Re-creation of Mormon Fort in Las Vegas

I’m at the Mormon History Association meetings here in St. George, Utah and thought I would give some first impressions of the conference so far.  Yesterday I had the opportunity to be part of the pre-conference tour, and learned a very interesting thing:

Sin City was first settled by Mormons!

The first non-Indian settlers in Las Vegas were Mormons.  Wanting to improve relations with Indians and make a road to California, Brigham Young sent missionaries into what is now Nevada (it was part of the Territory of Deseret at the time) in 1855.  “Las Vegas” is a Spanish word for “the meadows”.  Water was found there and the Mormons set up the Mormon Fort.  The mission lasted just 2 years, due to the harsh conditions, and the fort was abandoned.

Adobe Hut at Mormon Fort

It is now a state park in Nevada, and I had the opportunity to eat lunch there and take a few pictures of the partially reconstructed fort wall.   A few years later, a man used part of the wall to create this building.  The park ranger said this was Las Vegas’ first foreclosure as the man couldn’t pay the mortgage.  The building was later used to test recipes for concrete for the Hoover Dam.  We were given a book by Fred Woods called A Gamble in the Desert that discusses the Mormon Mission in Las Vegas from 1855-1857.  I’ve just started reading it and it seems like a nice read so far.

We also visited the Clark County Museum and a place called Warm Springs.  Water from Warm Springs is the beginning of the Muddy River, and it is not muddy yet!  Later in the evening, we attended a choir concert at the St George Tabernacle, and listened as a small band dressed up as the Mormon Battalion played some songs.  It was fun to mingle with everyone.

Mormon Batallion Band

This morning, I was able to listen to Newell Bringhust, Ken Driggs, Craig Foster, and Richard Lambert talk about “The FLDS and the outside World”.  Ken discussed “The 1944 Polygamy Raids and the Supreme Court” and outlined legal issues from the Short Creek raid.  He noted that there haven’t been any federal prosecutions of polygamy in our lifetimes.

Opening Reception - St George

Craig Foster’s original title of his paper was “Media Malfeasance?  Misrepresentations of the FLDS”.  During his talk he changed the title slightly, and discussed how the media changed from looking at the FLDS raid in 2008 as a strange criminal oddity, to much more sympathetic.  Craig works at the Church History Library in SLC.

Newell Bringhurst talked about how the FLDS church has changed in light of the raid.  He stated that the FLDS church has much more sympathy in the media and that spokesman Willie Jessop announced that the FLDS church would no longer perform underage marriages.  However, Jessop was soon removed as spokesman, so it is unclear if they will abide that policy if Warren Jeffs is released from jail.  Bringhurst also stated that while the FLDS church was quite insular prior to the raid, they have begun cooperating with other polygamist groups and have talked more with the media to create a more sympathetic view of their church.

The water is quite warm in Warm Springs

Richard Lambert is a former federal prosecutor and noted that all raids in his lifetime have been governed by state, rather than federal prosecutors.  He doesn’t believe that anti-polygamy statutes will be upheld by the Supreme Court and noted that many civil liberties of the FLDS were violated.  Rounding up all the women and children at the YFZ Ranch was a major civil rights violation, and he believes these women and children would be awarded monetary damages if they brought charges.

He felt that federal authorities had learned their lesson from Waco.  Ken Driggs, an attorney from Georgia called the sheriff and persuaded him to be more peaceful in his means when dealing with the FLDS.  He felt he had convinced the sheriff to back-off somewhat, but felt that someone over-ruled the sheriff and there was a much more militaristic raid on the ranch.

partially reconstructed wall of Mormon Fort in Las Vegas

Anyway, it was a really interesting session, and I look forward to more presentations later on today.

would allow local law enforcement to check people’s residency or citizenship status if officers have “reasonable suspicion” they have entered the country illegally. It would also allow for a warrantless arrest if an officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person they are facing is here illegally.

It seems to be modeled after the controversial Arizona law.  Some Latino activists are upset with the proposed bill.  Many opponents of Sandstrom’s bill have been unhappy about this heavy-handed approach to immigration problems, and have reminded him that the LDS church has supported the principles of the Utah Compact, a document that says,

We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion. The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

The LDS Church has endorsed the Utah Compact, and the New York Times supports the Utah Compact.  Some Latino activists would like the church to do more.  They would like the LDS church to help influence Mormons (such as Sandstrom) to embrace less hostile forms of legislation.  The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Raul Lopez-Vargas

A former vice president of a local community group has penned a letter to Mexican President Felipe Calderón seeking the temporary suspension of visas issued to Mormon missionaries in response to his view the LDS Church hasn’t stood tough against Utah-based immigration reform bills.

There are those that think the LDS church should not be involved in any politics, from gay marriage to immigration.  Yet sometimes they are pulled into the fray.  What do you think?  Is such a position tenable, when the LDS church must work with foreign governments for missionary work?

Martins joined the LDS church in 1972 with his wife Ruda and son Marcus. Grover describes in detail race relations in Brazil. From page 36,

“This racial climate is a positive factor in the functioning and success of Brazilians of African descent. It does not eliminate issues of race, but it places them in a difference context. Elder Martins is an example of how a person of color can succeed in this type of social system.”

Martins grew up very poor. Grover says on page 37,

“He liked school and had a firm commitment to education, so he was unhappy when, after the sixth grade, knowing that his parent needed help, he left school to begin earning money to help them. At age twelve, he found only low-paying jobs: picking oranges or digging ditches. It was a step up to become a courier at a law office.”

Grover says that Martin never regretted helping his family; instead it furthered his resolve to get an education. His greatest help ended up being his future wife, Ruda. She worked as a secretary in a law office, and encouraged his to continue to pursue his education. Ironically, Ruda’s family was his first exposure to racism. From page 38,

Ruda’s family were fair-skinned mulattos and were concerned about their daughter marrying someone darker. A common belief in the Afro-Brazilian community was that marrying someone darker would “weaken” their racial lineage. “They had feelings against those who were darker and were actually more intolerant because they were not white but yet did not want to marry someone who was darker,” Helvecio explained. “They felt that it would be better if their children married either mulattos or whites but never someone darker than they.

Ruda and Helvecio continued to study and date, and eventually Helvecio became a favorite of his mother in law. After they married, both continued to work; Helvecio finished a bachelor’s degree in accounting at night, and went on to take finance and business administration graduate classes, as well as a teaching certificate. He earned a job at the government owned oil company, Petrobas, and taught night finance and business administration classes at the State University of Rio de Janeiro. He moved up the corporate ladder very quickly at Petrobas.

Helvicio grew up with the Catholic faith, but adopted his wife’s religion of Macumba, “an Afro-Brazilian religion that included, among other beliefs, spirit possession and the worship of African gods.” Page 40 continues,

Thus, even as Martins became one of few blacks in a job environment and social circle that included Brazil’s president and was almost exclusively white, he and Ruda participated in one of the most distinct black cultural groups in the country—one that appealed primarily to poor and black Brazilians.

In 1972, he and Ruda felt the need to look for another religion. Missionaries arrived at this opportune time, and they were baptized on June 2, 1972. Their baptism created conflict with Ruda’s family, but Helvecio’s sister eventually joined the church as well. From pages 41-42,

Helvecio’s and Ruda’s acceptance of the priesthood restrictions was, surprisingly not difficult. In fact, it had been the first question they had asked the missionaries; and Helvecio, although he could not later remember the exact words, recalled that “it was very clear and precise and sounded so right that it didn’t bother me at all. At that time I accepted it as being the will and desire of the Lord” (28) In fact, they were somewhat annoyed that it became an issue that other members of the Church frequently brought up. In the beginning their complete acceptance of the restrictions and continued activity in the Church created some questions and even mild antagonism toward them from members who were struggling to understand the restrictions themselves. Many expected the family to leave the Church soon and were surprised when they remained active…

However, they then went from being a novelty in the Church to notoriety, attracting attention that they did not desire. In fairness to their ecclesiastical leaders, the Martinses were unique. There were other faithful black members, but most were poor. Helvecio probably had the highest social position and prestige of any Brazilian member, white or black. Few members had any political or economic influence, while Martins was on a first-name basis with the president of Brazil. He met often with cabinet members and other government officials or groups about the priesthood ban. They also gave interviews to the press who were curious about the restrictions and about the Martinses’ acceptance of those limitations.

Helvecio spoke in stake conference shortly after his baptism and was introduced to all the General Authorities who visited Rio de Janeiro, including several apostles. His visibility was so extensive that his colleagues at work started referring to him as a “Mormon bishop.”

None of Helvecio’s reaction was artificial or compensatory. “I didn’t feel bad, I felt very good,” he states with the utmost sincerity. “I felt supported and blessed. Logically I realized there were many things I could have done and many ways I could have served that [were] not possible because I didn’t hold the priesthood. But I didn’t feel any less or inferior or rejected or relegated to a second-class citizen. Everybody supported me, everybody helped and assisted me, and I felt that things were even a bit easy for me.” (38)

Grover discusses Martins advantages growing up in Brazil. From page 43,

He did not see the priesthood restrictions as aimed at him personally but rather to a group of which he was part. That is an important psychological factor that meant he did not take the restrictions personally. Second, because he lived in Brazil, he did not have access to much of the literature in the United States giving various unofficial “reasons” that could have created confusion and conflict. This lack of information probably helped eliminate many potential concerns, and he could reconcile himself to the restrictions with what he knew.¹⁵

Third, the restrictions did not significantly affect his participation in the Church. Some Afro-Brazilians in Brazil report being baptized and then forgotten; but Helvecio’s leaders recognized and respected his status and experience outside of the Church. Within a week, both were immediately called to positions that did not require priesthood. Helvecio became teacher of the Gospel Doctrine class, while Ruda served as a counselor in the ward Primary presidency. Such callings quickly integrated them into the fabric of their ward and stake, giving them considerable interaction with the other members.

Finally, he was in a Brazilian congregation that did not exhibit the forms of racism that might have existed elsewhere, even in Brazil. Most in the congregation probably did not attach much significance to the racial restrictions except as an American practice that came with the gospel but was not essentially Brazilian. Most Brazilians dealt with the restrictions by ignoring them as much as possible.

