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?

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;

The subject of polygamy was quite controversial with Emma.  in a previous post, Richard Van Wagoner noted the issue of polygamy

left Joseph and Emma’s marriage hanging by a thread.  Emma spent the last three years of her husband’s life jealously battling his errant yearnings, more than once threatening to return to her family in New York.  On one occasion, according to Smith’s private secretary, she threatened that if he continued to “indulge himself she would too.”  [William Clayton Diary] Although Emma apparently countenanced two of her husband’s 1843 sealings–to Emily and Eliza Partridge–she recanted within a day and demanded that Joseph give them up or “blood should flow.”  Her change of heart came after she found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home.  The realization that the sealing represented more than a “spiritual marriage” or “adoptive ordinance” devastated her. [From page 293]

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.)

This seems to be related to verse 51 mentioned above.  The revelation ended the offer that Emma could be sealed to another man.  Most people assume that a woman can be sealed to only one man.  However, temple ordinances allow a woman to be sealed to multiple men.  Devery Anderson’s book called The Development of LDS Temple Worship 1846-2000 has some fascinating notes from David O. McKay’s diary which shows how this process came about.

In 1969, Apostle (and future president) Howard W. Hunter approached President McKay with a few problems.  Elder Hunter noted that the current practice was to seal a woman to her first husband.  I’ll highlight parts of the minutes from a Jan 14, 1969 meeting.

[Hunter] said there have been cases where the family has said that the mother or grandmother, whoever it might be, did not want to be sealed to her first husband, that she did not respect him and had more affection for her second or third husband, as the case might be, and under such circumstances she was sealed to the second or third husband.  He said that where we have trouble is in cases that go beyond the point of memory, that, for instance, when we go to the parish records in England, and other registries, and we find the woman has been married to several men, we do not know what her wishes or desires were and so ordinarily she would be sealed to the first husband, except in cases when we had enough information to indicate that the second or third one would be the appropriate husband to seal her to.  He said all of this is a little arbitrary and is based upon lack of facts.

He mentioned the recent decision of the First Presidency[,] going into the computer program[,] to the effect that we would go through the parish register of marriages and seal all women to their husgnads wherever we found their record of marriage in the parish records.  He said this results sometimes in a woman being sealed to more than one husband, that sometimes where a woman has been married more than once she is sealed to two persons.  This was approved by the First Presidency.

The entry continues for quite some time, but Elder Hunter advocated for the policy that a women should be sealed to all of her husbands she lived with in life, and then she would be able to choose who she wanted to be sealed to in the hereafter.  It was noted that on the subject of baptism for the dead, a person must choose to accept the baptism.

President McKay tentatively approved Elder Hunter’s request, and suggested a letter should be drawn up.  On Feb 3, 1969, Elder Hugh B. Brown indicated some concern with the change in policy, and felt that the existing policy should not be changed.  However, a March 6 diary entry from President McKay indicates an interesting case in history.

[There] was a custom in the early days of the Church for a woman to be sealed to a good man in the Church, a General Authority or someone else who was still living, other than her deceased husband who died without accepting the gospel.  The sealing was performed as an assurance for an eternal union in the hereafter.  If is now recommended that inasmuch as President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation which altered this practice, that in such cases prior to 1890 when this ruling was made, if a woman was sealed to a deceased member of the Church or to a living member of teh church but did not live with him as a wife, permission be granted for her to be sealed also to her non-member deceased husband to whom she had been married in life.  The original sealing will not, however, be cancelled.  President [N. Eldon] Tanner asked me if I could see anything wrong about such a ruling, and I said no.

It appears that from this time forth, deceased women are sealed to all husbands that she lived with.  A Dec 8, 1988 circular letter signed by Presidents Benson, Hinckley, and Monson confirmed

• A deceased woman sealed in life to one husband many also be sealed to another man with whom she lived as a wife.

The Church Handbook of Instructions from 1998 also confirms

A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she legally married during her life.  However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

So, contrary to popular belief, a woman can be sealed to more than one man.  Are you surprised?

As I understand it, the 2008 book caused a few waves among the Foundation or Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS–now known as the Neal A Maxwell Center).  According to the release, FARMS reviewer “Gregory L. Smith criticized Nauvoo Polygamy for assuming the founder had sex with his plural wives.”  The release notes the irony that “the reviewer then admitted Joseph Smith did had sex with at least nine women.”  Signature has hailed the review as the “landmark 2008 review [that] constituted the first-ever admission in an LDS publication that Smith was sexually active with his wives.”

One of the other controversies on polygamy deals with the age of Joseph Smith’s wives.  Apparently some people view the book edited by Newell Bringhurst called Persistence of Polygamy as a response to Nauvoo Polygamy.  It has been noted that 30% of Joseph Smith’s plural wives were teenagers, yet the average age of a woman’s first marriage in the 1840′s was usually in their 20′s.

In attempting to assert that people married younger in the 1830-40′s, Craig L. Foster, David Keller, and Gregory L. Smith wrote a chapter in Bringhurst’s book defending the young marriage ages.  The chapter is titled, “The Age of Joseph Smith’s Plural Wives in Social and Demographic Context.” But Joe Geisner, an LDS blogger noted some very different interpretations of these graphs.  The press release states,

“The parts that are understandable do not seem to support the authors’ thesis or conclusions.” Geisner found that two charts show how, in the 1840s, only about 1 percent of American women married at fifteen years or younger. Another chart shows that in New England, only 9 percent of men of Joseph Smith’s age (34-38 years old) married teenagers.

Additional charts show that the age of Joseph Smith’s wives put him in company only with the southwest region of the country comprising Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas and the western region of the United States at a time when it was dominated by Mormons, who tended to marry much younger than other Americans.

