This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Mormonism and Polygamy". Washington Post. April 7, 2008.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 24, 2011, September 24, 2015, September 24, 2020, and September 24, 2023.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Latter Day Saint movement High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Several important subtopics are not covered but probably should be -

• Woodruff's own involvement with Post-Manifesto plural marriages
• Other Church leaders views about the revelatory status of the Manifesto (such as the denial by Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith that it was a revelation)
• That the Manifesto was neither the LDS Church's first Manifesto, nor its first "Official Declaration"
• The pressure from non-Mormon politicians to have it put into the LDS Doctrine and Covenants
• Authorship being attributed to Charles W. Penrose
• How Fundamentalist groups see it as the fulfillment of prophesy, and in contradiction to Woodruff's 1889 revelation

-- Tobey 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Tobyjaggle - some clarifications.

• First, Woodruff's involvment in post-manifesto plural marriages may be discussed - especially in jurisdiction changes - for example, "After the Manifesto, Woodruff authorized plural marriages in Canada and Mexico." That is a correct statement. But evidence of his involvment in Utah marriages is scant, and when he found out about it, he reprimanded the leader publicly, but did not cancel the marriage. Becuase they were performed where it was legal, it was not an issue. Remember the Edmunds tucker act only applies to places that have "territorial status" of the United States.
• Denial that the Manifesto was the result of a revelation? You are splitting major hairs there. Lorenzo and Smith both satated, that they believed in all of the revelations of Joseph Smith - that was a "code" for non-Utah plural marriages. However, they believed in revelations by Smith stating that the people should obey the laws of the land, and another that said if something the Mormons were commanded to do was prohibited by enemies of the church they were excused from it. In this case, no revelation was needed. Later, however, JFS, as church president, referenced "the revelation leading up to the manifesto" by Woodruff - and excommunicated apostles for performing plural marriages - and issues the second manifesto. Did something change? possibly, but I'm not sure from my reading.
• The manifesto was not a revelation. Nor is the official declaration. And yes, this was the first official declaration - not the first proclamation. There is a difference. For example, the two official declarations announce that a revelation was received. It does not give the relvelation. but states that one was given. A proclamation, is very different. There has been one on governments, orgin of man, family, the living christ, the restsored gospel for a total of, i believe, ten proclamations thus far. Please don't confuse the two. The church archives will not allow people to read either of the two revelations given that lead to the declarations. But they are there. Some think that the Family proclamation and the OD-1 are on teh same standing, but they are not. One is an announcement of revelation, the other a resulting actions of a revelation.

I'll have to come back and finish my thoughts, but all of this informaitno may be interesting to include. But be careful about the wording, as people get confused. - Visorstuff 23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

A major restructuring proposal for all polygamy articles related to Mormonism has been made at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy#Series and Restructuring proposal. Please visit and give your two cents. -- Descartes1979 ( talk) 04:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

In the article as it stands today, the text of the Manifesto differs somewhat from the text at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1 The text is a key historical document (for non-Mormons) and a canonized text (for Mormons, if I understand correctly) and it's important to get it right. I'm not qualified to say what the correct text is, but I hope that someone who is will update the page. Oaklandguy ( talk) 23:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

What are the exact differences? The text probably shouldn't differ that much. There may be some differences in capitalization and spelling from the original 1890 text and what is currently in the LDS Church's D&C, but there should be nothing major. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/hier1.htm
  • In 1890 Manifesto on 2011-05-25 02:15:16, 404 Not Found
  • In 1890 Manifesto on 2011-06-01 23:43:21, 404 Not Found

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1890 Manifesto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107173917/http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm to http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1890 Manifesto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925092906/http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/15581 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/dialogue/id/15581
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025160142/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2FMStar&CISOPTR=36519&filename=36520.pdf to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=%2FMStar&CISOPTR=36519&filename=36520.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply