says, "No such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church" and that those engaging in the same "will be deemed in transgression against the Church."

The Church having surrendered the principle through accepting the Manifesto, could take no other position; certainly no such marriage could be performed with the consent of the Church without a vote of the Church, "all things being done by common consent in the Church" (D &C Sect 26). But Celestial or plural marriage is not primarily a Church institution. It properly belongs to the Priesthood. The Church can do nothing but accept or reject the principles. They first accepted it and later rejected it, which meant the Priesthood must carry on independent of the Church. The law of Celestial marriage is purely a law of the Priesthood as indicated in D & C 132:28, 58, and 61. It was 20 odd years after the revelation was received before it was officially reported to the Church, in 1852; and in the meantime Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others, entered the principle obviously without Church authority. They being the Priesthood and the Church being auxiliary to the Priesthood, they needed no Church sanction. Hence, when President Woodruff signed the Manifesto as President of the Church; as President of the Priesthood, a position he held before he became President of the Church, he authorized Anthony W. Ivins to go into Mexico and there continue such marriages in behalf of those whom the Priesthood would send to him.

This statement of President Smith's, I was afterwards informed, was given to protect Reed Smoot in his seat in the U S. Senate. On two separate occasions I put my situation with Ellis, whom I dearly loved, up to Apostles A. H. Woodruff and Mariner W. Merrill, each of whom told me to release the girl if she wanted to be released; otherwise to stay with her, and all eventually would be well. Later the ceremony was performed and the Lord was with the compact.

Others came into my family later. I cite the two occasions to show how things were done in those days in the efforts of the Priesthood, to keep the law alive. Incidentally, men other than Brother Ivins were set apart to work in other parts of the country. Since the Church is subservient to the Priesthood, any action taken by it against those entering the law is null and void. A man or woman cannot properly be cut off the Church for keeping a law of God, for the Church belongs to God and God cannot act a lie and remain God.

It was this situation, then, that confronted me; I was resisting the Church, though I love its institutions. I had always taught my children to follow the Church, and yet I now was resisting it. My blessed children could not understand my position, nor can I blame them, neither could I explain to them the full picture any faster than they were prepared to receive it. For the most part my children have stayed with the Church, and are doing good work therein; while some of them have felt to criticize me, I cannot help it, for I am being directed by the Priesthood of God...

You can read the entire journal by clicking here.

You can reach us at fundamentalistmag@gmail.com.