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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meri and Kody on their wedding day

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

early photo of Janelle and Kody

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

Kody and Robyn at their wedding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kody and his wives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church Handbook of Instructions from 1998 also confirms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think MHA saved the best presentations for last, as it had some real heavyweights on the subject of polygamy.  Don Bradley gave a presentation titled “Angel with a Drawn Sword: Kirtland Roots of Nauvoo Polygamy.”  Some speakers can be very dry, but Bradley is probably the most entertaining speaker at MHA.  He always brings a lot of wit to his wonderful presentations.  I think I will probably attend any of his presentations because he always brings humor as well as cutting-edge research to his presentations.  Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner was one of Joseph Smith’s wives, and Bradley discussed her account that Joseph told her that an angel with a drawn sword had commanded him to participate in polygamy.  Lightner gave 3 accounts of this experience.  It was really fascinating.

The presentation by Brian Hales was titled “Two Mormon Enigmas:  Emma Hales Smith and Polygamy, An Update.”  Since I had just blogged about 2 other Mormon Enigmas, I knew I couldn’t miss this presentation.  Hales has documented many of the wives of Joseph Smith along a timeline.  (More info is found at his website.)  Hales made the case that Joseph Smith had been commanded quite early to participate in polygamy, but delayed.  Because of this delay, many women had married other men.  He makes the case that if Joseph had not delayed, “polyandry” would not have occurred.  I found Hales presentation really interesting, and definitely will check out his website more.

Larry Foster gave a presentation titled, “The Albatross:  The Complex and Changing Challenges that Polygamy Posed to Mormon Institutional Development during the Nineteenth Century.”  He outlined how difficult polygamy was to maintain for all the churches that practiced polygamy.  One thing I found interesting was the fact that John C. Bennett has been much maligned.  Foster argues that while Bennett did exaggerate many of the reports of polygamy, he was not completely unreliable.  We need to accept the arguments of Bennett that are valid in spite of the character flaws that he had.

Finally, Todd Compton gave a comment on the papers.  Compton noted that all of the papers were very long, and the presenters did not have time to adequately address them in the 20 minutes they were allotted.  Compton said he was glad to see a conservative/moderate like Brian Hales address these issues, though Compton disputed Hales conclusions.

While the presentations were all outstanding, The Q&A session was the best part.  Larry Foster started off by insisting that “polyandry” is the wrong term to use, and he wishes that we would use another term.  He said that Fawn Brodie had popularized the term, but felt it conveyed the wrong meaning.  He said that if we used the term “adultery” to describe polygamy, Mormons would take great offense.  He said that polyandry conveys a matriarchal leadership, yet polyandry was patriarchal.  Therefore polyandry is the wrong term to use.  I will probably write up the Q&A on Larry’s comments because I thought it was a very good point.  As I recall, Larry preferred to use the term “proxy husband” rather than polyandry.

This morning, I attended the devotional at the St George Tabernacle.  Current president of Southern Utah University in Cedar City, Michael Benson spoke on the sacrifice that the early saints made in establishing colleges in the pioneer days.  I was surprised to learn that Benson is a historian; it was a good presentation.  Former Dixie State College president Douglas Alder is also a historian, and he discussed how we can study “The New Mormon History: By Study and By Faith.”  He said it is critical to continue to use faith as we use our intellect to study history.  It was also a great talk.  I really enjoyed the organ solo by Geoffrey Myers (Come, Come Ye Saints–it is one of my all-time favorite hymns).

Following the devotional, it was fun to mingle with everyone, especially Darius Gray and Margaret Young.  I was also quite surprised to run into my Elders quorum president from my college days–it was good to see him again.  I can’t wait to go next year, but since it is in Calgary, I am not sure I will be able to go.  The John Whitmer Association meetings are in Nauvoo this year in September, and I may try to go to those meetings.  Newell Bringhurst told me that he will be speaking at FAIR and Sunstone in August–I may try to attend one of both of those as well.  These meetings are a real treat!

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.

Jeffs, “To Nephi, You can tell anybody who wants to read this message [garbled] that they can see it even apostates and gentiles that they may know that I have been a liar and the truth is not in me.  I am not the prophet.  I never was the prophet.”

Visitor interrupts:  ”You are the prophet.”

Jeffs, “Just a minute–the Lord is still dictating.  This is not a test.  This is a revelation from the Lord God of Heaven to his former servant who was never his servant who is dictating these words at this time that you may know this is not a test.  I say farewell again, to all who qualify for Zion.  Farewell.”

Visitor, ” We love you.  We love you!  We love you!”

The video has a graphic that indicates that many FLDS still believe Jeffs is a prophet, and that many FLDS believe the video was doctored.  It also indicates that 3 days after the video was made, Jeffs tried a suicide attempt.  (His lawyers chalked the video up to a bout with depression–the suicide attempt seems to confirm he was depressed.)  In recent newspaper reports, Jeffs seems to have re-asserted his leadership and has called for the excommunication of some members.  See the video yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rj8Qxe9QsWI

What do you make of this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to that sentence, the letter states

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

The footnote states,

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

Continuing with the quote from the letter,

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

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

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

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

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

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

Apparently Mr. Bastow, a friend of Wentworth, wanted to write a history of New Hampshire.  That’s a little odd because Joseph starts out stating he was born in Vermont.  In order for Wentworth to publish the letter, Joseph asks Wentworth to

publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation.

Joseph says

My father was a farmer and taught me in the art of husbandry.

Curious wording–husbandry–don’t you think?  As a polygamist, it seems he was a natural husband.  So one of the cool things about the Kindle is the built in dictionary.  I had a feeling that husbandry had a different definition, so I highlighted the word so the dictionary would pop up.  Here’s what it said:

1 – The care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals:  crop husbandry.

2 – management and conservation of resources.

<ORIGIN> Middle English: from HUSBAND in the obsolete sense ‘farmer’; compare with HUSBANDMAN.

Ok, so that better explains Jesus’ parable in Matthew 21:33-46 about the husbandman–why don’t they just translate that as farmer?

Anyway, back to the letter.  Joseph goes on to explain the Book of Mormon, and rehearses the mob violence in Missouri.  He almost quotes The Standard of Truth, just before giving the Articles of Faith.  So, have any of you actually read the Wentworth Letter before?  What are your impressions?