Black Pete, as he was known, was born in 1775 in western Pennsylvania.  (Staker speculates that his last name may have been Carroll, but it is unclear.)  Pete’s owner John Kerr stipulated that Pete would be freed 10 years after Kerr’s death, so Pete was freed at the age of 29.  Pete continued to work for the Kerrs, as well as the Carrel family.  The two families later moved to Ohio (near Kirtland), and Pete moved with them.  About 1820, Black Pete associated with Sidney Rigdon and the Reformed Baptist movement.

It is believed that Black Pete’s mother Kino came from the Slave Coast of Africa, which includes the modern day countries of Guinea, Mali, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Liberia, The Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau.  Staker says she was probably a Muslim, and probably was brought to America in the 1750s-1760s time frame.  Pete was immersed  in many of these ecstatic religious experiences of the time.

Slaves in America developed their own kind of religious worship by combining elements of Muslim worship, Christianity, and Native American influences.  Slaves often practiced ecstatic religious expressions such as speaking in tongues and dancing, and other expressions, sometimes known as the “slave shout.”  Many of these practices became part of the Second Great Awakening in America and were adopted by white communities as well, including Methodist and later Mormon religious services.

In late October 1830, Joseph Smith received a revelation that Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Parley Pratt, and Ziba Peterson were to go on a mission.  They met Sidney Rigdon in Mentor, Ohio; Rigdon initially was quite unreceptive to the missionaries message.  The missionaries continued on to Kirtland, and found that they were much more successful there.  One of the first converts in Kirtland was the Morley family, and this led to many other baptisms in Kirtland.  Rigdon came to the Morley farm to perform a wedding on November 4, and was a bit more receptive to the missionaries.  On November 8, Sidney and his wife Phoebe were baptized, and Sidney abandoned his role as a minister for the Baptist Church.

The missionaries soon headed south to Cincinnati, leaving the early church members with no real leadership. Staker discusses how Black Pete was one of the citizens that filled the vacuum on pages 64-65.

Black Pete had lived on the Whitney property during their communal experiment and may have continued to do so for a time.  He became a central figure in the new religious community by early December.  The typical pattern for slaves’ conversion to various Christian congregations was through “a radical encounter with spiritual beings” as they sought divine manifestations from the spiritual world.⁸⁵ It seems probable that Black Pete, as a “revelator” in the new religious community, would have built on the ecstatic religious world he knew well.  Because he left no written records, his beliefs and role in the movement can be glimpsed only through the eyes of others as his involvement intensified that winter.

Short lists of those who were ordained and commissioned to preach after their baptism never included Black Pete.  However, the men who wrote about their baptisms note they were also ordained and commissioned as part of their conversion process, and many of the early converts were not included in lists of commissioned preachers, leaving Black Pete’s authority to preach and baptize uncertain.  As part of Kirtland’s ecstatic religious experiences, a number of the men received “letters” that fell from heaven which were copied onto paper before the original letter disappeared.  Black Pete was among those who received one of these letters, his delivered by a black angel.  Because the letters were apparently divine commissions to travel the countryside and preaching and baptizing and because Black Pete was among those who went about the country preaching, it is likely he also performed baptisms during January of 1831.  Careful studies of the relationship between black members and priesthood ordination confirm that some early black members were ordained to the priesthood well after Black Pete’s conversion.⁸⁶ Although the beginning date for a priesthood ban on black members is not firmly established, it is clear that during Black Pete’s period of involvement in early Latter-day Saint history, there were no priesthood restrictions on black members.  Black Pete may well have acted in his role as Book of Mormon preacher in an authorized capacity.  Nevertheless, the newly founded religious movement in Ohio quickly looked to Black Pete for direction; and as this small Church of Christ spread, it seemed to take on a life of its own.

Following his conversion to Mormonism, Staker notes that Pete went with some missionaries (probably Levi Hancock, Edson Fuller, and Heman Bassett) to the shores of Lake Erie in Astabula County.  On February 5, 1831, the Ashtabula Journal “identified Black Pete as a leader in this new religion, suggesting that the group of young men recognized him as their chief source of influence.”  The footnote references “The Golden Bible or the Book of Mormon,” Ashtabula Journal, 3, no. 10 (February 5, 1831):  Levi Hancock in later years became a close friend of black Latter-day Saint Elijah Abel and took special note of blacks in his writings.

In chapter 8, Staker describes many examples of ecstatic religious experiences in the “Mormonite” community in Kirtland.  Of course, may members and non-members were uneasy about the practices.  Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge went to New York to meet Joseph Smith, arriving in January 1831.  Joseph quickly sent John Whitmer to preside over the branch.  The missionaries returned in March 1831 and the practices were perceived as “unusual.”  Whitmer wrote years later that (quoting from page 94) ‘a false spirit misled members and that “the devil blinded the eyes of some good and honest disciples.”‘⁶ Staker notes that “Whitmer was apparently unable to resolve concerns about enthusiasm”.

Joseph soon left New York and arrived in Kirtland in February.  Church members looked to him for direction.  Staker notes on page 103,

Black Pete and his associates were forbidden to preach and baptize on the basis of letters from heaven: “It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church” (D&C 42:11).

It is known that Joseph Smith was aware of Black Pete.  On page 105, Staker writes,

Some of these accounts of Morley family meetings subtly expressed discomfort that a black man would be in a familiar relationship with white women.  ”White women would chase him [Black Pete] about,” recalled Reuben Harmon.¹⁰ The interest apparently went both ways as Lovina Williams, Frederick G. Williams’s youngest daughter, became the object of Black Pete’s affections.  She turned fourteen a month before the missionaries arrived from New York.  According to W. R. Hine, “Black Pete claimed to receive a revelation to marry her.”  Hine also recalled that D. P. Hurlbut “before he left the Mormons” likewise “courted Dr. Williams’ beautiful daughter, and told her he had a revelation to marry her; she told him when she received a revelation they would be married.  Everybody about Kirtland believed he had left the Mormons because she refused him.”¹¹ Henry Carroll claimed that Black Pete sought a revelation from Joseph Smith after his arrival in Kirtland “and wanted to marry a white woman.  Jo Smith said he could get no revelations for him to.  Pete claimed he [Black Pete] did.”¹² Three years later, Lovina married Burr Riggs, one of Black Pete’s close associates, on November 19, 1834.

Concerning Black Pete, Staker concludes with this on page 188:

Black Pete’s presence in the Mormonite community raised numerous other questions about gifts of the Spirit and discerning the things of God that provided a revelatory response.  These revelations continue to provide spiritual insight and answer additional questions within the Latter-day Saint tradition today.  After modern revelation had completely transformed the Morley family in Kirtland, Black Pete disappeared from the community sometime between 1831 and 1834.  On March 3, 1837 Joseph Smith, Sr., father of the Prophet, ordained a former slave, Elijah Abel, an elder.⁶⁹  Abel continued to play a role in the community for the rest of the centure and was probably its best-known black Latter-day Saint.  Other black Latter-day Saints also contributed to the early development of the Restoration.  However, it seems that none of them had as much influence on the early development of the movement as Black Pete.

I am amazed at the large role Staker puts on Black Pete.  How about you?  Were you aware that the first black Mormon was baptized within the first 7 months of the founding of the church? Do you think Staker presents evidence that Pete held the priesthood?

