Somehow we ended up with a family tradition that our ancestor Wilford Woodruff Luce (1838-1906) was really a son of Church President Wilford Woodruff (1807-1898). Very improbable, but not actually impossible, so it had to be investigated. One of my early theories, although apparently not the right one, was the Law of Adoption.
I worked on and off on this question for many years. It was always very improbable that we’re really somehow descendants of Wilford Woodruff. He played an important role in the lives of the early Luces, but as a shepherd not as an ancestor.
I think I’ve discovered how the tradition started — meaning I believe I’ve traced the story back to a particular person and to a specific but fairly routine misunderstanding.
The huge picture behind the reception desk at the church office building (50 E. North Temple, Salt Lake City) is Wilford Woodruff, not Wilford Luce. Some people were confused. They said the portrait was our ancestor. That led to the idea that we are descended from Wilford Woodruff. And for people who didn’t know it was confusion over the portrait, we could only be descended from Wilford Woodruff if he was Wilford Luce’s father. Whew.
Assuming I’m right about the origin of our “family tradition”, it means the the story probably dates from between 1972, when construction on the church office building was finished, and 1982, when I first heard it. I’m not in fact disrespecting some old and hallowed tradition.
Until a few years ago I founded my analysis on the dating of events, and particularly of polygamy. How likely is it that Wilford Woodruff was married polygamously to Stephen Luce‘s wife Mary Ann Wheeler? Not very likely, I decided.
There is a great deal of uncertainty about the earliest practice of polygamy by the Mormons. Joseph Smith’s revelation on plural marriage was recorded 12 July 1843 but there is evidence of an earlier revelation recorded 17 July 1831. The first recorded plural marriage, of Joseph Smith to Louisa Beman, was performed on 5 April 1841 at Nauvoo, two years before the official revelation. Some early converts later claimed Smith was teaching polygamy as early as 1831 or 1832, and there are claims that Smith was married polygamously to Fanny Alger in 1833 and Lucinda Harris about 1838. Public rumors led to official denials in 1835 and 1836.
Wilford Luce Sr. was born 7 November 1838. That puts his conception about February 1838, comfortably after the earliest evidence of Mormon polygamy. He could have been born in polygamy, but I think the particular circumstances around his birth make it unlikely.
First, there is no evidence. Stephen & Mary Ann Luce converted to Mormonism in February 1837, a year before their son Wilford’s conception. Wilford Woodruff arrived as a missionary on his first visit to North Fox Island on 20 August 1837. According to his journal he spent the night of 21 August at Stephen Luce’s, and went fishing with him the next day. Woodruff left Vinalhaven on 2 October. His 2nd visit, he returned on 2 November. There is no indication of anything out of the ordinary throughout the month of February. On 11 Feb he preached at the house of Malatiah Luce. Jan 1838 he says “then also 13 January 1838 / Elder Ball had baptized six people Malatire Luce, Ruth Luce, Stephen Luce Esq, Nathaniel Thomas, Susan Thomas, and Nancy Kent.” He was there in February but left 13 February. Back on Fox Island 8 March.
He married Phebe Carter shortly before, on 13 April 1837.
Now our modern world has solved the question with DNA testing. We descendants of Wilford Luce have genetic matches to the descendants of Stephen Luce’s brother Ephraim. That means our ancestor Wilford Luce must have been a son of Stephen Luce, just as the records show. There is no plausible scenario where we would match Ephraim Luce’s descendants any other way.
A Possibility
Now that we’ve put to rest the idea that Wilford Luce was a son of Wilford Woodruff, a couple of people have suggested to there might be more to the “family tradition” than I’m allowing for. Which, if you think about it, is an open invitation to stress about this question forever because it’s the same as saying no answer can ever be truly final.
In the early church, there was not the elaborate tracing of genealogy, as we do now for sealings. Instead, the standard was for men to be sealed to their deceased parents who might be thought to have converted had they lived, but otherwise sometimes to be “adopted to” prominent men in the church.
The sealing of men as father and son despite their actual relationship was a way to guarantee a valid priesthood link back to Adam. The priesthood, for example, was restored to Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young was sealed to him as a son before Smith’s death in 1844. Young later explained (1862), “By this power men will be sealed to men back to Adam, completing and making perfect the priesthood from this day to the winding up scene.”
The whole thing was badly fleshed out and poorly understood. Wilford Woodruff’s journal after 1877 routinely mentions times when he was adopted to some number of men.
At General Conference in April 1894, Wilford Woodruff suspended the practice, “I have not felt satisfied, nor has any man since the Prophet Joseph Smith who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt there was more to be revealed on this subject than we have received … and the duty that I want every man who presides over a Temple to see performed from this day henceforth, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is let every man be adopted to his father.”
Coincidentally for our purposes, the suspension of the Law of Adoption, along with other changes at the same time, launched the modern era of Mormon genealogy and family sealings going back as many generations as possible.
More Information
- Wikipedia, Law of adoption (Mormonism), visited Oct. 8, 2019.