“In addition to that,” says Geisner, “the authors treat Joseph Smith as if he were his own region of the country, marrying teenagers 30 percent of the time rather than classifying him as one 38-year-old individual who married teenagers.” A final chart shows that in the 1840s, most women in the United States married in their twenties.

I haven’t seen the chapter in question, but Geisner’s point about making Joseph Smith his own demographic seems to be an abuse of statistics.  Richard Bushman has noted that Joseph turned societal norms on its ear when introducing polygamy.  I’m not sure if this is more or less troubling, but these types of revelations about early polygamy make me very uncomfortable.

Have any of you read the books in question?  What do you think?

I added this table on 7/5/2011 to answer Glenn’s comment about teenagers.  This list is derived from the website http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Now, here is a list of the other wives.  As you can see Joseph was 21 years younger than Rhoda Richards.  You mayor may not know that Joseph was sealed to women currently legally married to other Mormon men.  I didn’t realize that Joseph was younger than Emma.)  His marriage practices are hard to comprehend.

It’s always hard for active Mormons to talk about the temple except in very general terms.  For example, when I reviewed The Mysteries of Godliness, it made me very uncomfortable, because I felt that David John Buerger went too far in discussing temple ceremonies.  From what I’ve read so far, this book seems to have avoided crossing any lines of confidentiality, and so far has been very interesting to read.

This is a very different book than I am used to reading because it is organized strictly chronologically.  I would say that it’s a book primarily designed for researchers, though it has some fascination nuggets about temple practices, procedures, and information that discusses ancillary issues to the temple.  Rather than giving a narration linking similar topics together, the book is a collection of diary entries, meeting notes, official or semi-official pronouncements from various leaders, given in a strictly chronological order.  As such, each entry may have nothing to do with a previous entry.  It took me a little while to get used to that.  It doesn’t seem to be the type of book that one would normally read from cover to cover.  I found myself flipping pages until I found something that looked interesting, and there are plenty of interesting things to be found.  For example, there were very specific instructions on how to handle burial for deceased members.  Pages 415-417 give the minutes from a Temple Clothing Program meeting from Oct 3, 1975 in the form of a question and answer.  Here is an example:

8.  Question:  May individuals be buried in their regular temple clothing that has been worn to the temple?

Answer: Yes, with the exception of the shoes.  A special moccasin is used in place of the regular temple-wear shoe.

There are lots in interesting tidbits.  When I was single, I remember dating a widow.  She had been sealed in the Salt Lake Temple.  After 7 years of marriage, her husband had been killed in an avalanche.  I remember that she was bothered by the fact that the church would not allow her to be sealed to another man, and had even spoken to an apostle about the problem.  While the church still forbids a living woman from being sealed to more than one man, President Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson sent a circular letter from Dec 8, 1988 (found on page 456) stating

• A deceased woman sealed in life to one husband may also be sealed to another man with whom she lived as a wife.

Prior to that sentence, the letter states

In considering ordinances for the deceased, we need not attempt to determine individual worthiness, whether an ordinance will be accepted, or the probable feelings of other deceased individuals affected by the proposed ordinance.  In order to be binding in eternity, any ordinance in behalf of the dead must be accepted by the individuals involved, merited by individual worthiness, and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  These determinations must, of necessity, be made beyond the veil.

While I know this policy didn’t satisfy this particular widow, I think it is an interesting policy nonetheless that women can be sealed to more than one man.

Going further back in time, there was a very interesting suggestion about a Temple Ship.  Greg Prince had mentioned this in his David O. McKay biography, and it was nice to see something official from David O McKay’s diary dated Oct 11, 1968.  From page 375,

For nearly one hour the brethren from the Building Committee made a presentation suggesting the purchase of an ocean-going vessel which vessel was to be equipped for Temple Ordinance work and then sail to the various points strategically located throughout the earth where Latter-day Saints, principally in remote places, would have access to the Temple Endowment.  It was reported that this project would cost approximately two million dollars and could be maintained throughout the year at a cost of about $500,000 per year[,] that crews could be recruited by simply calling various members of the Church to a 12 or 18-month mission, and that the members of the crew on the boat would not be the same as those that would be called to officiate in these Temple Ordinances for people throughout the earth.

Comment

It is obvious that this would satisfy a need for the far away, remote places where members of the Church would not have access to the Temple Endowment, but in order for it to be successful it would have to also reach the heavier populated ares in America as well as in South America.  Otherwise it would be unfeasible as to cost.  The proposition thus submitted is without question worthy of consideration and this is precisely the status that it was left in.  There were no decisions made.  However a great many comments were made which consisted of the following:

1.  President Smith raised the question that Temples were to be constructed according to the revelation in Stakes of Zion.

2.  I raised the question as to the cursing that has been place upon the waters in the last days, as to whether it would be proper in the light of that statement by the Prophet to construct a Temple to sail on the waters.

3.  I also raised the question as to the worthiness of the members in far away places or as to whether their association in the church was sufficiently experienced to have the Temple work performed for them at this time.  The building committee stated that there were 50,000 men who held the Melchizedek Priesthood in these far away places who would have access to the Temple.  I pointed out that even here in Zion only 40% of them were worthy of going to the Temple and it would be probably much less in these far away places.  Then if they were permitted to go[,] with the ship being anchored in a nearby harbor, that it would offend them.

…

6.  Finally, while this project appears to have great merit on first thought, the more it is thought about the more problems would seem to arise.  However, the matter was left for further consideration by President McKay and the First Presidency.  [The footnote states, 'Two weeks later, McKay wrote to an inquiring individual that "as far as I am concerned[,] we are not considering this proposition,” and further discussion of the matter apparently ceased.  See Prince and Wright, David O. McKay, 275]

Since I’m curious about the time period relating to the Manifesto, I had to look for information around 1890.  Some of these quotes are hard to understand without the footnotes.  For example, here is the quote from a letter from President Wilford Woodruff to William H. Seegmiller, Sept 26, 1890 that left me scratching my head until I read the footnote.

Elder H. S. Palmer of Freemont [Utah] writes to us that you have refused to give him a recommend to the House of the Lord because at his late trial he promised to obey the law.

The footnote states,

Apparently Seegmiller thought LDS people should stand firm in violating the law against polygamy.  Notice that President Woodruff doesn’t support Palmer’s decision to obey the law; rather he finds the sin of obedience in this case to be venial rather than fatal.

Continuing with the quote from the letter,

If this is the only reason you have for withholding his recommend, and if he is otherwise in good standing in the Church, and were it not for this action of his you could freely recommend him, we do not think it advisable for that reason alone to withhold from him the privileges of the temple.

Official Declaration 1 was released just 2 days before this letter.  Wilford Woodruff had a vision on Sept 23, 1891.  The following day, the press release was drafted and printed in our current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

These are just a few of the tidbits in this book–it’s really fascinating.  As you can see, it addresses a wide range of topics.  Is there anything you’d like to know more about?

That’s a really good question, because very little is known about him.  He seems to be a real person, because archaeologists have discovered an ancient catacomb in Rome and church dedicated to him.  In 496 Pope Gelasius set up his feast day as February 14 (along with other martyrs) ”… whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God.”   That’s the facts of what we know.

Legends say that the Emporer Claudius II didn’t want his soldiers worrying about wives back home, so he banned solders from marrying.  Valentine thought this was unjust, and married the soldiers in secret.  When Claudius discovered this, he sentenced Valentine to prison.  In jail, Valentine tried to convert the Goth emperor and was sentenced to death.  On his way to his execution, he sent a note to his jailer’s daughter signed “From Your Valentine.”  The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that he was first beaten with clubs and then beheaded on February 14, around the year 270 AD.  Pope Julius I apparently built a church near to his memory, dating to around the 5th century.  The History Channel has a nice short video here.

What are you doing to celebrate Valentine’s Day?

I’ve had a few exchanges with people over there.  Since I spent so much time, I thought I would highlight some of these exchanges here and show a Biblical basis for Exaltation.

While there are distinct differences in belief between the Trinity and the Godhead among Evangelicals and Mormons, I must say that this idea of theosis seems to have some amazing parallels with the Mormon concept of Exaltation. “As Athanasius put it, ‘God became man, that man might become God.’ That’s theosis, or deification.”

Skylark points out the differences between the Mormon concept of God, and the Evangelical nature of God. Yes, Trinity and Godhead are different concepts, and I readily admit that Athanasius didn’t believe in the Godhead. However, this idea of theosis–[Jesus], indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God bears remarkable similarities with Mormon theology. I don’t believe that most western Christians are comfortable quoting Athanasius. Please correct me if I am wrong, but are any other Christians routinely quoting Athanasius and teaching “that we might become God” during church services?

If I may be so bold, I will point to some Bible verses that support this idea of Athanasius idea that ‘we might become God.’

What is the reason Jews were so angry with Jesus? John 5:18 says “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

Paul tells us in Phillipians 2:5-6, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: “

Psalm 82:6 says, “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.”

Jesus quotes this scripture from Psalms in John 10:34-39, “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?

If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken–

what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?  Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.”

Here’s one last scripture and I’ll stop for now because this is too long. In Luke 17:20 we are told, ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’”

Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34 “Ye are gods”

Psalm 82:6 says, “you [are] children of the most High.”

God created us as his children. Jesus said, John 10:36, “Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.”

John 5:19, ‘Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.’

If God created us as his children (an interesting choice of words), then Paul says in Romans 8:16-17 “that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,”

Therefore, if God can create children, Jesus can create children. If we can be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, we have that capability too, because Luke 17:20 “The kingdom of God is within you.”

1 Corinthians 11:11 “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

(1) Jesus is being baptized in the river Jordan (2) Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, (3) A voice from heaven (God the Father) said, “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

You want to interpret this as a trinity. Mormons feel this represents (using your words) “three separate Gods who are the supreme presidency of the universe.” We’re not going to agree Phoebe, and I am fine with that.

Frankly, I think the Mormon Godhead is not as far off from the Trinity as many people think. Please show me a single verse in the Bible that has the word “trinity”, yet the term “godhead” does actually appear in the Bible in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. We can get into the trinity if you want–there are some interesting posts over at Mormon Matters and I think Evangelicals and Mormons split hairs too much on this issue. We have more in common that you think, but due to differences in terminology we argue way too much on this issue.

I remind you that ancient Christians were accused of being polytheists by Jews. This gave way to the great debate over whether Jesus and God were homo-uzious (the same substance), or homoi-uzious (of similar substance). The trinity is a direct result of trying to maintain a foundation of monotheism against attacks of polytheism by Jews. I find it ironic that modern western Christians use the same tactic against Mormons (calling us polytheistic), that was once used against ancient Christians.

I know we disagree here, but let me address this again. I already posted the D&C scripture, which is the primary source of Mormon knowledge on this issue. The First Vision account also confirms this. As for the Bible, Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

What image is that exactly? Let’s look at Gen 5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:” What image was Seth? I think the obvious image of Adam. Therefore, what image was Adam? Using similar logic, Adam looked like God. Adam had a body as tangible as me. Adam is in God’s image. Adam looks like God with a body of flesh and bone.

Needless to say, I didn’t convince anyone over there (at least that I know of), but I thought you might enjoy some of these exchanges.  Comments?

Burns tells some really interesting things about the Shakers.  They’re called Shakers, a shorter version of the name Shaking Quakers.  They have many Quaker beliefs, and the Shaking part comes into play because they do some ecstatic dancing before God.  Song and dance are a large part of worship services.  They were founded by a woman named Ann Lee in England around 1770.  Ann had a vision of Christ, though the heading in the LDS edition seems erroneous in overstating this vision.  It says, “Some of the beliefs of the Shakers were that Christ’s second coming had already occurred and he had appeared in the form of a woman, Ann Lee.“  This isn’t exactly true.  Her vision was similar in nature to Joseph’s vision of the Savior.  We wouldn’t say that Christ’s second coming already occurred in the form of Joseph Smith, right?

Ann Lee had a vision of Jesus in 1770.  She was welcomed by a small group of Quakers, but was not welcome in England, so she moved to America, settling near Albany, NY.  In 1783, she was accused of treason and witchcraft.  Her sentence caused her to be whipped.  She was attacked by a mob for “stealing” a man’s wife–the woman had converted to the Shakers (the official name is United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing.)  She was born in Manchester, England in 1736 and died in Watervliet, New York, in 1784.

Shakers believed in strict separation of the sexes, and complete celibacy.  The way membership increased was through adoption of orphans.  Burns says that in the 1960′s many states refused to allow adoptions to religious organizations, which greatly hurt membership.  In 1985 when the documentary was produced, there were just 12 Shakers left in existence.  I believe there are just 3 left now.  I loved this quote from a Shaker:  “we bless marriage, because if someone didn’t marry, we wouldn’t have any Shakers.”

Shakers invented some very useful things, most of them were labor saving items.

• Water repellent cloth
• Clothes that needed no ironing
• Clothes pins
• Circular saw (by a woman)
• They turned the round broom into a flat one

The documentary was fascinating.  Shakers were very communalistic (or we would say they believed in consecration.)  They accepted everyone, even those who they called “Winter Shakers.”  These were people that they knew only came to their community for food, and planned to leave in the spring.  Shakers felt Christ would help all people, so they helped them too.

Burns didn’t talk of the Mormons at all, but D&C 49 refers to Leman Copley, the first Shaker to Mormon convert.  A mission was organized to the Shakers.  Apparently, it didn’t go so well.  While the Shakers embraced Sidney Rigdon, apparently Parley P Pratt dusted his feet.  There is an interesting PDF article at BYU Studies.  Some brief excerpts from the Shaker Ashbel Kitchell’s Journal:

Some time in the year 1829 the new religion, (if so it may be called,) of the Mormons began to make a stir in a town not far from North Union.⁴ It created a good deal of excitement among the people. They stated they had received a New Revelation, had seen an angel, & had been instructed into many things in relation to the history of America, that was not known before.

Late in the fall a number of them came to visit the Believers. One by the name of Oliver Lowdree [Cowdery], who stated that he had been one who had been an assistant in the translation of the golden Bible, and had also seen the Angel, and had been  commissioned by him to go out & bear testimony, that God would destroy this generation.

We gave him liberty to bear his testimony in our meeting; but finding he had nothing for us, we treated them kindly, and labored to find out what manner of spirit they were of.—They appeared meek and mild; but as for light, or knowledge of the way of God, I considered them very ignorant of Christ or his work; therefore I treated them with the tenderness of children.

…

We continued on friendly terms in the way of trade and other Acts of good neighborship untill [sic] the spring of 1831 when we were visited on saturday evening by Sidney Rigdon and Leman Copley,5 the latter of whom had been among us; but not likeing [sic] the cross {celibacy} any to [sic] well, had taken up with Mormonism as the easier plan and had been appointed by them as one of the missionaries to convert us.

…

They came into meeting and sat quietly untill the meeting was through, and the people dismissed; when Sidney Rigdon arose and stated that he had a message from the Lord Jesus Christ to this people; could he have the privilege of delivering it? He was answered, he could. He then said it was in writing; could he read it? He was told he might. He then read the following Message. [The text of D & C, section 49, is here quoted with only a few minor wording changes from the way it appears in the Book of Commandments, chapter 52.]

At the close of the reading, he asked if they could be permitted to go forth in the exercise of their gift and office.—I told him that the piece he had read, bore on its face, the image of its author; that the Christ that dictated that, I was well acquainted with, and had been, from a boy; that I had been much troubled to get rid of his influence, and I wished to have nothing more to do with him; and as for any gift he had  authorized them to exercise among us, I would release them & their Christ from any further burden about us, and take all the responsibility on myself.

Sidney made answer—This you cannot do; I wish to hear the people speak. I told him if he desired it, they could speak for themselves, and steped [sic] back and told them to let the man know how they felt; which they did in something like these words; that they were fully satisfied with what they had, and wished to have nothing to do with either them or their Christ. On hearing this Rigdon professed to be satisfied,
and put his paper by; but Parley Pratt arose and commenced shakeing [sic] his coattail; he said he shook the dust from his garments as a testimony against us, that we had rejected the word of the Lord Jesus.

Before the words were out of his mouth, I was to him, and said;—You filthy Beast, dare you presume to come in here, and try to imitate a man of God by shaking your filthy tail; confess your sins and purge your soul from your lusts, and your other abominations before you ever presume to do the like again, &c. While I was ministering this reproof, he settled trembling into his seat, and covered his face; and I then turned to Leman who had been crying while the message was reading, and said to him, you
hypocrite, you knew better;—you knew where the living work of God was; but for the sake of indulgence, you could consent to deceive yourself and them, but you shell reap the fruit of your own doings, &c.—This struck him dead also, and dryed up his tears;— I then turned to the Believers and said, now we will go home and started.—Sidney had been looking on all this time without saying a word; as he had done all he did only by liberty nothing was said to him, and he looked on with a smile to see the fix the others were in, but they all followed us to the house.—Parleys horse had not been put away, as he came too late; he mounted and started for home without waiting for any one.—Sidney stayed for supper, and acknowledged that we were the purest people he had ever been acquainted with but he was not prepared to live such a life.

The journal continues, but suffice it to say, the mission didn’t produce very many converts.  There is an LDS Institute of Religion lesson on this section you may find interesting as well.

So, what do you think of the Shakers?

As most of you know, Joseph died June 27, 1844 in a hail of gunfire at the Carthage jail, leaving behind a pregnant wife and 3 young boys: Joseph SMITH III (age 11 1/2),  Frederick Granger Williams SMITH (age 8), Alexander Hale SMITH (age 6).  Emma gave birth to David Hyrum SMITH on Nov 18, 1844, 5 months after Joseph’s death .  (Emma gave birth to 10 children in all, though most of them died at or near birth.  Don Carlos SMITH lived just 15 months from 13 Jun 1840 – 15 Sep 1841.)

Three years after Joseph’s death, Emma married a man by the name of Lewis Bidamon.  Most astonishing to me is the day she picked for her wedding: Joseph’s birthday, 23 Dec 1847.I don’t understand that.  They married in a Methodist church.  Lewis doesn’t seem to have been a man of great character.  He was a bit of a drunk, and fathered a child with another woman while married to Emma.  (I talked briefly about this when I reviewed the film Emma Smith: My Story.)  In a true act of Christlike love, Emma hired the woman, and adopted the child after the woman died.

I know a woman who married a  new spouse 2 days prior to her deceased husband’s birthday (her previous husband had been dead just over a year.).  I always thought the timing was strange for several reasons, and her anniversary is a bitter-sweet time for her, filled with conflicting emotions.  I don’t understand why a grieving widow would pick such odd timing to marry another.

In Emma’s case, her new anniversary is just prior to Christmas.  I’ve done some geneaology, and it seems like Christmas was a relatively frequent day to marry in the 1800′s.  However, it still strikes me as odd timing to marry during the Christmas season.  Sure, Christmas wasn’t as commercial back then, and some people today marry during Christmas break in between semesters, but I don’t think that Emma had semester finals to plan around.

When a spouse dies, anniversaries and birthdays are dates I would want to avoid when choosing to marry again.  I don’t understand Emma or this other woman’s decision to marry so close (or directly on) the previous spouse’s birthday.  Can anybody explain this to me?

Before I get into the story, I want to address the different types of marriages during the pre-Manifesto Utah period.  The “convenience” marriage is the strangest type.  Here is a list marriage types outlined by Daynes:

1. Civil Marriages – This would include all non-Mormon marriages, as well as non-Temple Mormon marriages.
2. Time and Eternity marriages – This would be a typical Mormon Temple Marriage, and would extend after death.
3. Proxy Marriages – Daynes says on page 82, “Such marriages could be performed for two living persons, for one living and one deceased person, or for two people who were both dead.”  She gives an interesting story on page 79,
   

   “Because celestial marriages transcend this world, it was possible for a person to be married to one spouse for this world and sealed to a different spouse for eternity.⁶⁷ The spouse to whom a person was sealed might not even be living.  Isaac Morley’s daughter Cordelia, for example, was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity in Nauvoo eighteen months after he was killed at Carthage.  Frederick W. Cox stood as proxy for the sealing to Joseph Smith in the temple ceremony while marrying Cordelia for time, or for the duration of mortal life.⁶⁸

   Such marriages for time only–proxy marriages–entailed the same responsibilities and conferred the same rights that civil marriages did.  In these marriages, the children bore their biological fathers’ names but in the hereafter would belong to the family of their mother and the husband to whom she was sealed for eternity.”

   Daynes said these are sometimes referred to as a levirate marriage, named after the Biblical practice. For those not familiar with a levirate marriage, the Law of Moses specified that if a man died without seed, his brother was supposed to marry the widow and raise seed to the deceased.  The Sadducees propose a scenario in Luke 20:27-40 in which 7 brothers marry a widow, and all die without children.  They ask Jesus in verse 33, “Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. “

4. Eternity Only Marriages – From page 82, Daynes said these marriages, “conferred no earthly rights or responsibilities.”  They were sealed only in the next life, the couple didn’t live together, didn’t have any sexual relations, the wife didn’t take the husband’s surname, and the husband did not provide for the wife.  It seems the purpose of these marriages was merely to confer salvation to the participants who participated in the “new and everlasting covenant.”  Often the women were past child-bearing age.  Fifteen women in Daynes’ Manti data set had this kind of a marriage.
5. Nominal Marriages -From page 82, these marriages “conferred only limited rights on the couple for this life and sealed them for eternity.”  Wives used husband’s surnames, and may have received economic help.  Four wives fit this criteria in the Manti data set, and Daynes cites a biographical note of James Davenport on page 77, “Second wife was Anna Davenport, to whom he was sealed but did not live with.⁶⁰ Daynes indicates on page 78, “Such marriages did not include the right to sexual access.”
6. Marriage with delayed Rights – Daynes indicates that 12-year old Mary Dunn and 11-yr old Mosiah were sealed to each other just prior to leaving Nauvoo because leaders knew it would be a long time before they had access to a temple. Daynes quotes Mosiah’s autobiography on page 78, ‘that it was done “with the understanding that we were not to live together as husband and wife until we were 16 years of age.”‘  Daynes further indicates on page 79 that “Mosiah and Mary were never united after they arrived in Salt Lake City; at age eighteen, Mary married Martin Luther Ensign.⁶⁶“This logic reminds me as similar to the logic applied by Catholics when they baptize infants.
7. Convenience Marriage – from page 82, these marriages “conferred rights of sexual access but gave the man no rights to the children and limited responsibility to the woman.”  Daynes says on page 81, “This form of marriage was not an isolated instance, although it was undoubtedly a rare one.”  She describes the story of Mary Ann and Edmund Richardson who joined the church in Salt Lake City in 1853-4.  Page 80 describes the story:
   

   With the importance the Saints place on having children, however, Mary Ann Richardson worried about her husband’s inability to father more children because of his “having become an eunuch”.⁷⁵ She was also concerned about her exaltation, especially when several had told her she was wrong to stay with her husband and should be sealed to another.

   Ok, I have a real problem here. While I plan to talk in the future on divorce during this time, it seems to me that for a church which currently stresses the dangers of divorce, marriages back then were very disposable. It boggles my mind that people were recommending she be sealed to another person. Continuing on,

   Writing to Brigham Young for advice, she expressed her desire to remain with her husband if that course would not hinder her eternal reward.  In a letter dated March 5, 1857, Young proposed a novel solution, one of the few possible in that age before the advent of modern reproductive medicine: “If I was imperfect and had a good wife I would call on some good bror. to help me that we might have increase, that a man [her husband] of this character will have a place in the Temple, receive his endowments and in eternity will be as tho nothing had happened to him in time.”⁷⁶ According to Young, her husband’s sterility would not bar him from  the most important temple ordinances, and his eternal reward would not be adversely affected.  As for having additional children, Mary Ann could be married in a civil ceremony to another man who would father her children.  By being sealed for eternity to Edmund, Mary Ann as well as all her children, would belong to him.

   The couple eventually accepted the plan, but only reluctantly. Edmund and Mary Ann were sealed for eternity on April 20, 1857, but only after the “each had seen a vision” did they accept President Young’s unusual suggestion. After they accepted the plan, he gave them a paper listing three polygamous men he considered worthy to participate. They chose Frederick Cox. He, too, at first refused to participate in the plan but also became convinced that “the plan was divinely inspired.” One of the sons of this union later wrote of his birth: “It took three visions and a religion to reconcile others to my coming.”⁷⁷ On January 9, 1858, Brigham Young celebrated the marriage of Mary Ann Darrow Richardson and Frederick Cox in a religious ceremony that did not seal the couple. From this union, two sons were born: Charles on October 13, 1858, and Sullivan on January 26, 1861.

   Family legend indicates that Brigham Young granted the Richardsons a temporary separation or a civil divorce and that Edmund lived some distance from Manti during his wife’s second marriage. He may have spent some time away, but one year after the first son was born, he returned and took his wife to be sealed again for eternity in the Endowment House. Moreover, as indicated on the 1860 Manti census, he was again reunited with his wife about eight months before the second son was born.⁷⁹

   Not long thereafter the Richardsons moved to another town. For about twenty years Cox did not see his sons. When he did, he shook their hands heartily, looked at them and listened to them unceasingly during their visit, but never mentioned the relationship between them.⁸⁰

   The second marriage did not bestow the rights and responsibilities that marriage usually confers. Mary Ann retained the Richardson name, lived in the Richardson home, and received her support from Edmund. Cox received no rights in the children: they were not called by his name, nor did they inherit from him. Because the Cox-Richardson children were cautioned to say nothing about the circumstances of their birth to protect the good name of their mother, it is highly unlikely any public acknowledgment was made of Mary Ann’s second marriage.⁸¹ In short, other than the right of sexual access, the marriage ceremony conferred no rights or responsibilities.

   This form of marriage was not an isolated instance, although it was undoubtedly a rare one. When Richardson’s descendants sought answers about the marriage, the executive assistant of the Genealogical Society about the marriage assured them that there were other such marriages and that these were known as “convenience marriages.”⁸²

Daynes next paragraph goes into the question of whether this was a polyandrous marriage.  Pages 81-82 answer this question:

As Lawrence Foster argues, calling such a marriage polyandrous is misleading because polyandry is incompatible with the patriarchal nature of nineteenth-century Mormon marriages.  While Mary Ann’s two marriages overlapped, the form of marriage to each man was different and did not entail the same rights and responsibilities.  Marriages for time were perceived as temporary because life on this earth was viewed as ephemeral in the expanse of eternity.  Sealings for eternity were thus more important and took precedence over marriages for time, although they did not necessarily invalidate them.⁸³

So, it seems to me that Brigham Young would have been very liberal in modern reproductive techniques like artificial insemination, cloning, stem cell research, surrogate motherhood, and many of the current technologies we have available today. Even after I read this story of the Richardsons, I shake my head in amazement at some of the Saints early practices. Comments?

Daynes writes,

The struggle between the church and state about who would control marriage has been a long one in the Western world.  By the end of the eleventh century, it was generally conceded that jurisdiction over decisions about what constituted a marriage resided with the bishop and his court.  In the two centuries that followed, the Roman Catholic church enunciated its beliefs about marriage and increasintly upheld the superiority of church practice over local usage.  Articulated in 1140 by the monk Gratian in his definitive Concodia discordantium canonum, these beliefs included the idea that the marital bond was indissoluble and that it was created by the free consent of the bride and groom.

Because the church wanted to make the formation of marriage effortless and easy, it followed Roman law, under which “marriage was virtually a formless transaction.”  The marriage was valid if the man and woman simply exchanged vows of marriage in the present, not future, tense.  As long as consent was given in the present tense, the church upheld the validity of the marriage even if there were no witnesses present, no clergy officiating, no specific form followed, or no consent given by parents.  Even consummation was not necessary if consent was given in the present tense.  Moreover, sexual intercourse after promises given in the future tense also created a valid marriage.  Certain impediments could, however, invalidate the marriage.  These included a previous commitment  by blood (consanguinity) or by marriage (affinity), and being impotent or too young.  With these exceptions, the church upheld the primacy of present consent between the couple over other considerations.  To be sure, the church discouraged the clandestine marriage such consent might foster, and the fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stipulated that couples planning to marry announce their intentions and prohibited priests from officiating secret ceremonies.¹⁰[Daynes footnotes many texts supporting this position.]

Although the church upheld the validity of secret, informal marriages, marriages usually were performed publicly and contracted in some ritual.  This was so not only because the church could punish couples marrying secretly even if it did not invalidate the marriages but also because secular courts retained jurisdiction over property.  Marriages without the consent of parents or lord could well result in the loss of an inheritance or succession to feudal lands.  Thus, while the church determined what constituted a marriage, it did not control all aspects of it.¹¹

Two problems produced inherent tensions in this marriage system.  First, allowing secret, informal marriages created difficulties in knowing whether a prospective spouse was already married.  Second, jurisdiction over marriage resided mainly in the church, but civil courts asserted their authority over property rights created by marriage and by birth.  These inherent tensions helped produce a different set of beliefs about marriage during the Reformation.  Although marriage was a divine institution, according to Martin Luther in his Babylonian Captivity, it was not a sacrament, it did not impart grace, and it was not necessary for salvation.  Other reformers following Luther’s lead, and all reformed churches rejected the Catholic Church’s claim that marriage was a sacrament.  With that change in belief, control over marriage could be vested in civil rather than religious courts.  Reducing the clergy’s jurisdiction over moral life, Protestant governments on the Continent began requiring parental consent for minors to marry and mandating the presence of witnesses to validate a marriage.¹²  In response, the Catholic Church tightened regulations for marriage at the Council of Trent in 1563, requiring that the traditional exchange consent take place before witnesses, one of whom was the pastor.¹³

In England, however, the Reformation took a different path in regard to marriage.  Because elites found that ecclesiatical courts had adequately served their interests, reformation of the English church did not included abolition of these courts.  The Church of England was independent of the Roman Catholic church before the Council of Trent, so its requirement of witnesses and a pastor for a valid marriage had no force.  Clandestine marriages flourished; perhaps as many as 20 percent of marriages in England in the mid-eighteenth century were clandestine.  Not until 1753, with the passage of the Hardwicke Marriage Act, were such marriages curtailed.¹⁴

The Hardwicke Act was not passed until long after the American colonies had begun developing their own marriage laws.  New England drew on the Reformation’s ideas about civil government’s control over marriage.  Magistrates, not ministers, performed marriages there until 1686, when the Crown established its control over New England after revoking those colonies’ charters.  In the South, the Church of England was the established church, but without bishops or ecclesiastical courts, civil regulation of marriages was uncontested.  A variety of churches proliferated throughout the middle and southern colonies, and the marriages performed by the rites of those churches were recognized.¹⁵  With diverse religious traditions and peoples, the idea that free consent of the couple in the present tense created a valid marriage passed into the common law.

These developments, along with the movement away from government involvement prevalent in early ninetheenth-century America, elevated consent of the couple over public control of matrimony.  Unlike colonial or contemporary English interpretations of the common law, American nineteenth-century courts generally validated secret and informal marriages.¹⁶  By midcentury in the United States, the opinion of James Kent, the most influential legal commentator of his time, was accepted by all but a minority of courts:  “No pecular ceremonies are requisite by the common law to valid celebration of the marriage.  The consent of the parties is all that is required.”¹⁷  This rule was explicitly applied to Utah in 1885, when its supreme court ruled, “The marriage is complete when there is a full, free and mutual consent of the contracting parties.  They may enter into the marriage relation secretly, and the fact may be unknown to all save the man and woman… [A] couple may meet on the highway at any time in the day or night and there contract a valid marriage…[n]o particular form or ceremony being essential, and no witness being required.”¹⁸  Thus, no specific form for solemnizing a marriage was necessary to make it valid, as long as both bride and groom consented to the marriage.¹⁹  Nor were witnesses required.  Not until 1888 did the law in Utah mandate that two witnesses sign the marriage certificate.  That law also declared that marriages not solemnized by an authorized person were void, thus nullifying common law marriages.²⁰

This explains the more cavalier marriage performed by the bishop that I related  in my previous post about Fred Cox and Lucy.  I have found it interesting that Utah divorce laws were as liberal as the marriage laws, and I plan a future post on that topic.  I have found 19th century beliefs about romantic love strange as well.  Daynes says that consent was the most important aspect of marriage, and says that romantic love was downplayed by all groups during this time period.  From page 64,

Believing the religious aspect of marriage was most crucial, Mormons downplayed the role of romantic love.  In 1853, Orson Pratt wrote that love was not “such as is often described in novels, which acts irresistably, forcing all the other powers of the mind into subjection.”  Charles C. Rich was even more pointed in his criticism of romantic love in 1877:  “When a person is love struck, there is no reason in them.  We should never be struck very bad.”³⁷

…

This nineteenth-century view of romantic love that set the couple apart from the community and tended to displace God was hardly compatible with Mormon beliefs.  “Never love you wives one hair’s beadth further than they adorn the Gospel,” Brigham Young preached.  “Never love them so but that you can leave them at a moment’s warning without shedding a tear.”³⁹  Love was supposed to be guided by and subordinated to religous purposes.

To be sure, love was crucial to marriage.  “No woman should be united in marriage with a man unless she have some love for him,” Orson Pratt wrote, but he added, “Any woman who loves righteousness can and does love a man who works righteousness; and she can, but cultivating this love, be happy in his society, as a friend and as a brother; and if she were united to him in marriage, she could love him as a husband;”

Daynes talks about how consent is critical to the Mormon marriage ceremony, and compares these ceremonies to common law.  From page 65,

Although free consent was crucial, under the common law no particular form of ceremony was required, nor was public notification of the marriage.  The early nineteenth-century republican ethos combined with the social conditions in America to weaken state regulation.⁴⁴  As an 1816 Pennsylvania court decision stated, “We have no etablished church.  A certificate of the bishop, therefore is out of the question.  We have no law compelling the keeping of a register by all persons who perform the marriage ceremony.  Our marriages are celebrated sometimes by clergymen, sometimes by justices of the peace and sometimes before witnesses without the intervention of clergymen or justices…Many marriages take place in parts of our country but thinly settled.  To hold a woman, therefore, to proof of her actual marriage might be productive of great inconvenience, without any advantage.”⁴⁵  As this judgment indicates, registration of marriages was not compulsory.  Americans were averse to state intervention into private affairs, which is what registration of marriages meant to many.⁴⁶

With no law regulating marriage, Utah also had no registration system outside the church.  After a sealing ceremony, a scribe was supposed to enter the date of the marriage as well as the names of the witnesses.⁴⁷  The record was not public, however.  In the 1880s, when the U.S. commissioner of labor compiled statistics on marriage and divorce in America, he could not obtain even the number of marriages performed by church officials.  Nor are these records available to scholars.⁴⁹

Daynes continues this discussion in Chapter 4.  On page 67,

Unreliable public records made it difficult for many couples to substantiate their marriages, but American courts accepted into common law the rule that a marriage could be presumed from the cohabitation, reputation, and acknowledgment of the couple.¹  On the whole, midcentury law in America encouraged marriage.  Because most judges required no particular form of ceremony or a record of it to presume a marriage or a record of it to resume a marriage, they put the weight of the law behind those living as husband and wife.  Moreover, both Georgia and Pennsylvania passed laws stating that marriage was encouraged.  In Utah, marriage was encouraged not only by the continual preaching from teh pulpit but also by the lack of legal barriers to it.

…

Although the Utah legislature enacted no laws legalizing plural marriage, it did pass a measure stating, “No laws nor part of laws shall be read, argued, cited, or adopted in any court, during any trial, except those enacted by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory, and those passed by the Congress of the United States when applicable; and no report, decision, or doing of any court shall be read, argued, cited, or adopted as precendent in any other trial.”⁴  Because precendent is the basis for the common law, this measure disallowed the authority of the common law in the territory.  Since the common law prohibited bigamy, rejection of common law at least tacitly was in force was in considerable dispute because of the judicial decisions made by non-Mormon judges.

Except for permitting plural marriage, Mormon practice was generally congruent with the contemporary common law in its lack of restrictions on marriage.  Following Roman law, under common law the age of discretion, the age at which a valid marriage could be contracted was twelve for females and fourteen for males.  A marriage contracted by an individual under age seven was a complete nullity.  Although individuals could contract a marriage between age seven and the age of discretion, they could also disaffirm the marriage at any time before reaching the age of discretion.  Such disaffirmation could be either private or public, that is with or without a judicial decree declaring the marriage invalid.⁵  Although under common law parental control continued until the child turned twenty-one, most American judges gave greater weight to the sanctity of marriage than to parental disapproval.  Judges in the United States often rendered legislation raising the age for marriage ineffective by treating such laws as advisory, not compulsory. In Utah, if any restrictions on age prevailed, they were common-law ages of discretion, until 1888 when those ages were incorporated into the Act Regulating Marriage.  Only in 1897 were the ages raised to fourteen for females and sixteen for males.⁶

The next few paragraphs are incredibly interesting in describing some early Mormon marriage practices, but I want to state a few more facts in relation to Congress.  From page 86,

This de facto recognition of plural wives changes as Congress stepped up its campaign against polygamy in the 1880s.  Polygamy, along with those consanguineous marriages that many considered incestuous, had become symbols of family crisis in America.  Reformers ralled behind legislation requiring marriage licenses, raising the statutory age of marriage, banning marriages between blood relatives, and curtailing plural wives’ ability to inherit from their husbands.  Even the courts began to soften their support for informal matrimony amid the reformers’ fears of free love and “rampant Mormonism.”  Polygamy, a “prime instigator” of the social climate that produced these reforms, became one of the first targets for change.¹⁰⁷

During the 1880s, the federal government dismanted the entire system the Mormons put in place in the 1850s to protect plural marriage.  Not only were the polygamous families excluded from inheriting from intestate estates, but also Congress passed laws regulating marriage and mandating registration of marriages.  By enforcing these laws, by taking the selection of judges out of the hands of Mormons, and by attacking the church itself, the federal government was also able to curtail the church’s influence over the civil courts and to diminish the ecclesiastical courts’ control over family issues.

I had no idea that the Mormon practice of polygamy led to many of the regulations of marriage practices today.  Were you aware of this?