Dr Jeffrey Chadwick, BYU Jerusalem Center

In his 1915 classic entitled Jesus the Christ, Elder James E. Talmage maintained that Jesus Christ was born on April 6 in the year 1 BC.¹ Talmage was apparently the first LDS writer to propose this particular date.  Nearly a century has passed since his book appeared, and in that time it has become practically axiomatic among Latter-day Saints that Jesus was born on April 6 of 1 BC.

The above quote comes from the January 2011 issue of BYU Studies.  Jeffrey Chadwick has undertaken a study to figure out when Jesus was born, and he comes to the conclusion that December was the correct month.  Trying to precisely date the birth of Jesus is problematic, because Luke and Matthew can’t even agree on when Jesus was born.

The Gospel of Luke states that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem due to a census that was being taken when Ceasar Augustus was head of the Roman Empire and Cyrenius (also spelled Quirinius) was governor of Syria.  A footnote for the New American Bible (a Catholic study Bible) states:

Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 BC, 8 BC, and AD 14, and enrollments of individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Ceasar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament.  Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful.

P. Sulpicius Quirinius became a legate of the province of Syria in AD 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria.  At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up.  If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have been before 10 BC because of the various legates of Syria from 10 BC to 4 BC (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

A previous legateship after 4 BC (and before AD 8 ) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod.  Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethelehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation came to the empire.

The Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus was a decade earlier than Luke.  In Matthew, Jesus was born just before Herod’s death.  Chadwick takes considerable effort to precisely date Herod’s death.  The ancient historian Josephus recorded a lunar eclipse 10 days to 2 weeks prior to Herod’s death.  Astronomical research places this eclipse on March 13 in 4 BC, so Herod’s death must have occurred in late March or early April of 4 BC.  Most scholars generally agree that Herod died in 4 BC, placing Jesus’ birth some time before 4 BC.  (Chadwick notes another eclipse occurred in September 15 of 5 BC, but argues that

this date fell months prior to Passover and is otherwise difficult to reconcile with the known length of time Herod is recorded to have reigned, as noted by Thomas A. Wayment’s study.  Wayment–and Brown, Griggs, and Hansen before him–seem willing to at least consider the September 15 eclipse of 5 BC as the one mentioned by Josephus, but they seem more convinced by the 4 BC eclipse of March 13.³⁶ The present study argues that a September eclipse and November death date for Herod in 5 BC are not possible in view of what is known about the length of Jesus’s life.

Chadwick notes many other historical pieces to the puzzle, but I want to hit the crux of why he thinks Jesus was born on December.  Though most scholars believe that the census in Luke was not related to the birth of Jesus, Chadwick calculates that Gabriel appeared to Mary (also known as “the Anunciation of Mary”)

to announce to Mary that she would conceive and bring froth a son to be named Jesus (see Luke 1:27-31).  In the Jewish context of this account, this would mean that the month of Adar, the sixth month of the Jewish year occurred from mid-to-late February to mid-to-late March….

From the account in Luke it appears that the Annunciation actually occurred near the end of Adar (mid-to-late March) and that Mary conceived immedately or within a day or two of the angel’s visit.  This is all evident because Luke reported that after the Annunciation Mary traveled “with haste” (immediately) to Judea, where she stayed for three months with her older kinswoman Elisabeth, and that the older woman, six months pregnant with her own child, instantly recognized that Mary was also carrying a child in her womb (see Luke 2:39-43).

Of course, nine months after March would put Jesus birth in December.  Chadwick goes on to say that “it is quite possible, perhaps even probable that Jesus was born during Hanakkuh at the end of 5 BC.”

Now, I’m sure this flies in the face of conventional LDS thought.  Chadwick references other studies of the birth of Jesus and notes problems with the dates proposed.  Here is a summary.

April of 1 BC.  As mentioned earlier, this is the date proposed by Elder James E Talmage in Jesus the Christ.  However, since it has been demonstrated that Herod died in 4 BC, the year is wrong.

April of 4 BC.  Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McConkie have postulated a date of April 11 for this year.  Chadwick states

Herod died within days of the beginning of April that year, and Jesus has to have been born at least two months, and more likely three to four months, prior to Herod’s death in order for all the events described in Luke and Matthew to have taken place before Herod’s passing.  This would push the latest historically plausible date for Jesus’s birth to December of 5 BC.

April of 5 BC.  Chadwick explains why this date is unworkable as well.

Any date in April of 5 BC, whether it be April 6 or some other day, is likewise unworkable as the natal date of Jesus.  The death of Jesus must have occurred in early April of AD 30, the only other year in which Passover fell late in the week and which also allows Jesus to have lived thirty-three full years from his birth.  But April of 5 BC was thirty-four full years prior to Jesus’s death, and the language of the Book of Mormon does not allow for thirty-four full years to have passed from Jesus’s birth to his death.

Spring or Autumn of 5 BC.  Chadwick rules out Autumn as well, because the Annunciation of Mary occurred in the Jewish month of Adar, corresponding to March.  As for any other spring date, Chadwick notes that other authors have also excluded Spring or Summer dates as well.

Dates in 6 or 7 BC.  Chadwick notes that some non-LDS scholars have proposed earlier dates.  Some reference that Herod wanted all children two years and younger killed, so they have proposed an earlier date.  Such dates would put Passover on a Tuesday at the death of Christ, making him stay in the tomb longer than the requisite three days recorded in the Gospels.  Earlier dates would also conflict with John the Baptist’s ministry that occurred

“in the fifteenth year in the reign of Tiberius Ceasar” (Luke 3:1), the commencement of which can be confidently dated to autumn A.D. 27. Jesus cannot have died in the same year that John began preaching, since Jesus himself only began preaching at Passover (spring AD 28), just months after John’s advent.

Obviously, of greatest interest is the council activities surrounding the Nauvoo Expositor.  For those unfamiliar with the history surrounding the Expositor, here is a brief introduction.  William Law was originally a member of the First Presidency.  He was disturbed to learn about polygamy, and at first tried to work with Joseph Smith.  However, Joseph excommunicated him, and he was purged from the city council.

In response, William and his brother Wilson Law, along with a group of others started a rival newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, publishing information about polygamy as well as calling for the repeal of the city charter for Nauvoo.  The Expositor published only 1 issue; the city council met and declared the Expositor guilty of libel, a public nuisance, and called for the press to be destroyed.  The council also asked for a barn owned by the paper’s editor Robert Foster to be destroyed as well.

Following the destruction of the press, Joseph, Hyrum, and others were transported to Carthage on the charge of riot.  Once there, the charge was upgraded to treason.  I’ve talked previously about Michael Quinn downplaying polygamy in relation to the Expositor, as well as Dallin Oaks’ book discussing the trial of Joseph’s assassins.

I was lucky enough to receive a pre-release version of the book.  When I received it, I had to turn to June 1844, the month that changed Mormon history forever.  One of the interesting things to learn was how John Dinger compiled the book.  There are 3 sets of minutes for these city council meetings.  The minutes were originally recorded on loose sheets of paper.  Then, the minutes were corrected and copied to some rough bound books.  A final set was corrected, to be furnished for official publication to newspapers with additional additions and deletions.

