The first half of the 20th century saw the Church making efforts around the world to gain legal recognition by civil governments. Interestingly (to me, at least), these efforts were spearheaded by individual missions and mission presidents, rather than by the central Church itself, although Church leaders in Salt Lake City provided documents requested by various governments and consulted with mission presidents as to the advisability (or not) of complying with various governmental requests.
Sometimes mission presidents pursued recognition because of specific problems that had occurred within the mission: In some countries, including Sweden and Tahiti, the Church had lost real estate because, in the absence of official status, the Church had had to place its property in the legal ownership of citizens of those places; when the putative owners apostatized, or when their heirs claimed the property as their own the Church had no legal standing to object.
In other places, there had been no definite problems; instead, mission problems saw additional advantages to the Church in being recognized: The Czechoslovakian president thought it would bring the Church into greater prominence with the governing class; in Australia, recognition was a precursor to the state’s allowing Mormon leaders to perform marriages; in Germany, mission leaders hoped it would bring greater protection to elders who were habitually banished or even arrested.
Every government had its own regulations for the Church to meet before recognition was granted. In Quebec, as distinct from the rest of Canada with its English legal tradition, the province required an act of its Parliament, because, in large measure due to its French Catholic heritage, Quebec did not maintain civil birth and marriage records but depended upon its churches to record and provide that essential service, and the government needed to know that the Church was able to do so competently. Czechoslovakia’s requirements were much easier – they asked for a written constitution that described, in general terms, the purposes and organization of the Church as if it had merely been a sports club or literary association.
And the Netherlands … well, the Netherlands was so concerned about polygamy that its government required something of the Latter-day Saints that they asked of no one else: Assurances, in the form of a statement signed by the First Presidency and notarized by the Dutch consul in Salt Lake City, that polygamy was a thing of the past. They also requested documentary evidence, together with newspaper clippings to show that the case had been a matter of public knowledge, of some instance – it didn’t matter which; the Church could choose – where a man had been excommunicated for the practice of plural marriage.
And so, in 1937, the First Presidency drew up and signed an affidavit, duly filed with the Church’s application for recognition in the Netherlands.
State of Utah
County of Salt LakeHeber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay hereby certify and declare to all to whom these presents may come: That they now constitute the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and as such have the Presidency and direction of said church and of its practices; that according to the law of the said church and the practice and procedure thereof Heber J. Grant, by virtue of his office as President, is the only living man who has the authority to perform or to authorize to be performed marriages according to the usages and practices of said Church; that he never has since becoming the President of the church, and being possessed of or clothed upon with that authority performed nor authorized anyone else to perform plural (so-called polygamous) marriages; that since the 24th day of September, 1890, no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints.
And they do hereby further certify and declare: That the rule and practice and law of said Church is as it was certified and declared to be in that certain Official Statement, issued and published by the then Presidency of the Church, Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and J. Reuben Clark, Jr., on th3e 27th day of June, 1933, which said statement the undersigned hereby adopt and mark Exhibit “A” and attach hereto as a part of this statement; that there are likewise attached hereto and incorporated herein and certified as a part of this statement Exhibits “B,” “C,” “D,” “E,” “F,” “G,” and “H,” being copies of the jurisdictional proceedings and of the official action of the Church by which one Henry E. Stratton and a certain Mrs. Echo Hawkins were excommunicated from the Church by the tribunal authorized to act in the premises on the 9th day of October 1930, for entering into a pretended plural marriage contrary to the law of said Church, ((While the documents produced by the Church court in this case are not filed with my source record for this affidavit, I know that the case of Harry Stratton and Echo Hawkins was notorious after the couple moved to California and claimed that they were legally, not polygamously, husband and wife.)) which excommunication was publicized by being published in the Deseret News, a daily newspaper, published in the English language at Salt Lake city, Utah, and having general circulation among the members of the Church and others residing in the State of Utah and surrounding states; that other violators of the law of the Church in the particulars stated have been in like manner dealt with and will continue so to be dealt with if and as evidence of such violations of Church law comes to the knowledge of the undersigned; that the said above mentioned Exhibits comprise the Accusations made against said offending parties, the Writ of Jurisdiction giving authority to deal with them, the summonses by virtue of which he said parties were required to appear before the tribunal before whom the accusation was pending, and the official Act of Excommunication.