Martins served in many positions, including Public Relations Director, stake executive secretary, and counselor in two stake presidencies, bishop, and mission president (twice). At the end of this second stint as mission president, he was called to the Second Quorum of Seventy in 1990. From page 47,

After a year in Brazil, he suffered a serious accident in June 1991. He fell in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of a fall in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of the fall and an earlier injury from a car crash in 1969. That surgery affected his ability to move, and he struggled to maintain his health. He continued to work hard through suffering chronic back pain. In October 1995 at age sixty-five, he was released after five years as a Seventy.”

Grover notes that Martins is “remembered only sparingly in connection to the black issue.” From page 48,

Although I think that knowing Elder Martins would greatly enhance anyone’s life, this comparative anonymity would actually please him. The last thing he wanted to be known as a symbol of his race. He stated firmly to me: “Soon after my call, some poorly informed people ironically tried to identify me as the Brazilian General Authority, or a representative of the black race to the Lord. This idea is a mistake. I was not called by the Lord to represent any people, nationality, ethnic group, race, or any part of society or group of His children. I was called as a representative of the Lord to his people, just as those who preceded me, those at my side now, and those in higher Quorums than the idea of one I now am a member….Consequently I formally reject the idea of representing any group; that is not what I am.” (76).

Finally, I enjoyed what Grover wrote about race issues. From page 51,

Much has been written about Mormonism and race issues in the United States with minimal reference to South America or the Caribbean. Brazil has by far the largest number of members of the Church (hundreds of thousands) who are black. A high percentage of some congregations are of African descent.³⁴

Numerous black bishops and stake presidents are serving and have served. Research that discusses race in the Church but which does not examine what is happening in Brazil, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or other areas of Latin America, let alone Africa, will not be accurate. Focusing only on African Americans seriously distorts the overall picture of blacks in the church.³⁵

So, do you agree that we have a distorted view of blacks in the church?

1 THE heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Since God is the ultimate judge, and “who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God “, the LDS baptize all and let God be the judge.  (I previously discussed baptism for the dead from a non-LDS Irish writer.)

So, this phrase “if they had been permitted to tarry”, got me thinking.  Following my mission, another guy about my age returned home.  I believe he got home on a Thursday and was slated to give his homecoming address on Sunday.  (I’ll call him Ted.)  He went out with some friends on Friday or Saturday night, and was involved in a serious car accident.  Sitting in the back seat, his car was t-boned at an intersection.  The woman sitting next to him was killed, and he received some fairly serious injuries, resulting in a delay of his homecoming address for about a month (which he gave standing on crutches.)

While it is probably a bit morbid to think about, a few people speculated that if he had been killed the day after his mission ended, he was probably very righteous and would have gone straight to the Celestial Kingdom.  After all, he was probably living more righteously at that point in his life than at any other time.

Ted went on to college on the east coast (I stayed in the west), he majored in art, I majored in math, and our paths really never crossed much.  I ran into his parents a few times, and they told me about his art exhibits, but neither one of us really made much of an effort to maintain contact.  Enter Facebook.  I noticed that he was friends with some of my friends, so I thought I would “friend” him and see what he was up to.  To my surprise, he had posted his letter of resignation from the LDS church.  There were many messages congratulating him for his courageous decision.

So, it got me thinking, what happens to those that perhaps died on a mission or similar circumstance, but “if they had been permitted to tarry”, they might have become wicked.  (I’m not saying Ted is wicked—I’m not the judge, but just saying, “what if”?)  Can we really be so certain of anyone’s final judgment?

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?

Balaam has to be one of the most intriguing characters in the Bible.  He is one of only 7 gentile prophets mentioned in the Bible.  The others are Beor (Balaam’s father), Job and his 4 friends.  My favorite part of the story of Balaam is the talking donkey–it is the only place where an animal speaks (unless you count the serpent in the Garden of Eden.)   Ascertaining Balaam’s character can be a bit of a challenge.  On the one hand, the story of Balaam in Numbers 22-24  says the he not only talked with God, but a destroying angel appears to prevent him from cursing Israel.  On the other hand, he is referred to as “the wicked one” in Revelations.  So which is he?

Let’s get some background and a brief synopsis of the story of Balaam.

Wikipedia tells of some Talmudic and Midrashic thought on Balaam.  To quote,

In rabbinic literature Balaam is represented as one of seven gentile prophets; the other six being Beor (Balaam’s father), Job, and Job’s four friends (Talmud, B. B. 15b). In this literature, Balaam gradually acquired a position among the non-Jews, which was exalted as much as that of Moses among the Jews (Midrash Numbers Rabbah 20); at first being a mere interpreter of dreams, but later becoming a magician, until finally the spirit of prophecy descended upon him (ib. 7).

The Book of Numbers Chapter 21 details the wandering of Moses and the children of Israel after their escape from Egypt.  This is the chapter where God sends fiery serpents among the complaining Israelites.  Moses fashions a brass serpent and promises them they’ll be healed from the serpents simply by looking at the brass serpent.

As the chapter finishes, Moses and the children of Israel wipe out the Ammonites and the Amorites, taking several cities.  Numbers 21:24-25 says,

24 And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon [was] strong.

25 So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.

Chapter 22 begins with the story of Balaam.  As the chapter begins, the leaders of the cities of Moab and Midian are concerned about the Israelites.  Apparently Balaam has quite a reputation among non-Israelites.  Some Bible commenters have even compared Balaam to a gentile version of Moses.  The King of the Moabites (Balak) believes Balaam has a special gift of cursing.  He tries to strike up a deal with Balaam to get him to curse Israel in Numbers 22:6, “I wot [know] that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed. ”

Curiously, in verse 9, “And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men [are] these with thee?”  I say curiously, because Moses was the prophet of the God of Israel.  Why would he be speaking to Balaam–a non-Israelite–at this time, if the God of Israel is the only true god, Moses is the living prophet, and Balak and his friends wanted to offer sacrifice to other gods to defeat Moses and Israel?  For in verse 7, “the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand;”  Divination was a wicked practice according to the Law of Moses.

In verse 12, God tells Balaam not to go with Balak, and further instructions Balaam,

“thou shalt not curse the people: for they [are] blessed.”

This leads some to believe Balaam might be a true prophet, who believes in the true God.  So far, so good, right?  Well, let’s continue with the story.  Balak entreats Balaam to come again.  This time, Balaam gets a different answer.  God tells him to go.  Dutifully, Balaam obeys the Lord.

20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.

21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.

But strangely, a destroying angel stops Balaam’s donkey, but Balaam can’t see the angel yet, and begins to beat his stubborn donkey.  The donkey begins to talk to Balaam, and asks why Balaam is beating him.  For me, this is the best part of the story,

Num 22:29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.

Num 22:30 And the ass said unto Balaam, [Am] not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since [I was] thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

Num 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

Num 22:32 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times?  Behold, I went out to withstand thee, because [thy] way is perverse before me:

Num 22:33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

Num 22:34 And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again.

Num 22:35 And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.

Ok, apparently Balaam is having a hard time understanding God.  Don’t go, go, Don’t go, go.  Frankly, I’d be confused too.  But God tells him to go, and speak his words.  But instead of offering sacrifice to Yahweh, the God of Moses and the children of Israel, Balaam and Balak offer sacrifice to Baal, the notorious idol god that Moses, Joshua, and other prophets tell the children of Israel to avoid.  They build alters to Baal, but God answers instead.

39 And Balaam went with Balak, and they came unto Kirjath-huzoth.

40 And Balak offered oxen and sheep, and sent to Balaam, and to the princes that were with him.

41 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Balak took Balaam, and brought him up into the high places of Baal, that thence he might see the utmost part of the people.

Num. 23

1 And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven oxen and seven rams.

2 And Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a ram.

3 And Balaam said unto Balak, Stand by thy burnt offering, and I will go: peradventure the Lord will come to meet me: and whatsoever he sheweth me I will tell thee. And he went to an high place.

4 And God met Balaam: and he said unto him, I have prepared seven altars, and I have offered upon every altar a bullock and a ram.

Balaam blessed Israel.  Balak is not pleased.

11 And Balak said unto Balaam, What hast thou done unto me? I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether.

The story continues, and Balaam blesses Israel two more times.  It is curious, because Balak clearly worships Baal, and they offer sacrifice to Baal, yet God answers.  Some might perceive that Balaam is like Rahab the prostitute who hides Joshua and Israeli spies who later tried to take Jericho.  However, Balaam is not spared, because curiously, he tells Balak how to defeat Israel:  get Israel to sin by introducing beautiful Midianites.  Now, why would a true prophet encourage sin?

Moses and his army did not spare Balaam.  In chapter 31 we learn,

Num. 31: 8, 16

8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

The ancient historian Josephus explains this “counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord “at this website.

I’ve changed formatting for readability, but according to Josephus, Balaam told Balak to send beautiful women and induce Israel to break the law of chastity.  Balaam said,

O Balak, and you Midianites that are here present, (for I am obliged even without the will of God to gratify you,) it is true no entire destruction can seize upon the nation of the Hebrews, neither by war, nor by plague, nor by scarcity of the fruits of the earth, nor can any other unexpected accident be their entire ruin; for the providence of God is concerned to preserve them from such a misfortune; nor will it permit any such calamity to come upon them whereby they may all perish;

but some small misfortunes, and those for a short time, whereby they may appear to be brought low, may still befall them; but after that they will flourish again, to the terror of those that brought those mischiefs upon them. So that if you have a mind to gain a victory over them for a short space of time, you will obtain it by following my directions: Do you therefore set out the handsomest of such of your daughters as are most eminent for beauty, (10) and proper to force and conquer the modesty of those that behold them, and these decked and trimmed to the highest degree able.