Some of the originals were damaged crossing the plains, so it was important that different versions of the minutes survived.  The council minutes cover 1841-1845.  Each year composes  one volume. Volume 2 of the rough bound minutes are missing, and it is believed that the missing volume contained information about the trial of John C Bennett (also a former member of the First Presidency, and original mayor of Nauvoo.)  I wish that volume survived–I’d love to learn more about John C. Bennett.

I think that sometimes people look at the events of June 1844 with a limited scope: polygamy.  However, as we read the city council minutes, there were other larger issues that were discussed in addition to polygamy.  It becomes clear that agents in Missouri were still trying to extradict and arrest Joseph Smith, specifically for the assassination attempt on Missouri Governor Boggs.  As such, original Mayor John C. Bennett helped push the original Nauvoo city charter through the state legislature.  It was the most expansive city charter in Illinois (and in the nation.)

The city council, aware of Joseph’s problems in Missouri, passed the most expansive habeus corpus laws in the country to stymie efforts to arrest Joseph.  Because Missouri officials continued to make attempts to arrest Joseph, the Nauvoo city council granted itself the power to review all arrest warrants and determine their validity.  As such, it became nearly impossible to take Joseph out of Nauvoo, and prompted calls for the repeal of the Nauvoo city charter so that Joseph could be arrested and face charges in Missouri.

Disenchanted with polygamy, the Law and Higbee brothers (former members of the church hierarchy and city council) saw no other recourse than to call for the repeal of the city charter and publish information about polygamy.  This obviously didn’t sit well with the city council.

These notes are quite rough.  Brackets to fix grammar and add information about individuals has been added for readability.  Quoting from page 258, (items in blue are my editorial comments)

C[ounselor] H[yrun] Smith believed the best way [would be] to smash the press all to pieces and pie {or spill/scatter} the type…{several council members concur} A[lderman] [Samuel] Bennet…considered [the paper] a public Nuisance.

However, I was interested to learn that it was not unanimous.  (Please note that “the Mayor”  is Joseph Smith below.)  From page 259,

B[enjamin] Warrington [said he was] convinced [t]his [was] a peculiar ^situation^ for the city council to pass this a[ction, to declare a newspaper] a nuisance[,] [and] would [not] be hasty & [he] propose[d] giving a few days limitation & assess a fine of $3000.00 for any libel – & if they would not cease publishing [the] libels[,] [then] declare it a nuisance.  C[ouncillor] Warrington said the counsellor State made provisions [for such instances]. – [They could] fine [the paper] 500.00.

[The] Mayor was sorry to have one dissenting voice[.] – C[ouncillor] Warrington did not mean to be understood to go [against the proposition.] but [would] not be in haste.  C[ouncillor] [Hyrum] Smith – spoke of the Mortgages on the property of the proprietors of the Expositors [and thought they city could not collect fines against them.]

The rest of the minutes are interesting as well.  There were (unfounded) charges of infidelity against William Law, (unfounded) charges of Francis Higbee participating in counterfeiting money, and many other accusations against the proprietors of the Expositor.  Council members recited the indignities of Haun’s Mill, and mobbings in Missouri as a reason not to tolerate the Expositor.  Obviously the resolution to destroy the Expositor passed, setting into motion a series of unfortunate events, leading to Joseph’s death.

One day later is a short entry (June 11) references the burning of the Expositor and possible retaliation.  From page 266,

Jason R. Luce said [he heard] Ianthus Rolf said while the [Nauvoo Expositor] press was burning last eve[ning] [that] before 3 weeks [were out] the [Nauvoo] Mansion House would be strung [pulled] to the ground & he would help do it.  And Tallman Rolf said the city would be strung to the ground within 10 days (Moses Leonard heard it.  Joshua Miller was present[)].  ^Henry Redfield said^ Matthias Spencer said that [storeowner David] Bryant said before he would see such things[,] he would wade to his knees in blood.  (Others were present).

The day Joseph [Smith] went to Carthage[,] ^[I] was at^ [the] Finch & Rollison Key Stone [store].  [Abner] Powers ^a taylor^ was talking with Mr ^N. N.^ Davis – about Joseph’s going [to Carthage].  Powers ^of Potsdam N.H.-^ said they would attempt to kill Joseph.  Mr Davis replied ["]O no, I think not.["] – Yes says Powers[,] “they will by God & you know it[,] by God.

On June 21, the city council minutes were approved and the members in attendance were noted.  Joseph was killed on June 27, as a mob stormed the jail and killed he and Hyrum, wounding John Taylor severely, and Willard Richards slightly.

The book adds a ton of footnotes that I have omitted.  These footnotes give biographical and other information that aids in understanding, and they are very useful.  After all the emotion of the June 10 city council meetings, the July 1 meeting is much more somber and conciliatory.  Letters from Illinois Governor Ford and other government officials were read.  Councillor W.W. Phelps rose and stated on page 274,

As to the press[,] we will do whatever is right towards a remuneration “whatever we ascertain the minds of all the Proprietors of the Expositor.”  Moved by Ald[erman] Phelps that the resolution pass – and it was carried.  Moved that Hiram Kimball be appointed to make [an] [en]treat[y] with the Proprietors of the said Expositor – and carried.

It is interesting to see the combustible atmosphere of June 1844, and I haven’t even started talking about the High Council minutes.  I plan to talk about that more next week.  Comments or questions?  How do you think history would have changed if the city council had listened to Councilman Warrington?  Would the majority of the church be reading this while looking over the Mississippi River?

Few people have actually read the Spaulding manuscript, and its whereabouts were secretive for quite some time.  A man by the name of Doctor Philastus Hurlbut (Doctor was his first name, last name is also spelled Hurlburt) tried to find the Spaulding manuscript, and obtained it from Spaulding’s widow.  Hurlbut hinted that the document was related to the Book of Mormon, but didn’t publish the document.  Hurlbut became embroiled in controversy when he threatened to (quoting from page 136 of the Sidney Rigdon biography),

“wash his hands” in the prophet’s blood.  In January 1834, Smith filed a legal complaint bringing Hurlburt to trial on 1 April.  The court found him guilty, fined him $200, and ordered him to keep the peace for 6 months.

The notoriety surrounding Hurlbut, compounded by an embarrassing incident when his wife was discovered in bed with Judge Orris Clapp, tarnished his image.  He sold his research to Eber D. Howe, editor of the Painesville Telegraph, who held a long-term grudge against Mormonism for converting his wife and daughter.

Howe kept up the pressure, printing a pamphlet called Mormonism Unvailed. After reading the manuscript, Howe hinted that there must be a second undiscovered manuscript, because the manuscript in his possession didn’t seem to match the Book of Mormon.  Howe didn’t keep Painesville Telegraph very long.  In January 1835, he sold the paper to his brother for $600, but the newspaper folded later that year.   A man by the name of LL Rice purchased the assets of the Painesville Telegraph in 1839-40.

Many documents came with the purchase, but Rice did not view them at the time.  Rice later moved to Honolulu, Hawaii.  In the 1880s, James Fairchild, president of Oberlin College in Ohio suggested that Rice look through the documents in search of pre-Civil war slavery information.  It was at this point that the Spaulding document was discovered.  Rice notes “There is no identity of names, of person, or places; and there is no similarity of style between them.”