And do further certify and declare: That attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “I” is a true copy of the first annual report of The Netherlands Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, established and maintained in the Kingdom of The Netherlands, to the headquarters of said Church at Salt Lake City, State of Utah, and that similar reports have been made by said Netherlands Mission to the said headquarters of the Church each year since the date of the said first report, to wit, the [blank] day of [blank, 1897]. ((An additional requirement of the Dutch government was documentary evidence that the Church had had a functioning organization in the Netherlands for a considerable period of time; although missionaries had worked in that nation since at least 1861, the Church chose to document its presence there with an annual statistical report published in an early issue of the mission paper, De Ster.))
HEBER J. GRANT
J. REUBEN CLARK JR
DAVID O. McKAY
The First Presidency of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Be careful, boys and girls. Your misbehavior may come back to haunt you in after years in ways you would never anticipate …
Legal English appears to have been a bit stuffier back then than now. I’ve written my share of “herein”s and “said”s, but not this many in one place.
I’m amused by “so-called polygamous.” What have they got against the word that literally means plurally-married? I could understand describing the marriages themselves as so-called, in the sense that the parties aren’t legally married, but I’m a little surprised at their apparent distaste for an accurate adjective.
I think the distaste is consistent for the era … It was one of those shibboleths: Mormons used “plural marriage” and non- or anti-Mormons used “polygamy” (or used “plural marriage” sarcastically, as in referring to a woman as “one of Bro. Jones’s plurals”). It was a marker of whether you considered it a revealed practice sanctioned by God, or a carnal, sinful one.
I read a letter recently (did I post it? or did I just chat with someone about it?) where Heber J. Grant took a much younger local leader to task for using the term “unlawful cohabitation” to refer to plural marriage. Accurate, yeah, but another term used only by those prosecuting or persecuting Mormons for plural marriage.
Dictionaries don’t always reveal everything.
IIRC, Church leaders as far back as the Nauvoo era differentiated between “polygamous” unions (promoted by John C. Bennett, and practiced by heathens) and the true “plural” marriages sanctioned by God and Joseph Smith.
Somewhere, there’s an apologetic paper floating around using this rational to explain the double-speak by Church leaders regarding this topic.
Interesting that as late as 1937, the distinction was important to the 1st presidency.
I guess I remember similar sentiments about “Mormon” in the more recent past.
Might be interesting to know that the Dutch consul in Salt Lake City — a Latter-day Saint himself — sent word that he was well acquainted with the signatures of the First Presidency, and he would notarize the document without the necessity of their appearing in person at his office.
Do you have a source for the constitution Czechoslovakia required?
I do, along with the proposed constitution, but I generally do not publish sources on Keepa — discovering these materials is how I earn my living, and, if I don’t give up on myself, the basis for future professional publications. Thanks for understanding.
That’s interesting. The “jurat” usually reads “Sworn to before me this [blank] day of [blank], 1937” and I’d think a consul (or a lawyer in the First Presidency) would be careful to get that part right. The last thing you’d want is someone questioning the authenticity of a document because the signatories didn’t actually appear before the notary or consul. If he wanted to spare them the inconvenience, he could have volunteered to drop by 47 E South Temple.
I’m sure you’re right, Mark B., both about the wording (I’ve certainly typed that enough times myself!) and the foolishness of risking anything on such an easily avoidable problem. I don’t have the wording of that apparatus in this case, and don’t even know whether it was in English or Dutch. I have encountered alternate wording on 19th century family history materials where a county clerk says something like “with whose handwriting I am intimately familiar” when he authenticates something signed by a judge or sheriff that is going to another jurisdiction but which was not signed in the clerk’s presence. But I don’t know how it read in this case.