Then do you send them to be near camp, and give them in charge, that the young men of the Hebrews desire their allow it them; and when they see they are enamored of them, let them take leaves; and if they entreat them to stay, let give their consent till they have persuaded leave off their obedience to their own laws, the worship of that God who established them to worship the gods of the Midianites and for by this means God will be angry at them (11). Accordingly, when Balaam had suggested counsel to them, he went his way.

…

9. Now the young men were induced by the fondness they had for these women to think they spake very well; so they gave themselves up to what they persuaded them, and transgressed their own laws, and supposing there were many gods, and resolving that they would sacrifice to them according to the laws of that country which ordained them, they both were delighted with their strange food, and went on to do every thing that the women would have them do, though in contradiction to their own laws; so far indeed that this transgression was already gone through the whole army of the young men, and they fell into a sedition that was much worse than the former, and into danger of the entire abolition of their own institutions; for when once the youth had tasted of these strange customs, they went with insatiable inclinations into them; and even where some of the principal men were illustrious on account of the virtues of their fathers, they also were corrupted together with the rest.

The Bible continues to condemn Balaam.

• 2 Peter 2:15 “Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; “
• Jude 1:11 “they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.”
• Rev 2:14 “the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

There is an interesting discovery which references Balaam.  More information can be found here.  It tells of a discovery in 1967 of an ancient text found at Deir Alla, Jordan, in 1967 tells about the activities of a prophet named Balaam.  The text references “Balaam son of Beor,” exactly as in the Bible.  The website says,

The remarkable text found at Deir Alla consists of 119 fragments of plaster inscribed with black and red ink. It was among the rubble of a building destroyed in an earthquake. It seems to have been one long column with at least 50 lines, displayed on a plastered wall. According to the excavators’ dating, the disaster was most likely the severe earthquake which occurred in the time of King Uzziah (Azariah) and the prophet Amos in about 760 BC (Amos 1:1; Zec 14:5). The lower part of the text shows signs of wear, indicating that it had been on the wall for some time prior to the earthquake.

Written in Aramaic, the text begins with the title “Warnings from the Book of Balaam the son of Beor. He was a seer of the gods.” It is in red ink, as are other portions of the text where emphasis is desired. The reference to the “Book of Balaam” indicates that the text was part of a pre-existing document and therefore the original date of the material is much earlier than the plaster text itself. Balaam goes on to relate a vision concerning impending judgment from the gods, and enters into a dispute with his listeners.

There are a number of similarities between the text and the account of Balaam in the book of Numbers. To begin with, the events described in Numbers 22-24 took place in the same general area where the text was found. At the time of the Numbers 22-24 incident, the Israelites were camped on the Plains of Moab, across the Jordan river from Jericho. Deir Alla is located about 25 miles north of this area, where the Jabbok river flows into the Jordan valley. Balaam was from Pethor, near “the river” (Num 22:5), in “Aram” (Num 23:7; Dt 23:4).

The reference to Aram has led most scholars to conclude that Balaam was from northern Syria, in the vicinity of the Euphrates river. That does not fit well with the Biblical account, however, since Balaam’s home seems to have been close to where the Israelites were camped (Num 22:1-22; 31:7-8).

In view of Balaam being revered at Deir Alla, one would expect that Deir Alla was his home. This is exactly what William Shea has proposed, based on his reading of the name Pethor in an inscribed clay tablet found at Deir Alla (1989:108-11). In this case, the river of Numbers 22:5 would be the Jabbok river and the naharaim (two rivers) of Deuteronomy 23:4 would be the Jabbok and Jordan rivers.

With regard to the references to Aram, Shea suggests that the original place name was Adam, with the “d” being miscopied as “r,” since the two letters are nearly identical in ancient Hebrew. Adam was a town about eight miles southwest of Deir Alla, on the east bank of the Jordan river, where the Jabbok meets the Jordan.

Here are some interesting websites you might like to reference.

• http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=balaam&do=Search
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaam
• http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a014.html
• http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/materials/OT/Start_Here.pdf#search=%22gospel%20doctrine%22   page 73 lesson 16

With all this background, I don’t believe Balaam can ever be considered a legitimate prophet.  Respectful disagreement is welcome, and I ask what you think of Balaam and this unusual story?

My book club has been reading a book called Establishing Zion by Eugene Campbell.  I couldn’t find it in the library, but Signature Books has posted the entire book online and you can read it right here!   Briefly, Campbell is a former history professor from BYU.  I learned tons from it, though I did find the first 5 chapters a little slow.  However, chapters 6-7 were very interesting, and I want to talk about them.

I felt like the chapters were actually out of order.  It seems that chapter 6 dealt with the more sensational wars between the Indians and the Mormons, while chapter 7 talked about how the Mormons first tried to befriend and convert the Indians here in Utah.  I found it most interesting to learn that the Ute Indian Tribe comes from Utah County–home of BYU.  Yet it’s the arch-rivals from Utah who took the nickname Utes!  That seems a little backwards to me.

Anyway, I found it interesting to learn how the Mormons first dealt with the Indians.  From page 113,

At the close of the October 1853 conference, Apostle Orson Hyde, who had been assigned to organize an Indian mission, read the names of thirty-nine young men selected to participate in the newest colonizing expedition. Church leaders must have viewed this particular call with some urgency because the missionaries were instructed to leave in less than two weeks. Perhaps they realized the danger of sending men into the high mountains around Fort Bridger with winter coming and wanted them to be established before the cold set in. Despite the urgency and the difficult prospects, the men accepted the call and, according to Hyde, left in high spirits. James Brown, [p.114] chosen to be one of the leaders, recorded the purpose of the mission:

[To] build an outpost from which to operate as peacemakers among the Indians, to teach civilization to them, to try to teach them to cultivate the soil, to instruct them in the arts and sciences if possible, and by that means prevent trouble for the frontier settlements and the immigrant companies. We were to identify our interest with theirs and even to marrying among them if we would be permitted to take the young women of the chiefs and leading men and have them dress like civilized people and educated. it was thought that by forming that kind of alliance we would have more power to do them good and to keep peace among the adjacent tribes and also with our own people.Brown also indicated that they were expected to thwart the mountain men, who were believed to be inciting the Indians to attack the Mormons and the government.

Three important points should be noted in Brown’s report. First, no definite place was designated for the colony, only that it be somewhere near the Green River and the Indian tribes. Second, the main purpose of the mission was to establish good relations with the Indians, not necessarily to convert them to Mormonism. They were to work with the Indians, to civilize and educate them, to make farmers out of them, and also to gain their confidence. The third purpose was to upset the schemes of the mountain men. Since plural marriage had recently been publicly announced as a practice of the church, the missionaries were advised to take Indian wives, if possible.

I find it interesting that marrying Indian woman was a big part of this, and I found the Indian response quite amusing.  Some of the missionaries went to what is now Fort Bridger, Wyoming.  From page 116:

Chief Washakie received the elders cordially. During the council meeting the tribal leaders listened to the Mormons’ message and to a letter from Apostle Hyde. In it he said, “Our young men are learning to speak your language. They want to be united with your people and a number of our men want to marry wives from your people and live with them and live in your country.” The [p.117] chief did not rebut the message but objected to the marrying of Indian women:

We have not got daughters enough for our own men, and we cannot afford to give our daughters to the White men, but we’re willing to give him an Indian girl for a White girl. I cannot see why a white man wants an Indian girl. They are dirty, ugly, stubborn and cross. And it is a strange idea for white men to want such wives. The white men may look around though and if any of you can find a girl that would go with him it would be all right, but an Indian must have the same privilege among the white men.

With this the council ended.

It is apparent that the Mormons were not interested in sending white women to live with the Indians.  But some of the southern Utah missions were more successful.  From page 118,

[p.118] The missionaries in southern Utah were more successful. This group had been called at the October conference, and a party of twenty-three bad been chosen to labor there. Apostles Parley P. Pratt and Orson Hyde organized the men into a company at Salt Lake City and appointed Rufus C. Allen, age twenty-six, to be president, with David Lewis as first counselor and Samuel F. Atwood as second counselor.

…

On 5 June 1854, Allen, Hamblin, and others started south to visit the various native groups. Their first day out, they met a small, friendly band of Indians and had an interview with Chief Toquer. The next evening they reached the Rio Virgin and came upon another camp of Indians. The women and children hid themselves in the brush. No doubt they feared being taken as slaves.

The following night, the missionaries camped on the Santa Clara River and found a large group of Indians. There were about 250 Indian men but very few children, since most had been taken captive. The Indians had heard about the missionaries and treated them cordially. The Mormons found that the Santa Clara natives were farming in a primitive way but did have patches of wheat, corn, squash, and melons near their village. Allen informed them that they had been sent there by the “big captain,” Brigham Young, and that they would teach them how to farm in a better way. They explained their gospel message, and eleven of the Indians were baptized. A short time later, the missionaries returned and succeeded in baptizing fifty more Indians. They spent the remainder of the summer of 1854 visiting the various native groups in the region.

In December, they found some other success near St George, Utah, though the Indians expressed some reservations about losing their culture.

Arriving at Santa Clara in early December, the missionaries chose a site about five miles northwest of its confluence with the Rio Virgin. It was a narrow valley, necessitating the division of the land into small tracts, but the colonists became very productive farmers. They erected a log cabin on the upper end of the present site of Santa Clara, constructed a dam across the creek, built canals, and made preparations for irrigation. Chief Tut-se-gab-its and his tribe, numbering about 800, aided the Mormons. By spring, the dam, about 100 feet long and 14 feet high, was completed and about one hundred acres of land was prepared for planting. The Mormons and the Indians cultivated the land jointly and shared the produce equally. Hamblin reported that “we’ve raised melons and had the privilege of disposing of them ourselves. I don’t think the Indians ever took any without leave.” The settlers enjoyed good relations with the Indians, although some of the older natives complained about changing their customs. “We must be Piutes,” they said. “We want you to be kind to us. It may be that our children will be good, but we want to follow our old customs.”

….

The success of the southern Indian mission at Santa Clara encouraged Mormon leaders, who were determined to expand the Indian missionary program the following year. At April conference in 1855, a number of missionaries were called to the different Indian missions. The initial report was: Shoshone Mission, 17; Elk Mountain, 34; White Mountain, 22; Carson Valley Mission, 9; Northern or Flathead Mission, 27; and Las Vegas Mission, 30. The same report mentioned only eight missionaries called to the English mission which gives some idea of the emphasis placed on work among the Indians that year. Apparently additional numbers were added, since the Elk Mountain Mission later reported that forty men were called.

However, the Indians still had a propensity to steal.  In such a rough wilderness area, the Mormons did not tolerate this.  From page 121,

Despite their success in baptizing many of the natives, the missionaries were unable to convince them not to steal. By 20 September, Billings reported that the Indians had taken “all of the beets, part of the turnips, part of the potatoes, all of the squash, and all of the melons. The corn had been cut and hauled into the fort in effort to save it.” Three days later some Indians attacked the fort, killing three missionaries, wounding Billings, and setting fire to the missionaries’ winter supply of hay and corn. At this point the decision was made to abandon the mission. Mormon leaders made no subsequent attempt to revive this mission.

The pattern established at Elk Mountain was repeated in other Indian missions. The missionaries had to support themselves by farming and chose the most fertile Indian land. Knowing they were isolated and believing they were dealing with savages, they built forts to protect themselves and fences to protect their property. In so doing they became unwanted outsiders in valued lands and traditional gathering places. Initially, the Indians seemed friendly, and some would be baptized. But they were not willing to accept the Mormon message. Certain tribe members became dissatisfied. When they attempted to steal produce and other supplies, the missionaries retaliated, sometimes resulting in death.

While not mentioned here, I want to point out that Chapter 6, footnote 3 had an interesting peice of information regarding stealing:

3. Young also pointed to an unfortunate double standard. Some Saints, who knew better, would also sometimes steal. Mormons might forgive this, yet fellowship a man who would kill an Indian for stealing.

Relations with the Indians deteriorated, as the Mormons and Indians started to vie for control of fertile lands.  Just as was done in other areas, the Indians were forced out, with the blessing of the Federal government, though the Feds were suspicious of Mormons, and didn’t help them as much as in other areas of the United States.  From page 132,

While these attempts were being made to help the Indians in southern Utah, several bands in northwestern Utah and southern Idaho were almost ignored or neglected.⁷ One group, under Chief Pocatello, wintered near Kelton on the northwestern point of the Great Salt Lake, and four other bands lived along the Bear River. A seventh group occupied areas in Cache Valley near the juncture of the Logan and Little Bear rivers. These Indians did not represent a threat to Mormon colonization during the early years, since the Mormon program was directed more to the south. But as the Mormons began to fill in the valleys north of Ogden, the Northwestern Shoshone became more hostile. Late in 1854, one band under Chief Little Soldier established a winter camp near Ogden and began stealing cattle and cutting fences for fire wood, asserting that “the grass that cows eat and the wood from which the fences are built belongs to the Indians.” Young tried to keep these northwestern Shoshone on friendly terms, meeting with seven of their chiefs in September 1854 to distribute presents to them. And while Mormon settlers occasionally asked the Indians to join them for 24 July celebrations, they still found it difficult to “feed rather than fight them.”

Another development was important in conjunction with Mormon/Indian relations prior to 1857-58. Young founded the Brigham Young Express Company in 1856 to establish colonies twenty to fifty miles apart where colonists could raise grain and provide supplies for immigrants coming to Salt Lake Valley. Part of the program was also to work with the Indians near these settlements. As a result, the Indian agent in the Platte River area protested to the federal government that the Mormon colonies jeopardized his control of the Indians. This accusation added to the suspicions already circulating in Washington, D.C., that the Mormons constituted a threat to the nation, especially in their effort to proselyte the Indians and to convince them that Americans were their enemies, Mormons their friends.

[p.133] This was one of the factors leading to the Utah War which also proved disastrous for the Indians. In the south they became involved in the Mountain Meadow Massacre (where John D. Lee was an Indian farmer) and other depredations, encouraged, in a sense, by the Mormon need for help in resisting the approaching army. In the north, they took advantage of the army’s approach to “get even” with the Mormons who had encroached on their lands.⁸

Demands that the Mormons feed large groups of Indians became so onerous that the Saints began to demand government aid and supported the idea of government reservations. The tragic Bear River battle, subsequent Mormon attempts at missionary work and farming programs, and the reservation solution are discussed in chapter 17.

The book does discuss the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but I haven’t read that chapter yet, so I’d like to reserve comments on that to a later date.  I’d like to keep focusing on the relationship between the Indians and the Mormons for now.  At this point, I want to go back to chapter 6, which discusses more sensational violence between Mormons and Indians.

When the Mormons moved into the Great Basin, they not only occupied Mexican land but invaded Indian territory. Because they believed in the Book of Mormon, which claimed to be a history of the ancestors of the American Indians, they had sympathy for the Indians.¹ Previous experience with various tribes in the midwest had taught the Mormons to avoid contact whenever possible, but the Mormons were confident that one day they would convert the Indians and live peacefully with them.

Initial contacts with the Indians were friendly, but as Mormon colonies extended into neighboring valleys,² the natives began to [p.94] resist the intrusion. Their resistance threatened the existence of the Mormons who were, in their words, “a thousand miles from nowhere.” On the frontier the Mormons acted much like other Americans in the east and in the south: they occupied Indian land, killed resisters, and called upon the federal government to remove the Indians to another part of the region.

I found Brigham Young’s interaction with Chief Walker especially interesting.  While they were cordial and friendly at first, it appears that Chief Walker tried to involve the Mormons in some of the Indian politics and fighting.  Brigham wanted no part of this.

In April 1849, before the extermination in Utah Valley, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, and interpreter Dimick B. Huntington met with Chief Walker and twelve of his tribe. According to Young’s manuscript history, Walker first asked for some tobacco, which was given to him. Then Huntington said, “Walker wants us to go down to his land and make a settlement. He wants to know how many moons before we will go [to his villages] and build at his place. He will do what we want him to do.”

After passing the pipe of peace around, Walker said, “I am friendly with the Snakes, they are at peace, I can go among them. A few of the Snakes and Timpani Utes will not hear. I never killed a white man. I was always friendly with the Mormons. I hear what they say and remember it. It is good to live like the Mormons and their children. I do not care about the land but I want the Mormons to go and settle it.” Young replied, “We want some of your men to [p.102] come and pilot some of our men through to your place in the fall. We will school your children here if they are willing to go to school and in six moons we will send a company to your place. We have understanding with the Goshute and the Wanship about this place. It is not good to fight with the Indians. Tell your Indians not to steal. We want to be friendly with you. We are poor now, but in a few years we shall be rich. We shall trade cattle with you.” Walker answered, “That’s good.” Young continued, “We will build a house for you and teach you and your tribe to build houses for yourselves. You can pay us your own pay.” Walker responded, “My land is good, no stones, high timber.”

The two leaders suggested how they might help each other. Then Walker said that the Timpanogus, or Timpini, Utes killed his father four years ago, that he had recently retreated from Utah Valley, and that he would be friendly to the Mormons and would welcome them to live near his villages. Young agreed to give the Indians some ammunition and hats, then asked, “Are you ready to go in peace? A good peace go with you. We want a good peace that our children can play together.” Walker replied, “Good.” The counsel finally concluded, and Young later remarked, “I gave the Indians half an oxen and the people commenced trading with them.”

Young carried out his promise (see chap. 4). However, Walker was a difficult man to control. Despite the fact that he was baptized a Mormon on 24 March 1850, Walker was on the warpath less than a year and a half after meeting with Young. That summer a band of Shoshones raided a Ute camp and stole several horses. Walker planned a retaliatory raid and asked for support from a Mormon militia. His request was denied, and Walker rode off with his warriors to do bloody battle with the Shoshone raiders. Upon his return, Walker and his band made a gruesome demonstration in front of the fort at Manti. They then decided to move north and attack the Provo settlement. However, rebuffed by another chief, Walker called off the attack and withdrew.

Later, in mid-September 1850, another Indian was killed by a Mormon for stealing. This time it was in the Shoshone country near Ogden. Retaliation was immediate and vicious. A Shoshone chief, Terikee, was caught stealing corn and was shot by a Mormon farmer, Urban Van Stewart. The Indians retaliated by burning Stewart’s house and grain. They then murdered a nearby millwright and threatened to massacre all of the settlers and burn the property unless Stewart was turned over to them for punishment by nine o’clock the next [p.103] morning. A large militia force immediately rode to the scene. The Indians were outmatched and fled, and the incident was terminated without further bloodshed.

Apparently, these activities reconfirmed to Brigham Young that there was no way the Saints could live in peace with the Indians. On 20 November 1850, he wrote a letter to the church’s representative in Washington, D.C., John M. Bernhisel, requesting that he attempt to have the Indians removed from the region by the federal government. Young explained,

It is our wish that the Indian title should be extinguished, and the Indians removed from our territory Utah and that for the best of reasons, because they are doing no good here to themselves or any body else. The buffalo had entirely vacated this portion of the country before our arrival; the elk, deer, antelope and bear, and all eatable game are very scarce, and there is little left here … Naked Indians and wolves … are annoying and destructive to property and peace, by night and by day, and while we are trying to shoot, trap and poison the wolves on one hand, the Indians come in and drive off, butcher our cattle, and steal our corn on the other, which leaves us little time between the wolves and the Indians to fence and cultivate our farms; and if the government will buy out and transplant the Indians, we will endeavor to subdue the wolves, which have destroyed our cattle, horses, sheep and poultry by the hundreds and thousands.

After noting some of the Indian atrocities, Young wrote:

Do we wish the Indians any evil? No we would do them good, for they are human beings, though most awfully degraded. We would have taught them to plow & sow, and reap and thresh, but they prefer idleness and theft. Is it desirable that the barren soil of the mountain valleys should be converted into fruitful fields? Let the Indians be removed. Is it desirable that the way should be opened for a rapid increase of population into our new State or Territory, also to California and Oregon? Let the Indians be removed, we can then devote more time to agriculture and raise more grain to feed the starving millions desirous of coming hither.

For the prosperity of civilization, for the safety of our small route, for the good of the Indians, let them be removed.

Slavery was such an interesting topic.  I previously blogged about slavery in my Priesthood Ban post, noting that Brigham Young made slavery legal in the Utah Territory–the only state to approve slavery West of Missouri (besides Texas.)  While I was pretty hard on Brigham, I was not aware of the slavery problem with the Indians.  I do feel like Brigham tried to make the best of a rotten situation with regards to Indian slavery.  I think this is a very important piece of information to consider when viewing Brigham Young and his legalization of slavery.

Another problem was Indian slavery. As already indicated, a slave trade was conducted over the Old Spanish Trail that came through much of Utah since the early 1800s. Walker and his band raided weaker tribes, taking their children and sometimes their wives as prisoners and selling them to Mexicans. As early as November 1851, the Deseret News called attention to a party of twenty Mexicans in the San Pete Valley, trading for Indian children. In his book, Forty Years Among the Indians, Daniel Jones wrote that when this party of traders arrived in Utah Valley, Brigham Young was notified and came to Provo. According to Jones, who acted as interpreter,

Mr. Young had the law read and explained to them showing them that from this day on they were under obligation to observe the laws of the United States instead of Mexico. That the treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo had changed the conditions and that from this day on they were under the control of the United States. He further showed that it was a cruel practice to enslave human beings and explained that the results of such business caused war and bloodshed among the Indian tribes. The Mexicans listened with respect and admitted that the traffic would have to cease. It was plainly shown to them that it was a cruel business which could not be tolerated any longer and as it had been an old established practice they were not so much to blame for following the traffic heretofore. Now it was expected that this business would be discontinued. All seemed satisfied and pledged their word they would return home without trading for children. Most of them kept their promise, but one small party under Pedro Leon violated their obligation and were arrested and [p.107] brought before the United States court, with Judge [Zerubabbel] Snow presiding.

The Mexicans were found guilty and fined. The fines were afterwards remitted, and the men were allowed to return to their homes.

Stopping the slave trade embittered some Indians. Some of them attempted to sell their children to the Mormons. Jones related one graphic incident. Arrapine, Walker’s brother, insisted that because the Mormons had stopped the Mexicans from buying these children, the Mormons were obligated to purchase them. Jones wrote, “Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body toward us telling us we had no hearts or we would have saved its life.”

Incidents such as this led the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah on 7 March 1852 to pass an act legalizing Indian slavery. The purpose was to induce Mormons to buy Indian children who otherwise would have been abandoned or killed.⁹ It provided that Indian children under the proper conditions could be legally bound over to suitable guardians for a term of indenture not exceeding twenty years. The master was required to send Indian children between the ages of seven and sixteen years to school for a period of three months each year and was answerable to the probate judge for the treatment of these apprentices. As a result of this act, many Mormon families took small Indian children into their homes to protect them from slavery or from being left destitute. John D. Lee, for example, wrote in his journal about a group of Indians who “brought me two more girls for which I gave them two horses. I named the girls Annette and Elnora.”

Negro slavery was also permitted in the territory, but the pioneers had passed no similar rules about the treatment of blacks, certainly [p.108] not the requirement that they be schooled. However, blacks were not permitted to be sold to others without their own consent.

Footnote 9 was also very interesting regarding Indian slavery.

9. The Mormons had first confronted the problem of buying Indian children soon after their arrival in the Salt Lake Valley. Children were brought into the pioneers’ fort as early as the winter of 1847-48, and Indians said that they were war captives and would be killed if not purchased. The Mormons bought one of the children. Two more children were brought to the fort under the same threat, and the Mormons bought both of them. Charles Decker bought one of these two, Sally Kanosh, who was later given to Brigham Young and raised in his family. Speaking with church members in the Iron County Mission, Young advised them to buy children and teach them to live a good life. According to the Journal History for 12 May 1851, Young said, “The Lord could not have devised a better plan than to have put the saints where they were to help bring about the redemption of the Lamanites and also make them a white and delightsome people.”

Returning back to Chief Walker, I had not heard of the Walker War before.  It is interesting to learn the details, and how the Federal Government reacted.

Young had continued to work with Walker and the other Ute chiefs and had baptized a number of them. In fact, in June 1851, Young’s scribes recorded that Indian chiefs Walker, Sowette, Arrapine, and Unhwitch were ordained Elders.

Nevertheless, Young was aware that the priesthood was not having much impact on the Indians and knew that Walker and others were upset that Mormons were moving into the valleys along the Wasatch Mountains and were stopping the slave trade. Hearing of these attitudes Young dictated to his scribes on 18 May 1853, “I shall live a long while before I can believe that an Indian is my friend [p.110] when it would be to his advantage to be my enemy.” Young was referring to Walker who in July 1853 led an outbreak known as the Walker War. A trivial altercation in Springville ended in the death of an Indian, and Walker led his band on the warpath, killing twelve white men during the nine-month feud. The number of Indians killed equaled the number of whites slain.

Walker’s action caused fear among the Mormon colonists and an estimated $2 million in losses. The territory accumulated a $70,000 deficit, personal losses accounting for the rest. None of the personal losses were compensated, but the U.S. congress appropriated $53,512 for territorial losses. By the end of October 1853, the “war” was over except for a few minor incidents in the southern part of the territory. Formal peace was signed the following May at Chicken Creek (south of present-day Nephi) between Young and Walker, who died less than a year later and was buried at Meadow Creek.

During the Walker War, another incident occurred in the territory which complicated matters for the Indians, the federal government and the Mormons. On 26 October 1853, U.S. Army captain John W. Gunnison and seven men under his employ were killed near the Sevier River while surveying a railroad route. Army colonel Edward Steptoe was sent to investigate the murders and reported that a member, or members, of an immigrant train en route to California had killed the father of a prominent chief and wounded two other Indians. The Indians retaliated by taking revenge on the first whites they encountered, the innocent Gunnison party. This atrocity was committed by the Piutes of Chief Kanosh’s tribe. Kanosh, one of the most friendly of Indians, had been baptized into the Mormon church and ordained an Elder.

Eventually, Kanosh was told to turn over the killers. He agreed but only turned over old and decrepit members of the tribe, hardly the attackers. An unusual trial was held in which a good deal of antagonism surfaced between the Mormons and Colonel Steptoe and his army officials. Three Indians were convicted and sentenced to prison. Steptoe, disgusted with the experience, later turned down the invitation to be governor of the territory, leading his troops instead to Oregon.

While many people discuss church history dealing with Joseph Smith, I found these 2 chapters particularly interesting.  I feel like the Mormons made a valiant effort to try to work with the Indians–in fact I would venture to say they tried harder to have good relations than other groups of Americans or European explorers.  Yet there was such a cultural difference, that it just didn’t seem to work out very well.  I have very mixed feelings about these chapters.  What are your thoughts, especially regarding Indian slavery, and the Mormon offer to marry Indian women?  What do you think of Brigham Young’s dealings with the Indians?

I just finished a book called Sidney Rigdon:  Portrait of Religious Excess, by Richard Van Wagoner.  Chapter 11 is called Book of Mormon Authorship, and deals directly with the issue of whether Sidney Rigdon is the true author of the Book of Mormon, rather than Joseph Smith.  In my previous post about Unconventional Book of Mormon Geography Theories, Doug G made a comment claiming that the Book of Mormon is related to the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript, so I want to address this theory.

Lest anyone think my quotes are from apologetic sources, let me discuss them.  My quotes are going to come from two books: (1) the Sidney Rigdon book (which I’ll abbreviate SR) and (2) No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie (which I’ll abbreviate NM).  While Fawn Brodie was excommunicated for her book (thus increasing her stature in the eyes of skeptics), few people know much about Van Wagoner.  Van Wagoner’s book has received many awards, but has been criticized by FARMS for being “fundamentally, not simply tangentially, defective.”  Any book criticized by FARMS often gives skeptics (like Doug G) reason to like the book.  Neither book is not apologetic in nature.  Both books greatly discount the Spalding Manuscript theory.  Here is a short bio of the author, Richard Van Wagoner, found at the publisher’s website.

“Richard S. Van Wagoner, M.S., Brigham Young University, is a clinical audiologist and Lehi city historian. He is the author of Lehi: Portraits of a Utah Town, Mormon Polygamy: A History, and Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess; and the co-author of A Book of Mormons. He has been published in Brigham Young University Studies, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Sunstone, Utah Historical Quarterly, and Utah Holiday, and has won awards from the Dialogue Foundation, John Whitmer Historical Association, and the Mormon History Association. He is a contributor to The Prophet Puzzle: Interpretive Essays on Joseph Smith.”

What is the Spaulding Manuscript?

Solomon Spaulding was born in 1761 in Connecticut, and graduated from Dartmouth College (NH) in 1785.  He was a minister for the Congregational Church in New York, and later became a Presbyterian.  In 1809, he moved to Ohio and wrote a historical novel, narrated by a Roman sailor named Fabius who was shipwrecked in ancient America.  The book was never published, and he died in 1816.  After several changes of ownership (including the RLDS church), the manuscript has been donated to Oberlin College in Ohio, where it currently resides.  You may view the manuscript here.

What is the theory?

What is quite interesting to me is that this theory dates back to literally 1831, and Rigdon has always denied the theory.  According to NM page 68,

The theory ran as follows:  The Book of Mormon was a plagiarism of an old manuscript by one Solomon Spaulding, which Sidney Rigdon somehow secured from a printing house in Pittsburgh.  After adding much religious matter to the story, Rigdon determined to publish it as a newly discovered history of the American Indian.  Hearing of a young necromancer Joseph smith, three hundred miles away in New York State, he visited him secretly and persuaded him to enact a fraudulent representation of its discovery.  Then nine months after the book’s publication Smith’s missionaries went to Ohio and the pastor pretended to be converted to the new church.

…

Through the years the “Spaulding theory” collected supporting affidavits as a ship does barnacles, until it became so laden with evidence that the casual reader was overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the accumulation.  The theory requires a careful analysis because it has been so widely accepted.  The documentary evidence on both sides is so burdensome, however, that I have relegated it to an appendix.