The actual manuscript was given to Oberlin College in Ohio, and a copy of the manuscript can be downloaded here.  The document was labeled faintly in pencil “Manuscript Found—Conneat Creek”.  I thought it would be interesting to give a brief synopsis of the book so that you can get an idea of how different the book is from the Book of Mormon.  The RLDS church first published the contents of the manuscript, and it includes a section giving a brief background.

In the introduction to the book, there is a letter dated in 1885 offering the manuscript to Joseph Smith III rather than the LDS church.  Tellingly, Rice said to Smith:

“I am of the opinion that no one who reads the Manuscript will give credit to the story that Solomon Spaulding was in any wise the author of the Book of Mormon….Finally, I am more than half convinced that this is his only writing of the sort, and that any pretence that Spaulding was in any sense the author of the other, is a sheer fabrication.  It is easy for anybody who may have seen this, or heard anything of its contents, to get up the story that they were identical.”

Here is a brief summary of the contents of the book.

Introduction

Spaulding tells how he came up with the manuscript.  The introduction actually bears some remarkable resemblances to the story in the Pearl of Great Price on how Joseph said he obtained the golden plates, though there are some notable differences.

Spaulding tells a story in which he discovers a stone covering an underground cavern.  After climbing into the cavern, Spaulding found 28 rolls of parchment, written in Latin behind another stone.  The rolls had a variety of subjects, but this is the story that captured Spaulding’s attention, “a history of the author’s life & that part of America which extends along the great Lakes & the waters of the Mississippy.”  (I have previously documented some of the horrendous spelling errors and humorous stories in this work.)

Chapter 1

Fabius tells that he was born in Rome.  The emporer Constantine sent Fabius on a mission to take supplies to “Brittain”.  On his way there, Fabius and his crew encountered a large storm blowing west, and they were lost.  They discovered a new land inhabited by natives with odd “jesticulations”, dancing, and singing.  Often these natives barked like dogs and sounded like bullfrogs.

Chapter 2

Fabius negotiates a treaty with the natives to obtain 6 wigwams.  In return the natives received 50 knives and a scarlet cloth.  Captain Lucian and Fabius become judges over their crew, and built houses of worship.  (Fabius and crew were Christians.)  Trojanus becomes their minister of choice.  Since there were 7 women on board, these women are allowed to make their choice of which man to marry, leaving 6 men single.  Fabius notes that the natives were uncivilized, like an “Orang outang”.  They ate dinner, got drunk, and “retired two by two, hand in hand.  Ladies heads a litte awri, blushing like the morn.”  They also resolved to build a church.

Chapter 3

The language of the natives was Deliwanucks.  They were tall, wore loin cloths and the clothing was made of animal hair.  “The one half of the head of the men was shaved & painted with red and the one half of the face was painted with black.”  Dogs were sacrificed to their god, and Fabius tells of a strange mud wrestling ceremony.

Chapter 4

Fabius begins a strange discussion about whether the sun or earth is the center of the universe.  He decided to go up river to find other civilizations.  Fabius, Crito, and a Delawan interpreter meet the king and bring an animal called a Mammoon back.  A Mammoon is bigger than an elephant, docile, provides milk, and its fur is shaved to make clothing.  Crito notes these people are also ignorant savages, but they are kind like Christians.  They go up the Suscowan River to a city called Owkwahon and received further gifts from the king there.

Chapter 5

After further travels, Fabius and crew meet a new race of people.  They meet a group of farmers with domesticated animals such as elk, horses, turkeys, and “gees” (geese).  This group of people manufactures iron, lead, and steel tools.  They make beautiful pottery, but buildings are very simple.

Chapter 6

Fabius reports that a group of people called the Ohons had an alphabet and wrote on parchment.  “Their constitution & laws are committed to writing.” They loved to write poetry.

“RELION 7”

Spaulding discusses their religion.  They believed in an omnipotent being “who is self-existent & infinitely good & benevolent.”  This being formed 7 sons that “manage the affairs of his empire.”

“There is also another great intelligent Being who is self-existent & possessed of great power but not of Omnipotence.  He is filled with infinite malice against the good Being & exerts all his subtlety & power to ruin his works.”

After death, “Material Bodies are prepared for the souls of the righteous….But the wicked are denied etherial bodies”.  He goes on to describe some of their religious laws, telling them to be kind and not lustful, among many religious laws.

“it is ordained that on every eighth day, ye lay aside all unnecessary labour, that ye meet in convenient numbers & form assemblies, that at each assembly a learned holy man shall preside, who shall lead your devotions & explain this sacred Roll & give you such instruction as shall promote your happiness in this life & in the life to come.  Once in three months ye shall hold a great festival in every great city & town, & your priests shall sacrifice an Elk as a token that your sins deserve punishment, but that the divine mercy hath banished them into shade of forgetfulness.”

Chapter 8 “An account of Baska”

A partial story of a man named Baska is told, “he was celebrated as a man of the most brilliant & extraordinary talents.”

Chapter 8 (yes labeled the same as above.)

Spaulding takes a break from the story “with a few sceches of Biography” and proceeds to tell of

“the great and illustrious Lobaska.  He is the man who first introduced their present method of writing….

As for instance he is represented as forming a curious machine & having placed himself upon it he mounted into the Atmosphere & assended a great hight & having sailed a considerable distance thro’ the air he desended slowly & received no damage that multitudes of astonished Spectators had a number of times seen him perform this miraculous exploit.”

Lobaska was about 40 years old, affable, but not locquacious, and “none could withstand the energy of his reasoning.”  He set up schools of “Schollars”, teaching them writing as well as making tools of iron.  He lived among a group called the Siotans.

A man named Tobaska taught theology “comprised in the sacred Roll.”  The king and chiefs allowed Tobaska to teach throughout the kingdom.  The message revealed to Tobaska by “the second son of the great & good Being…..They forgot their old religion which was a confused medly of Idolitry & superstitious nonsense.”

However, war came because Bombal, King of the Kentucks “had taken great umbrage against Kadokam the King of Siota.”  Kentucks had “exclusive right to wear in their caps a bunch of blue feathers” but the Siotan princes “assumed the liberty to place bunches of blue feathers upon their caps.”  Spaulding discusses war strategy, noting that Lobaska had a cunning plan.  After the battle, a peace treaty was signed that anyone could wear blue feathers.

Chapter 9 Government and Money

The people lived on both sides of the Ohio River, “Excepting the Cities of Golanga & Gamba, whose Kings claimed jurisdiction over an extent of country of about one hundred & fifty miles along the River Ohio…”  Lobaska devised “a system of Government with a design of establishing two great Empires one on each side of the River Ohio.”  The Sciotan constitution is described with “Emporer, Labamack the oldest son of Lobaska.”  Government will pass to his eldest son, and they must marry within the Siotan kingdom.  Money shall not depreciate.  “Lambon the third son of Lobaska shall preside over them & shall have the title of high Priest…”

Chapter 10 – Military Arrangements, Amusements, Customs, & Extent of the Empires

The Sciota and Kentuck Indians believed that a strong military was the best deterrent.  Both groups held military drills for soldiers 4 times per year, with a mock battle once per year.

Then Spaulding starts talking about courting rituals.  Men and women wear different colors of feathers to show they are available.  Once a couple has decided they like each other, they meet the parents and arrange to date 10 times within 60 days.  If all goes well, a marriage follows.

Chapter 11

The Sciota had a son (Elseon) and the Kentucks had a daughter (Lamesa) of marrying age.  Their constitutions said that they were only to marry within the kingdom. However, an exception was made to allow them to marry.  Some were not happy, and tried to disrupt the wedding, but finally Elseon and Lamesa were married in a traditional wedding.

Chapter 12

Following their marriage, Elseon (of the Kentucks) and his bride Lamesa (of the Sciota) surreptitiously leave for the land of the Kentucks.  Apparently this was not part of the bargain of the Sciota.  They demanded that Lamesa return to Sciota, and said if she did not return, they would declare war on the Kentucks.  (It was their understanding that that would remain in Sciota.)  After much discussion, the Kentucks would not return Lamesa, but offered to give the Sciota something as reparations to avert war.

Chapter 13

There are quite a few speeches from the leaders of the Sciota and Kentucks about how to handle the situation.  The Sciota considered reparations, and asked for the death of Elseon.  Of course, that was rejected, and so they made preparations for war.  Lamesa and Elseon felt sad for starting the conflict, but declare their love for each other.

Chapter 14

This is the last chapter, although it doesn’t appear to be finished.  The war grinds on.  There is so much death, at one point the two sides declare a two-day armistice so they can bury the dead.  The leaders begin to work on different “stratigems” to win. They attack at night, assuming the other side is asleep.  Once again, there is more death.  They bury the dead in giant mounds of mass graves.

Sambul, king of Sciota attacks a fort and finds Lamesa.  Cruelly, he kills a woman trying to protect Lamesa.  Lamesa asks him to kill her too because she does not want to return.  Then Elseon leads a counter-attack on the fort, and ends up fighting Sambul in hand to hand combat.  Elseon kills Sambul with a sword, and frees everyone in the fort.  The war appears to be winding down with the death of Sambul, but it is not clear how the story ends.  The story ends abruptly,

Hamback altered his plan & determined to wait for the return of Sambul.  As for Hamboon he concluded to wait until Elseons return.  These determinations of the hostile Emporers prevented for the time any engagements between the two grand armies.  But when the fate of Sambuls division was decided & Elseon had returned with the joyful news of his victory, the Kentucks were all anxious for an immediate Battle.

There is more to the manuscript, but it does not appear to be part of the story. To me, it appears to be Spaulding talking in his own voice, not of the book.  I am only quoting a portion here–See the original manuscript for a full quote.  A note on page 156 that says,

Note – This was found with the foregoing manuscript an in the same handwriting.

But having every reason to place the highest confidence in your friendship & prudence I have no reluctance in complying with with your request.  in giving you my sentiments of the christian Religion….In giving you my sentiments of the Christian religion, you will perceive that I am not trameled with traditionary & vulgar prejudiuce that I do not believe certain parts & certain parts & certain propositions to be treu merely because that my ancestors believe them & because they are popular….But notwithstanding I disavow any belief in the divinity of the Bible, & consider it as a mere human production designed to inrich & agrandize its human production designed to inrich and agrandize its authors & to enable them to manage the multitude.  Yet casting aside a considerable mass of rubbish & fanatical rant, I find that it contains a system of ethics or morals which cannot be excelled on account of their tendency to amiliorate the condition of man….having a view therefore to those parts of the Bible which are truly good & excellend I sometimes speak of it in terms of high commendation.  And indeed I am inclined to believe that notwithstanding the mischeifs & injuries which have been produced by the bigoted zeal of fanatics & interested priests yet that such evils are more than counterbalances in a Christian land by the benefits which result to the great mass of the people by their believing that the Bible is of divine origin.  & that it contains a revelation from God.  Such being my view of the subject, I pre fer my candle to remain under to remain under a bushel, nor make no exertions to dissipate their happy delusion, as

Note to Copyist.–On the other side of the paper on which the above is written & in what seems the same hand is the following:

Itham Joyner privlg to erect Mill, & the pvlg of wtr.  Wright has prefern & he next.  To fix to take out wtr for himslf & to be at one 1/4 expense of keeping dam in repair.  If wishing to sell to gv Wrt pvlg buing if dont buy to sel to another his works but not pvlg of wtr I. Joyner & W. Brigham agree to build a house for their use.  Sd B. to 6 feet on the water below the width of the house & J to have for six feet & B to 12 feet on the same side in the rear bank & 12 feet of the garret.  to be at equal expense in the water works.  To be at equal expense in the partitions of the rooms.

The writings of Sollomon Spaulding Proved by Aron Wright Oliver Smith, John N Miller & others.  The testimonies of the above Gentlemen are now in my possession.

Signed

D. P. Hurlbut.

With that ending and summary, do you think this is really the source of the Book of Mormon?

Meri and Kody on their wedding day

Before I answer that question, let me give you a bit of info about the family for those of you who haven’t seen the show. Kody Brown, 42 is the patriarch. He served an LDS mission in the Texas San Antonio mission. While he was on his mission, his parents decided to become fundamentalist Mormons who embraced polygamy. (Season 2, episode 2 discusses their conversion.) I will mention that the show is not focused on their theology at all, and only gives passing references to it. Upon return from his mission, Kody decided to convert as well. At age 22, he married his first wife Meri, who was raised in a fundamentalist lifestyle. Meri and Kody have 1 daughter, Mariah.

early photo of Janelle and Kody

A few years later, Kody married Janelle, his 2^nd wife. Janelle also grew up LDS, but became a fundamentalist Mormon. Now the story gets really interesting. Janelle’s first marriage was to Meri’s brother. It didn’t last very long, and I’m not sure why they divorced, but they did. So, Kody essentially married his sister-in-law. (This hasn’t been covered in the show yet.) If you think that’s strange, it gets stranger. Janelle’s mom Genielle decided to become a fundamentalist Mormon as well, and she married Kody’s father just 3 months before Kody and Janelle. So Kody and Janelle are step-brother and sister. (Yes, Season 2, episode 2 covers this as well, but doesn’t quite cover all the bases.) Kody and Janelle had 6 children together in their 17 years of marriage. (Incidentally, Janelle is a year older than Meri.)
Then a year later, Kody married Christine. Christine was also raised as a fundamentalist. At the start of season 1, Christine was pregnant with she and Kody’s 6^th child Truely. Season 1 Episode 4 shows the actual birth at the American Fork Hospital.

Kody and Robyn at their wedding

Season 1 details the courtship of a new wife Robyn, who was also raised as a fundamentalist. Robyn was previously married to a man by the name of David Jessop. Robyn and David had 3 children before they divorced in 2007. The show chronicles the courtship, and I hear that Robyn gave birth to a honeymoon baby on Oct 27, but I haven’t seen the episode yet. Among the 4 wives, they have a total of 17 children now. This family tree is available on their Facebook page.

The show has already caused some problems. Following their appearance on the Today Show (chronicled in Season 2 Episode 1), the Lehi Police Department opened up an investigation of bigamy. The Browns decided to move to Nevada to avoid arrest and breakup of their family. Meri announced that she lost her job in Season 2 episode 5. Robyn quit her job in order to marry Kody, and has had trouble finding work.

So, how do they afford this lifestyle? Kody said that’s the number one question he gets. They have some nice cars: a Lexus, Suburban, convertible, and a van. In Season 2, episode 3 they discuss finances, and Kody says

“I hate to say it’s communal, but it’s really very socialistic. We’re all working together for the same cause. We all use our own talents, and everybody works together.”

Janelle and Kody both work full-time. According to this website, Kody and Meri declared bankruptcy in 2005 in Wyoming. Kody owned a firearms company, but now he is a salesman of some sort. Janelle is also full-time, and seems to pull in a pretty good income. Meri worked part-time at a mental health facility, but was fired after she came out publicly as a polygamist. Christine is the stay-at-home mother. Not only does she “rule the roost”, but she is an avid coupon clipper, buying in bulk. As Robyn has come into the family, she has helped Christine with the many children as she has continued to look for work. The first 3 wives shared 1 huge home, and Robyn had a house about a block away. As I understand it, they have not been able to find a huge house in Las Vegas, so they have 4 separate houses now.

As they have pooled their resources, they have had to become a bit communal. I’ve enjoyed Stephen M’s posts (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5—I hope I got them all) on the economics of utopias. In the Browns case, I don’t see how they could live this lifestyle without being communal. In that sense, they seem very true to the vision that Joseph Smith had for consecrating all their possessions. The wives share food and resources freely with each other (Christine was surprised to hear that they were out of sugar—Meri admits to using the last of it.) It is this sense of communalism that seems quite in line with early Mormonism. They genuinely seem to get along, and even my wife mentioned that she could see some nice benefits of not having to worry about babysitters and having a built in social support network of the sister wives.

Kody and his wives

I am reminded that early Mormons in Utah were out to create a new economic order: the United Order. Capitalism was strongly denounced by Brigham Young as “profiteering”. Brigham often set price controls for basic necessities. Consecration tries to control the market, it doesn’t like free markets, because free markets often gouge individuals. As I outlined in my post on Consecration vs United Order, the early polygamy persecutions were as much about forcing free markets onto the Mormons as it was about eradicating polygamy. The Perpetual Emigration Fund and all church assets were targeted as an economic problem and driver of polygamy. It could be argued that “gentiles” used the issue of polygamy as a cover to dump the economics of the United Order. Gentiles really wanted to break into Mormon markets, and were prohibited from trading with Mormons by Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff. The government used economics to kill polygamy.

Early Mormons preferred a more socialistic economy of the United Order. (Please don’t confuse this with Marxist Socialism-that is not what I’m trying to say.) I do wonder if some of the virulent free market Mormons of today have forgotten Brigham Young’s admonitions against the profiteering side of capitalism. I wonder if this form of socialism the Browns are doing is more in line with early Mormon thought. Free markets don’t always equate to fair markets, especially for individuals, and Brigham Young did everything he could to regulate the “economy of heaven.” He was quite successful through his death, but later persecutions forced capitalism into Utah, and now some Mormons seem to think that unregulated markets are the “order of heaven.”
What do you think of early Mormon attempts to solve the problem of inequity by eliminating free markets and capitalism in Utah? If p0lygamy becomes legal again via gay marriage, will the church embrace polygamy?

I am always a bit puzzled by statements like this one made by GBSmith: “I remember believing for years that the saints were totally innocent in the Missouri business and victims, pure and simple, of Governor Boggs and the mob. Too bad it wasn’t true.”  Well, there is plenty of blame to go around both on the Missouri side and on the Mormon side.  Cooler heads certainly did not prevail.  Kenny Ballentine put together a documentary on the Missouri problem, and I blogged about it previously when I discussed his documentary film titled, Trouble in Zion.

Mormons weren’t blameless.  Missouri mobs weren’t blameless.  Here are some key events leading to the Haun’s Mill Massacre.

1)  July 1833, WW Phelps published an article in the Evening and Morning Star that Mormons wanted to welcome people of all color.  This is the reason the Missourians were upset.

2)  July 20, 1833.  Bishop Partridge is told to leave Jackson County immediately.  He refuses and is tarred and feathered.  Mobs destroyed the Mormon printing press in retaliation of the Phelps article.  Three days later, Partridge signs an agreement to leave the county.

3)  Oct 31-Nov 7.  Missourians incite hostilities against the Mormons.  Mormons flee Jackson County for Clay County.

4) In 1836, the Missouri legislature declares that Caldwell County will be set aside for Mormon settlement.  (This is the home of Far West.)  Non-Mormon Alexander Doniphan brokers a deal in the Missouri legislature to create the county.  This is partly to make a home for Mormons in recompense for Jackson County, but Alex Baugh has referred to this as a “Mormon reservation”.  Mormons were not supposed to settle anywhere outside of this county.

5)  In 1838, Joseph leaves Kirtland under the cover of night due to the Kirtland Bank Crisis.  Upon arriving in Missouri, he finds dissent among Missouri Mormons as well.  John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and WW Phelps are excommunicated.  Many of these dissenters opposed living the Law of Consecration.  Non-Mormons find the excommunications another reason to dislike Mormons.

6)  June 17, 1838.  Sidney Rigdon issues the “Salt Sermon.”  In the sermon, he referenced the scripture about “salt that has lost it’s savor”, and essentially issued an ultimatum that Mormon apostates should leave the county or be forcibly removed.  Most of the dissenters move south to Ray County, and find sympathy with anti-Mormons.

7)  July 4, 1838.  Rigdon issued another fiery patriotic sermon stating that the Mormons and Missourians would wage a “war of extermination…one party or the other”.  It seems the subsequent Extermination Order by Governor Boggs wasn’t quite what Rigdon had in mind.

8|  Aug 6, 1838 – Mormons in Daviess County were prevented from voting.  The Whig candidate said Mormons were only supposed to live in Caldwell County and should be ineligible to vote.  He was concerned that Mormons would vote for the Democratic Candidate, because Mormons were overwhelming Democrats back then.  A big brawl broke out that has often been called a “battle”.  There were exaggerated rumors that Mormons were killed.

9)  Aug 19, 1838 – Following the election, Missourians decided to expel Mormons from DeWitt, in Daviess County.

10)  Oct 18, 1838 – The Mormons decide to retaliate for the first time.  Known as the Daviess Expedition, a group of Danites (a secret Mormon militia group) led an effort to expel Missourians from Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork.   Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses to the ground.

11)  Oct 24, 1838 – The Battle of Crooked River.  Mormons attack and scatter the Missouri Militia.  Many of the Missouri Militia erroneously believe all others are killed.  Only 1 Missourian was killed, but 2 Mormons were killed:  LDS Apostle David Patten (known as “Captain FearNot”) and Danite leader Gideon Carter; 9 other Mormons were wounded.

12)  Oct 27, 1838 – Governor Lilburn Boggs issues the Extermination Order; “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace…”

13)  October 30, 1838 – The Hauns Mill Massacre; 18 Mormons are killed, ranging in age from 10-year old Sardius Smith, to 62 year old Thomas McBride.  These 2 deaths were particularly gruesome.

• After surrendering his weapon, 62 year old Thomas McBride was hacked to death with a corn knife.
• An enraged Missourian leveled his gun against the 10 year old boy’s head, and after proclaiming that ‘nits become lice” pulled the trigger, killing Sardius Smith instantly.

There is plenty of blame to go around both on the Missouri side and on the Mormon side.  Cooler heads certainly did not prevail. Previous to these terrible events of 1838, Mormons tried several times to get Governor Boggs to step in, but Boggs consistently said that he could do nothing.  When Mormons took matters into their own hands, Boggs issued the Extermination Order.  Certainly Boggs handled the situation poorly.

Obviously, Mormons have moved on from this tragedy, with no commemoration of these terrible events and Halloween.  Do you think it is wise to ignore this Halloween tragedy?

Many of us are familiar with Wilford Woodruff’s vision of the Founding Fathers in the St. George Temple.  Brian Stuy gives some interesting background on this story.  Just after the temple was dedicated in 1877, apostle and temple president Wilford Woodruff had a dream on two successive nights.  The signers of the Declaration of Independence said to Woodruff,

You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us.  We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.

Stuy notes that Woodruff had been reading a book titled Portrait Gallery of Eminent Men and Women of Europe and America.  Woodruff participated in proxy work for not only these famous Americans, but also Christopher Columbus and John Wesley.  Stuy believes this book to be the source that may have inspired Woodruff to ponder on the subject.

However, Woodruff was not the first to perform proxy work for the Founding Fathers.  Stuy quotes Charlotte Haven, writing in May 1843.  She witnessed baptisms for the dead performed in the Mississippi River:

We drew a little nearer and heard several names repeated by the elders as the victims were douched [bathed], and you can imagine our surprise when the name George Washington was called.

Stuy goes on to say on pages 84-86,

In addition to the event Haven witnessed, there were at least three other occasions in Nauvoo when George Washington was baptized.⁵ Others for whom this proxy ordinance was performed in Illinois include Benjamin Franklin;⁶ Presidents John Adams, William Henry Harisson, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe;  George Washington’s wife, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington; mother Mary Ball Washington; and Thomas Jefferson’s wife, Martha Wayles Jefferson.⁷ Later in St. George, Woodruff would arrange to have proxy baptisms perfromed for all of these individuals.

…

In 1876, most likely in response to the centennial the nation celebrated that year, [John] Bernhisel began systematically arranging for the baptism of all the Founding Fathers and other well-known U.S. leaders.  On August 9, he and his daughter Mary went to the Endowment House and were baptized for most of the deceased U.S. presidents and their wives.  Bernhisel was also baptized for Revolutionary War hero Patrick Henry.¹³

Duplicate temple work is something that has long been a problem.  In fact, that is a major reason why the church has put the new program for familysearch online.  With the old PAF files, duplication was a tremendous problem.  With the new Family Search, the hope is for more collaboration and less duplication.

While the baptisms were performed multiple times, Stuy notes that the Endowment House only allowed for “live” ordinances.  The St. George Temple is the first temple in which endowments were performed for the dead.  In that case, even though baptisms were performed previously for the Founding Fathers, Woodruff wsa the first to allow the other ordinances to be performed for these men and women.  Stuy notes that in 1985, President Benson wanted to make sure these ordinances were performed.  While most had been performed, some wives and children of the signers weren’t completed, so Benson made sure these were done in time for the bicentennial celebration of the Constitutional Convention in 1987.

What do you make of Woodruff’s vision?

Tom Brokaw during a rehearsal, courtesy http://newsroom.lds.org/article/mormon-tabernacle-choir-tom-brokaw-remember-9-11

The past few days have brought a series of news stories remembering the terrible tragedy that happened 10 years ago.  I was curious to see if there would be any differences in our church services.  On the one hand, Music and the Spoken Word invited NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw to narrate a special tribute to the tragedy called Rising Above.  I watched the re-run of it Sunday night (since my church meetings were scheduled at the same time.)  I also note that President Monson wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post sharing thoughts about the tragedy.

My wife has tried to avoid watching the tributes because it brings back such terrible memories.  I’ve read elsewhere that Americans simply aren’t ready to watch movies about the tragedy (unlike things like Pearl Harbor) because it still seems too close the the tragedy.

Our ward did not do anything special to remember the day.  In sacrament meeting, we listened as a new family was invited to speak and introduce themselves to the ward.  The parents both gave excellent talks.  The wife spoke about service, and how we can all do better to serve.  Her husband followed along with the service theme, but did make a few remarks about the 9/11 tragedy.

Our stake has made a big push to start indexing records to help with genealogy.  I helped the YM/YW learn how to index records, and then did the same for priesthood meeting.  Unlike the news programs and KBYU, there was very little reminder about the tragedy.  So I”m trying to figure out if my bishop is like my wife–not wanting to remember bad memories, or if local leaders didn’t get any direction to try to remember this day.  I wonder why there isn’t more flexibility to remember special events at church, such as departing from the normal lesson schedule for 1 week.  What was your ward like?  Is this an important day to remember?

This is our “Pearl Harbor”.  While Dec 7 is known as Pearl Harbor Day, it isn’t a holiday.  I’ve wondered if 9/11 should be a holiday.  What do you think?

Concerning these surveys, Yale University Professor Harold Bloom said,

I can understand the two surveys you cite only if the Mormon Ph.D.’s employed an absurdly narrow definition of an “intellectual.” Joseph Smith, even to a Jewish non-Mormon like myself, is the only American creative enough to be called a prophet, seer, and revelator, that is, a religious genius. There was Emerson, of course, but ultimately his was more a literary mind than a religious one. I greatly admire McMurrin, and Roberts also, but if “intellectual” means what it should mean, then Smith clearly is the most eminent intellectual in Mormon history. He was an authentic visionary, and totally original in mind and spirit—really a kind of mortal god.  I cannot understand why he is not honored by more Americans.

The above letter was written in response to a query by Henry Miles.  Miles developed a correspondence with Bloom over the past 2 decades, and published the series of letters in Dialogue.  Bloom is one of the most high-profile non-Mormons that has extensively studied Smith, and has written or spoken about Smith on many occasions.  What do you think of Bloom’s characterization of Smith?  Do you think Smith was undervalued in the 2 surveys?

Brian Hales gave a very interesting presentation on Joseph Smith’s polygamy. I was late and didn’t hear the beginning of the presentation, but he discussed the issue of Joseph being sealed to other men’s wives. Most refer to this as polyandry, though Larry Foster has disputed that terminology in the past, preferring the term “proxy husband” or something similar. At any rate, Hales contends that there is no evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of these women. He notes that many other experts disagree with this position, and wasn’t surprised that many in the audience disagreed with that position.  He also discussed the reliability of John C. Bennett’s words about polygamy.  Bennett was Nauvoo Mayor, and Assistant President of the Church before he was excommunicated for unauthorized polygamy.  Bennett later wrote an expose of Mormonism and some believe he was one of the instigators of the mob that killed Joseph.

Hales did a great job presenting his information.  He stated that Bennett was very unreliable (as most experts agree.)  He also noted that many of the allegations that Joseph had sexual relations with these “polyandrous” wives occurred at least a decade after the marriages, so there is nothing contemporary from Joseph’s lifetime.  While Hales makes a good point, on this second issue I am not persuaded.  I asked him 2 questions.  First, I asked him about a really odd story about surrogate parenthood in the days of Brigham Young. Click here for full details. In brief, a convert couple could not conceive children due to a medical condition of the husband. Brigham Young proposed a temporary civil divorce. The wife (Mary Richardson) was civilly married to a man by the name of Frederick Cox. He fathered two children in a sort of levirate marriage (mentioned in the New Testament). Then they divorced, Mary re-married (and was sealed) to her original husband. It’s definitely an odd story.

My point is that this seems to be a sort of polyandry. Kathryn Daines mentions that it was “family legend” that the Richardsons obtained a divorce. Brian Hales indicated he felt it was solid evidence and not adultery. It sure seems like if the Richardson divorce was arranged with an understanding of re-marriage, that it was a form of sexual polyandry, with a wink and a nod to civil law. If Brigham Young sanctioned it, it seems to me that Brigham must have felt that such an unusual arrangement must have been ok with Joseph Smith.

Secondly, I asked about an unusual issue with Emma Smith. Quoting from my previous post,

Some of the footnotes are very interesting on this subject. Footnote 26 on page 305 quotes an 1844 expose of Mormonism. I don’t know if this can be corroborated, but I found it interesting.

“Emma’s threat to “be revenged and indulge herself” may have been merely a warning to the prophet to give up his spiritual wives. But Joseph H. Jackson, a non-Mormon opportunist who gained the confidence of the prophet in Nauvoo, recorded in an 1844 expose of Mormonism: “Emma wanted [William] Law for a spiritual husband,” and because Joseph “had so many spiritual wives, she thought it but fair that she would at least have one man spiritually sealed up to her and that she wanted Law, because he was such a ‘sweet little man.’”

Although there is nothing to suggest that Law and Emma were more to each other than friends, Law later confirmed that Joseph “offered to furnish his wife Emma with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in his house and to be well treated, etc.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 3 July 1887.)

D&C 132:51 seems to refer to this incident. It says,

Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her;

If Emma had accepted in time, perhaps she would have been a polyandrous wife.  Of course that is just speculation, and the rest of verse 51 says it is an Abrahamic test. But it still seems like another odd incident.  Though I don’t agree with all of Hales’ conclusions, he was well prepared, and I was impressed with his presentation.

LDS members Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster, along with RLDS members Bill Russell and Mark Sherer held a panel discussion on the Presidential candidacies of Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney.  (Mark was the moderator and did not present.)  Russell had high praise for Huntsman, saying the he was the best republican field.  Russell noted that Huntsman seems well-versed in other cultures and religions, and said that Huntsman would be able to describe other religions “in laymans, as well as Lemuel’s terms.”  Russell also indicated that if a Mormon wants to run for office and have religion be a non-issue, then they should be a democrat.  He noted that Morris Udall lost narrowly to Jimmy Carter for the democratic nominee in 1976, and noted that Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader does not have questions about his religion.  It was a great discussion.

Following lunch, I attended two controversial sessions.  Fred Collier gave a very academic presentation on the relationship between Yahweh and Satan.  He showed that Dead Sea Scroll discoveries seemed to corroborate the JST translation.  He specifically seemed to reference Deuteronomy quite a bit, with a bit of Genesis and ancient Jewish writings.  In LDS theology, Yahweh is considered the son of Elohim.

While Collier’s presentation was interesting, he fell apart during the Q&A session.  I asked him about the Documentary Hypothesis.  In brief, the hypothesis states that Elohim and Yahweh are interchangeable terms for God.  Collier hand-waved the question away, saying the hypothesis was completely debunked as far as he was concerned.  I was a bit flabbergasted with his response, as I completely disagree with this characterization.  Collier seemed completely unprepared to answer the question.

The next question was ever worse for Collier.  During the presentation, Collier said that ancient Hebrew scriptures said that Abel was the first born of Adam and Eve, and Cain was not his brother.  Rather Cain was the son of Lilith and the Serpent.  It was an interesting position–I’ve heard that Lilith was Adam’s first wife, but cast out when she refused to submit to Adam and was cast out of the Garden for saying the name of God.  Apparently she hooked up with the serpent after the expulsion and conceived Cain–that part was new to me.

At any rate, an audience member asked who the offspring of Cain were.  At first, Collier seemed to give a humorous response by saying “international bankers.”  When pressed to clarify, Collier shocked the audience by saying that “international bankers are Jews.”  The questioner was appalled, called Collier an expletive, and a few audience members stormed out of the room.  I was appalled at the anti-Semitic remarks, and was saddened that Collier holds such views.  The views overshadowed what was an otherwise interesting presentation.  It saddens me that anyone would hold such views, and I call on Fred Collier to apologize for the offensive remarks.  A few other people asked more about the curse of Cain doctrine.  Thankfully, we were out of time; I’m afraid of what other racist remarks may have come out of his mouth.

The last presentation was controversial as well.  Janice Allred, Joanna Brooks, and Margaret Toscano gave excellent presentations discussing the recent BYU Studies article titled, A Mother There: A Survey of Historical Teachings About Mother in Heaven. Janice and Margaret were both excommunicated in the 1990s for discussing Mother in Heaven in Sunstone.  Both had praise for the BYU Studies article, though they had some criticisms as well.  Margaret noted that the article referenced over 600 references in the past 167 years in General Conference or official church publications.   The BYU authors seemed to indicate that it is acceptable to discuss Mother in Heaven, and indicated an “abundance” of information on the subject.

However, Toscano noted that in the most recent 2 day General conference, there were 900 references to Father in Heaven.  She said that the BYU authors should be discussing the dearth of information on Mother in Heaven, rather than framing it as “abundant” information.  She also noted that official church pronouncements refer to the equality of husband and wife, but do not refer to “God the Mother” and “God the Father.”  I thought these were a valid points.

Joanna Brooks gave a very interesting presentation discussing some anecdotal references in her ward.  For example, On Mothers Day, the primary chorister in San Diego ward she attends non-chalantly showed a painting of a Mother in Heaven in the clouds teaching children.  During Sacrament meeting talks, there were surprising references to Mother in Heaven as well.  She tweeted about these incidents and received a variety of responses, indicating that some other wards seemed to reference Mother in Heaven as well.

The session was marred by Holly Welker, the moderator.  Holly has no manners, and seems to enjoy mocking religion.  She gave some thoughts that indicated that she does not believe in God, yet announced at the beginning of the session that they would hold a prayer circle to pray to Mother in Heaven at the end of the session.  She allowed people to leave if they were uncomfortable with the process.  Many people left because they were uncomfortable.

It seems to me that Holly enjoys shocking people, and she has poor manners even with other panelists.  For example, an audience member asked why Mother in Heaven was not present in the First Vision.  Janice Allred started to explain her belief about this incident, but Holly cut her off, saying that Holly didn’t believe in the First Vision (ignoring that Janice did), and cut off Janice’s answer because Holly was “uncomfortable.”  Yet Holly didn’t mind mocking believers with her prayer circle.  She marred an otherwise great session, and I have no respect for her.

Due to some controversial presentations in the 1990s, Sunstone has a cold relationship with the church, and the church still refuses to allow some employees to participate.  There has been a thaw in relations, though it’s still cold.  I would really like Sunstone to gain favor in the church.  However, with people like Holly Welker and Fred Collier, I can understand why the church has a cold war with Sunstone.  It makes me sad that these people can spoil such a wonderful opportunity to discuss theology and Mormonism.  Comments?