Similarities

There are some interesting similarities between the two books, which I will highlight below.  Footnote 22 on SR page 140 says,

Spaulding’s fictitious narrative described in a shipload of Romans in the days of Constantine who were blown off course during a voyage to the British Isles.  They safely reached the east coast of North America, after which one of them, Fabius, began writing a history of their activities.

Spaulding’s introduction is nearly identical to the Joseph Smith story.  While out for a mid-day stroll, wrote Spalding, he “hap[pen]ed to tread on a flat Stone” with a badly worn inscription.  “With the assistance of a leaver I raised the Stone…[and found] that it was designed as a cover to an artificial cave.”  Descending to the bottom, he discovered “a big flat Stone fixed in the form of a do[o]r.”  Moving the obstacle he saw an earthen box within which were “eight sheets of parchment”  Written on the pages “in an elegant hand with Roman Letters & in the Latin Language” was “a history of the author[']s life & that part of America which extends along the great Lakes & the waters of the Mississippy.”

If Spalding’s and Smith’s recounting have a common antecedent, it seems to be the Masonic “Legend of Enoch.”  In this saga, Enoch, the seventh patriarch, the son of Jared, and great-grandfather of Noah, according to Masonic tradition, became disgusted with wickedness surrounding him.  Fleeing to the “solitude and secrecy of Mount Moriah” he became engaged in prayer and contemplation.  Here the Shekinah (sacred presence) appeared to him with instruction to preserve the wisdom of the antediluvians to their posterity….”

NM page 449 addresses other obvious similarities.  (I have changed the formatting to highlight the similarities, but the following is an exact quote from the NM book.)

There were certain similarities between the book of Mormon which, though not sufficient to justify the thesis of common authorship, might have given rise to the conviction of Spaulding’s neighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other.

• Both were said to come out of the earth;
• Both were stories of colonists sailing from the Old World to the New;
• Both explained the earthworks and mounds common to western New York and Ohio as a result of savage wars.
• John Miller had spoken of the “humorous passages” in Spaulding’s work, which would certainly apply to the “Manuscript Story,” but not the utterly humorless Book of Mormon.
• Other features, like the scriptural style,
  
• the expression “it came to pass,”
• and the proper names, seem too definite to be questioned.

But it should be remembers, as President Fairchild pointed out in his analysis of the problem, that “the Book of Mormon was fresh in their minds, and their recollections of the ‘Manuscript Found’ were very remote and dim.  That under the pressure of suggestion of Hurlbut and Howe, they should put the ideas at hand in place of those remote and forgotten, and imagine that they remembered what they had recently read, would be only ordinary example of the frailty of memory.”

How did the theory come about?

During 1830 and 1831, Mormon missionary work in Ohio flourished, including converts Sidney Rigdon, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, and Parley P Pratt (who were members of Rigdon’s Baptist congregation.)  When Sidney announced his conversion during his Baptist services and some 100 members of his congregation soon joined, there was much consternation among the members of his congregation who felt Sidney was badly deceived.  According to SR page 132,

Mormonism’s success in Ohio, particularly among Sidney’s Reformed Baptists, spelled conspiracy in some peoples eyes.  While eleven of Smith’s friends and relatives signed affidavits that they had examined the gold plates and seen the angel who delivered them to the prophet, many did not accept this supernatural explanation.  To cynics it seemed improbable that a semi-literate farm boy could author a literary work so intricate in plot and steeped in biblical lore as the Book of Mormon.

The logical explanation for the holy book was that Smith must have collaborated behind the scenes with someone better educated and more sophisticated.  A former school teacher, Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s major copyist during the project, was considerably better schooled than his prophet-cousin.  Cowdery was touted in the press as co-author of the Book of Mormon in the 25 November 1830 Cleveland Herald.  But as soon as Sidney made his late 1830 trip to New York to meet Smith, rumors surfaced that he, not Cowdery, was the mastermind behind the new scripture.

The earliest New York publication linking Rigdon with Book of Mormon authorship was the 1 September 1831 issue of the New York Courier and Enquirer, reprinted in the 29 October 1831 Hillsborough Gazette (Ohio)….’There is no doubt but the ex-parson from Ohio {Rigdon} is the author of the book which was recently printed and published in Palmyra, and passes for the new Bible.’

SR Page 134 talks about a Methodist minister from Jamestown, NY who had converted to Mormonism.  His name was Doctor Philastus Hurlburt (and there are many alternate spellings of his name.)  Hurlburt was sent on a mission to Pennsylvania, but was excommunicated for an obscene comment to a young woman.  Stung by what he viewed as mistreatment, he sought revenge.  Hurlburt learned that Solomon Spaulding had authored

a romantic historical fiction that like the Book of Mormon contained an account of an early immigration to America.  Hurlburt returned to Kirtland and announced a lecture on what he called “Anti-Mormonism.”  To this group he recounted his travels to Pennsylvania where “he had learned that one Mr. Spaulding had written a romance, and the probability was, that it had, by some means, fallen into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, and that he had converted it into the Book of Mormon.

With financing of Rigdon’s old Baptist friends, Hurlburt learned that Spaulding’s widow lived in Monson, Massachusetts.  On Dec 20, 1831, the Wayne Sentinel published,

“The original manuscript of the Book was written some thirty years since, by a respectable clergyman, now deceased, whose name we are not permitted to give.  It was designed to be published as a romance, but the work has been superadded by some modern hand-believed to be the notorious Rigdon.  These particulars have been derived by Dr. Hurlburt from the widow of the author of the original manuscript.”

Evidence that the Spaulding Manuscript is not the Source of the Book of Mormon

Spaulding’s widow, Matilda Davison, gave the manuscript to Hurlburt.  NM page 144,

Now to his bitter chagrin he found that the long chase had been vain; for while the romance did concern the ancestors of the Indians, its resemblance to the Book of Mormon ended there.  None of the names found in one could be identified in the other;  the many battles which each described showed not the slightest similarity with those of the other, and Spaulding’s prose style, which aped the eighteenth-century British sentimental novelists, differed from the style of the Mormon Bible as much as Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded different from the New Testament.

(The manuscript Hurlburt found was published by the Reorganized Church in Lamoni, Iowa in 1885 under the title The Manuscript Found).  Continuing on,

Hurlburt knew, however, that he had a keg of powder even without the manuscript.  He boldly exhibited his affidavits in Kirtland, lectured in the surrounding towns, and arranged to publish the documents in book form with the assistance of Eber D. Howe.  The lectures caused a furor.

The appendix in NM page 447 gives additional insight into the manuscript.

She [Spaulding's widow] gave permission to examine the Spaulding’s papers in the attic of a farmhouse in Otsego County, New York; but he found there only one manuscript, which was clearly not the source for the Book of Mormon.  This was a romance supposedly translated from twenty-one rolls of parchment covered with Latin, found in a cave on the banks of the Conneaut Creek.  It was written in modern English and was about 45,000 words long, one sixth the length of the Book of Mormon.  It was an adventure story of some Romans sailing to Britain long before the Christian era, who had been blown to America during a violent storm.

Hurlburt’s  Downfall/ED Howe takes over Issue

Hurlburt at some point confronted Smith.  SR Page 136,

Smith and Rigdon were quick to defend the Mormon cause.  And at some point in the passion of a heated exchange, Hurlburt publicly threatened that he would “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.

On Nov 28, 1834, The Painesville Telegraph contained the first advertisement of Howe’s book Mormonism Unvailed. It was one of the first published books attributing Rigdon as the real author of the Book of Mormon.   SR page 136,

While Howe admitted he had Spalding’s manuscript, it was obvious that the former minister’s work, a secular text, was not the source for the Book of Mormon, a lofty religious tome, although the introduction, ethnological assumptions, and mystical lore were undeniably similar.  To explain the enigmatic gaps in genre and plot, Howe wrote that his witnesses claimed Spalding had “altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient.”

Howe further purported that through some unspecified means, Rigdon must have secured this hypothetical second, revised manuscript while he was living in Pittsburgh.  He concluded: “We, therefore, must hold out Sidney Rigdon to the world as being the original ‘author and proprietor’ of the whole Mormon conspiracy, until further light is elicited upon the lost writings of Solomon Spaulding.”

Other Manuscripts?

NM page 447-8 discusses the possibility of other manuscripts, and discounts them.

She [Spaulding's widow] told him that “Spaulding had a great variety of manuscripts” and recollected that one was entitled the “Manuscript Found,” but its contents she “had no distinct knowledge.”  During the two years she had lived in Pittsburgh, Spaulding had taken the manuscript to the office of Patterson and Lambdin, she said, but whether or not it had been returned was uncertain.

She gave Hurlbut permission to examine Spaulding’s papers in the attic of a farmhouse in Otswego, New York; but he found there only one manuscript, which was clearly not the source of the Book of Mormon.

….

Hurlbut showed this manuscript to Spaulding’s neighbors, who, he said, recognized it as Spaulding’s, but stated that it was not the “Manuscript Found.”  Spaulding “had altered his first plan of writing, but going farther back with dates and writing in the Old Scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient.”  This surmise may have been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it.  But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize.

…

It is significant that five of Hurlbut’s witnesses were careful to except the “religious” matter of the Book of Mormon as not contained in the Spaulding manuscript, and the others stated that “the historical parts” were derived from the Spaulding story.  The narrative Hurlbut found had no religious matter whatever, but the Book of Mormon was permeated with religious ideas.  It was first and foremost a religious book.  The theology could not have been wrought by interpolation, since practically every historical event was motivated either by Satan or the Lord.

NM Page449,

Hurlbut, at least, was certain that Spaulding had written a second manuscript.  Eber D. Howe, Hurlbut’s collaborator, now wrote to Robert Patterson, the Pittsburgh printer mentioned by Spaulding’s widow.  He replied “that he had no recollection of any manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time.”

…

Disappointed in this source, and unable to get any confirming evidence from Joseph’s neighbors in western New York, Hurlbut had to be content with insinuating that Sidney Rigdon, who had once lived in Pittsburgh, was somehow responsible for getting the Spaulding manuscript into Joseph Smith’s hands.

…

If, on the other hand, Hurlbut was right and there were actually two Spaulding manuscripts, one might reasonably expect similarities between the Book of Mormon and the extant manuscripts, since the latter was full of unmistakable literary mannerisms of the kind that are more easily acquired than shed.  Spaulding was heir to all the florid sentiment and grandiose rhetoric of the English Gothic romance.  He used all the stereotyped patterns-villainy versus innocent maidenhood, thwarted love, and heroic valor-thickly encrusted with the tradition of the noble savage.  The Book of Mormon had but one scant reference to a love affair, and its rhythmical, monotonous style bore no resemblance to the cheap clichés and purple metaphors abounding in the Spaulding story.

Where was Rigdon between 1809 and 1830?

NM Page 449-51

Many writers, however, still believed that a second Spaulding manuscript was the true source of the Book of Mormon, and labored indefatigably to prove it.

…

If the evidence pointing to the existence of a second Spaulding manuscript is dubious, the affidavits trying to prove that Rigdon stole it, or copied it, are all unconvincing and frequently preposterous.

First there is no evidence that Rigdon ever lived in Pittsburgh until 1822, when he became pastor of the First Baptist Church.  Robert Patterson, Jr., son of the Pittsburgh printer, conducted an exhaustive research among the old settlers of the vicinity to try to establish the truth of the Spaulding theory.  This was in 1882, sixty-six years after Spaulding’s death.  Many were familiar with the theory and believed it, he said, but few could give first-hand information.  Rigdon’s brother-in-law, not a Mormon, and Isaac King, and old neighbor, swore to him that Rigdon did not go to Pittsburgh before 1822.  Mrs. Lambdin, widow of Patterson’s partner, denied any knowledge of Rigdon, as did Robert P. DuBois, who had worked in the printing shop between 1818 and 1820.

One woman, who had worked as a mail clerk in Patterson’s office between 1811 and 1816, stated that she knew Rigdon and that he was an intimate friend of Lambdin’s but this was clearly untrue as evidenced by the statement of Lambdin’s widow that she had never heard of Rigdon….

Brodie rejects other affidavits from this point on.  NM Page 453,

The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830.

….

Rigdon’s life between 1826 and 1829 has been carefully documented from non-Mormon sources.  It is clear from the following chronology that he was a busy and successful preacher and one of the leading figures of the Campbellite movement in Ohio.  Until August 1830, when he broke with Alexander Campbell over the question of introducing communism into the Campbellite Church, he was one of the four key men of that church.  It cannot be held that Rigdon rewrote the Spaulding manuscript before 1827, since the anti-Masonry permeating the book clearly stemmed from the Morgan excitement beginning late in 1826.

Brodie then lists all the known funerals, marriages, and other meetings of Rigdon between 1826 and 1830, along with gaps of information where his whereabouts are unknown.  It fails to show a link between Smith and Rigdon prior to Dec 1830.

Rigdon’s Side of the Story

Sidney Rigdon was born in 1793 near St. Clair Township, Pennsylvania.  He was the son of a farmer, who did not want Sidney to become a preacher.  However, Sidney eventually made the acquaintance of Alexander Campbell, leader of the Campbellite movement, a subset of the Reformed Baptist Movement.  (Campbell’s group later became the Disciples of Christ.)  Rigdon eventually established a congregation in Ohio.  He was known as a great orator, and held many religious debates with ministers in the surrounding area.  SR Page 55,

Publication of the “Golden Bible”, as people were calling it, had been recounted in several Western Reserve and New York newspapers as early as 1827, when Joseph Smith began working on the book.  There can be little doubt that Rigdon, an enthusiastic reader of newspapers, was aware of the book before it was placed in his hands.  Orson Hyde, a ministerial apprentice who lived for some time in Rigdon’s Mentor, Ohio home and who would later be associated with him in Mormonism, wrote that about 1827 “some vague reports came in the newspapers, that a ‘golden bible’ had been dug out of a rock in the State of New York.  It was treated, however, as a hoax.  But on reading the report, I remarked as follows-’who knows but this gold bible may break up all our religion, and change its features and bearing?’”

Parley P Pratt learned of the Book of Mormon on a boat stop on the Erie Canal.  His conversion on Sept 1, 1830 is well-documented in the movie, How Rare a Possession, put out by the church.  Pratt was hopeful that Rigdon would receive that message, and arrived with Oliver Cowdery.  SR Page 58,

Rigdon at first spurned them and “felt very much prejudiced at their assertions.”  “He had one Bible,” he said, “which he believed was a revelation from God and with which he pretended to have some acquaintance; but with respect to the book they had presented him, he must say that he had considerable doubt.”  (Times and Seasons, 15 Aug 1843)

“You brought truth to me,” Pratt responded, “I now ask you as a friend to read this for my sake” (Deseret News 21 Apr 1879). Waving aside further argument, Rigdon replied, “No, young gentlemen, you must not argue with me on the subject; but I will read your book, and see what claim it has upon my faith, and will endeavor to ascertain whether it be a revelation from God or not.”  (Times and Seasons, 15 Aug 1843)

His first reaction that night was unfavorable.  Matthew Clapp, who replaced Rigdon as minister of the Mentor Disciple congregation, wrote in 1831 that when Rigdon first read the book he “partly condemned it-but two days afterwards, was heard to confess his conviction of its truth.”  (Western Reserve Chronicle 3 Mar 1831).  Rigdon’s daughter Nancy, in an 1884 interview, recalled that when Pratt and Cowdery gave her father the book, he “read it and examined it for about an hour and then threw it down, and said he did not believe a word of it.”  Another reported that he initially pronounced it a “silly fabrication.”  But he kept reading, apparently all night.

The next day, Rigdon had changed his mind about the book.  He allowed Pratt and Cowdery to preach to his congregation.  Afterwards, Rigdon promised to finish reading the book.  As Rigdon talked with Cowdery regarding Joseph Smith, Cowdery remarked that Smith had “hardly a common school education,” to which Rigdon replied, “if that was all the education he had, he never wrote the book.”  SR Page 62,

One day in early to mid-November 1830 (probably the 7^th) Rigdon called to assembly a large congregation of his friends and neighbors in the Methodist church at Kirtland…

Rigdon was baptized by Oliver Cowdery, and 30 other people joined with him. SR Page 63,

While Rigdon’s Kirtland following joined the Mormon fold, his Mentor congregation resisted.  They were furious at his defection.

As a result of his conversion, the congregation evicted him from the partially completed home owned by the congregation.  SR Page 71,

Although he had found in Mormonism a religion to match his manner, Sidney had not yet met the Mormon Prophet.  Possibly to satisfy some remaining doubts, particularly  those of his wife, who “wished him to go to Palmyra to see Joseph Smith,” he went to Manchester, New York, along with Edward Partridge, a Painesville hatter and one of Rigdon’s Reformed Baptist followers.

When Rigdon and Partridge arrived at the Smith home in mid-December, the prophet was not there but was visiting his parents in Waterloo…When they arrived in Kingdon that evening, the prophet was conducting a religious service.  Partridge, after listening to him, requested immediate baptism.  Joseph Smith recommended the immersion be delayed until the fatigued Partridge had rested, and the next day, 11 December, Smith baptized him in nearby Seneca Lake.”

Rigdon and others’ denials

SR Page 133,

(1) During the spring of 1833 or 1834, while visiting the home of Samuel Baker near New Portage, Ohio, Rigdon stated in the presence of a large gathering that he was aware some in the neighborhood had accused him of being the instigator of the Book of Mormon.  Standing in the doorway to address the audience in the yard, he held up a Book of Mormon and said:

‘I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angels up yonder, (pointing toward heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgement day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon.  I never penned a sentence in the Book of Mormon. I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.’

(2) On his deathbed with an interview to his son Wickliffe, “I found him as ever in declaring that he himself had nothing whatever to do in writing the book, and that Joseph Smith received it from an angel.  On his dying bed he made the same declaration to a Methodist minister…. My mother has also told me that Father had nothing to do with the writing of the book, and that she positively knew that he had never seen it until Parley P. Pratt came to our home with it.

(3) Nancy R. Ellis, Rigdon’s most anti-Mormon offspring, recalled in an 1884 interview the arrival of the missionaries to her Mentor, Ohio home when she was eight years old:  “I saw them hand him the book, and I am positive as can be that he never saw it before…. She further stated that her father in the last years of his life called his family together and told them, as sure as there was a God in heaven, he never had anything to do in getting up the book of Mormon, and never saw any such thing as a manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding.”

(4) Former apostle William McClellin (who was excommunicated in 1838) said regarding Rigdon, “He never heard of the work of Smith & Cowdery, until C[owdery] and P[arley] P Pratt brought the book to him in Mentor, O[hio].  True enough, I have but little confidence in S. Rigdon, but I know he was more the tool of J. Smith than his teacher and director.  He was docile in J.S. hands to my knowledge.

Conclusion

SR page 137.

The weight of scholarly studies since Fawn Brodie’s seminal 1945 No Man Knows My History biography of Joseph Smith has all but eliminated the Spalding theory and Rigdon’s complicity.  The earliest Book of Mormon critic, Rigdon’s former mentor Alexander Campbell, opined in 1831 that Joseph Smith profoundly affected by the Salvationist Christianity of nineteenth-century Protestant America, was, in fact, the author of the work.

NM page 455-6

Alexander Campbell, who knew Rigdon intimately, described his conversion to Mormonism with great regret in the Millennial Harbinger, attributing it to his nervous spasms and swooning and to his passionate belief in the imminent gathering of Israel.  But of the authorship of the Book of Mormon he wrote bluntly:  “It is as certainly Smith’s fabrication as Satan is the father of lies or darkness is the offspring of night.”

Andrew Ainsworth did a post on the Curious Case of Solomon Spaulding, which talks more about the legal aspects of proving plagiarism.  Andrew is a lawyer, and I found his perspective interesting.

So, I’m sure there are people out there who believe the Book of Mormon is fiction.  However, I believe the Spaulding Theory has been thoroughly discredited by these two authors.  Comments?

“Together, Rigdon and Smith, in a theological partnership, led a religious revolution that is still on-going in many respects.  Rigdon’s role in the birth of Mormonism was substantial, yet the lion’s share of his contribution has been obscured by official alteration of official church records.”

Sidney Rigdon grew up in the Ohio/Pennsylvania area.  He had a natural interest in religion, and always wanted to preach, despite his father’s opposition, and desire for Sidney to work on the farm.  Sidney eventually associated with the Baptist religion, and became good friends with Alexander Campbell, who served as a mentor to help, and helped Sidney become a pastor.

As pastor, Sidney loved religious debates.  As Joseph Smith mentions in the Pearl of Great Price, this time period was one of great religious excitement.  Sidney was a great orator, and an excellent debator.  Several of the Baptists split from the Reformed Baptist movement, and formed a loosely knit baptist movement.  Campbell’s group went on to become a group known today as the Disciples of Christ.

In 1830, Rigdon had been hearing reports of the gold bible.  One of the former members of his congregation, Parley P. Pratt, came to his house in November of 1830, and introduced him to the Book of Mormon.  At first Rigdon thought poorly of the book, and wasn’t interested.  But Parley persisted, and Rigdon eventually read the BoM and became converted.

Rigdon then introduced the Book of Mormon to his congregation, which created a great controversy.  About 100 of his congregation chose to join Sidney in the LDS church.  But the rest were very disappointed in Rigdon, and couldn’t believe he would be decieved by Joseph Smith.  Of course, this created quit some friction between Rigdon and Campbell.  Campbell too read the Book of Mormon, and was one of the first to put out an attack on the book’s credibility.  He challenged Rigdon to several debates about the Book of Mormon.

A few of the things that attracted Rigdon to the BoM, was the prohibition on infant baptism, the idea of a restored church, and that God speaks through prophets.  These were things that Rigdon already believed, and some of the things he was troubled about with the Baptist religion. This new religion help many of Rigdon’s beliefs and seemed like a natural fit.

Rigdon was baptized without ever meeting the prophet Joseph Smith.  A few months later, they met, and instantly became friends.  Rigdon was known for his oratorical skills, and many felt that he was a more effective preacher, than even the Prophet Joseph.  He was also trained in the Bible, unlike Smith.  Rigdon was soon added to the First Presidency, and eventually held the title of Assistant President of the Church.

Sidney’s conversations with Joseph led to many of the revelations on the Law of Consecration, as well as the 3 Degrees of Glory.  Sidney also assisted Joseph with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible during this early time period of the early church.  As I stated in my previous post on Sidney, it was not uncommon for religious leaders to make new versions of the Bible.  Of course, Joseph’s version was different in that it didn’t refer to ancient Hebrew or Greek manuscripts, but rather is based on revelation.

Sidney had previously been exposed to some communities that tried to live with all things in common.  This seems to be the impetus for much of the D&C revelations dealing with the subject of Consecration.  However, many of the non-mormons viewed this Law of Consecration as a ploy to steal their land, and became irate with this idea.  They viewed Joseph and Sidney as more of religious swindlers, trying to set up a scheme to get rich and take over the area.  On page 115 of the book,

Symonds Ryder, probable ringleader of Campbellite mischief, clarified that Rigdon and Smith were not assaulted because of their beliefs.  “The people of Hiram were liberal about religion, and had not been averse to Mormon teaching,” he said afterwards.  What infuriated the evildoers were some official documents they found, possibly a copy of the revelation outlining the “Law of Consecration and Stewardship,” which instructed new converts about “the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith.” [Symonds Rider letter to A.S. Hayden, 1 Feb 1868]

Most Mormons are familiar with the story of Joseph Smith being tarred and feathered in Ohio, and then getting up the next morning after cleaning himself the best he could, and preaching a sermon.  Joseph obviously had been beaten badly.

But less well known is that Sidney had been dragged out of his house by the ankles, with his head rattling on the wood floor, as well as the frozen ground.  Sidney was beaten unconscious, tarred and feathered.  The mob then went to Joseph’s house, dragged him to the same spot as Sidney.  When Joseph first saw Sidney, he thought Sidney was dead, and feared the same would happen to him.  Sidney was beaten so severely, that he was in bed for weeks.  Many historians believe these head injuries may have contributed to some of Rigdon’s future erratic behavior.  The author states that the men could have easily killed both men if they wanted, but rather it seems they wanted to send a message of intimidation.  If they wanted to kill Smith and Rigdon, they would have brought weapons, not tar and feathers.  It seems they really just wanted to scare them out of town.  It worked–Smith and Rigdon soon left Hiram, Ohio for Kirtland.  Of course, nobody was ever tried for the crime.

I’ll stop here and ask for comments or questions.  I’ll continue to add information in the coming days.

In 410 AD, the Roman Empire stretched from Africa to Britain. Christianity was the official faith of the Empire. At this time, the empire started to fail, and barbarians descended on Rome. Troops were recalled to protect the city, leaving outlying areas unprotected. Fifth century Ireland was untouched by Rome and Christianity. These Norsemen descended on Britain, capturing a boy 16 year old boy named Succat, later to be known as Patrick. He entered Ireland as a slave, where he was a shepherd. He was a slave for 6 years, before God told him in a dream to run away. Quoting from the DVD,

“Escaping across the Irish sea, the now devout youth was reunited with his overjoyed parents. But Patrick seemed changed, restless, unable to settle down. One night in a dream he has a vision of the Irish people. They asked him, with one voice, to return to them and to bring them the word of God. Thus Patrick’s journey to sainthood begins.

Patrick studies for 12 years to prepare himself, and in 432, he is sent to Ireland as a missionary bishop. This is his long-awaited opportunity to spread the Gospel among the Irish. Patrick is not blinded to the risk of challenging the gods of the war-like Irish, yet he defies the Druid priest by lighting the forbidden fire high on the hill Swain to celebrate Easter.

Despite these obstacles to converting the Irish, Patrick succeeds where others might have failed, perhaps because he teaches the Irish a Christianity that harmonizes easily with their indigenous religion.

Terence Murphy, professor of history at American University says, “The groundwork was laid by the Celtic religion of Druidism, which had an emphasis on the sacred number 3. The Irish were already used to gods who had 3 persons. There was an emphasis on immortality, the immortality of the soul, and an emphasis on resurrection in the afterlife in the Druidic religion.

Patrick also presents to the Irish a benevolent, rather than a punishing God, a god who created the world for human beings to enjoy. These beliefs are expressed in an ancient prayer, attributed to him.

…

Legends about St. Patrick abound. It is said that he used the shamrock to explain the trinity, that he drove the snakes from Ireland. By the time of Patrick’s death in 461, Ireland is overwhelmingly Christian. With Patrick now gone, what emerges from the Irish landscape, is a new society, a society of monks. They are the spiritual heirs of Patrick. Neither they, nor Patrick could know that they would preserve the best of classical civilization, not only for Ireland, but for all of Europe. Within a decade of Patrick’s mission, there are hundreds of monasteries all over the countryside.

In contrast to the European continent, where the bishops of large cities hold authority, in Ireland, it is the abbots of monasteries who preside over religious life. The role of the abbot is not the only unique aspect of Celtic Christianity. Irish priests hear private confessions, while a Roman Christians must confess their sins before the entire congregation. The Celtic Church also refuses to legislate private moral and social behavior. One of the ways the faith of the Irish takes flight is reflected in the roles of women. Bridget of Kildare is a powerful leader of the Irish Christian church.

Terence Murphy relates that ‘In Ireland, there are female saints, like Bridget. Bridget stands out because she is the female equivalent for Ireland of Patrick. She is regarded in a special way. One of her names in the Middle Ages was ‘Mary of the Gael,’ In other words, the virgin Mary equivalent of the Irish people.’

This Mary of Ireland would found, build, and supervise, an immense monastery, housing both nuns and monks. And now something amazing begins to transpire in the great monastic centers of Ireland. A society that before Patrick, had relied solely on an oral tradition, now becomes literate under the guidance of Christian missionaries. In a matter of a generation, Irish monks not only read and write, but had become the world’s finest scholars in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.

Terence Murphy relates that ‘The Irish monks had an ethos of study, as a way of worshipping God: work, and prayer, and study. Their work was largely copying down manuscripts, preserving learning, as well as augmenting learning. So at the center of every Irish monastic institution, there would be a Scriptorium, a place of writing and a library, a place for studying.

The flowering of Irish learning comes not a moment too soon. In the chaos of the barbarian invasions, all the great libraries of Western Europe are destroyed. Yet, while the ancient classical civilizations are crumbling, Irish monks are devoting themselves to copying and preserving the literature of the vanishing culture.

Paul L Maier, professor of History, Western Michigan University states, ‘I think it would be safe to say that every book written before the year 1000 AD—that includes all of the Greco-Roman classics, that includes all of Holy Scripture, Old and New Testaments, that includes all the theological works, from the Jewish side, that includes Josephus, from Augustin or anyone else, we would not have these books today, if it had not been for the manuscript recopying in these monasteries.’

And so it is in western history and culture, are preserved intact by the hand of a few Irish monks as the monks on this wind-swept island toil away at their illuminating manuscripts. Western Europe enters the period that would come to be known as the Dark Ages, ushered in by the barbarian invasions and the fall of Rome.

It seems that Mormons often look down on other religions when we refer to the Apostasy.  I can remember attending a Lutheran Bible Study class years ago.  When I spoke to the Lutheran priest, he said that Mormons act like nothing happened between 100 AD and 1830.  He found that Mormons were completely unaware of most history, and I must say I still agree with him.  I have endeavored to learn more.

Without St Patrick, and the conversion of Ireland, Christianity would have lost some priceless treasures that all Christians enjoy.  I think St Patrick’s missionary stories should be better known, and lauded by all Christians.  I think his life is an example of Christian service, and forgiveness, that we all should emulate.