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?

Robert Rees

Sunstone has had a recurring theme over the past 25 years or so titled Why I Stay.  Robert Rees collected essays from 20 people that have answered this question over the years.  As I thought of the question, I think my answer would mirror Claudia Bushman.  From page 31,

Claudia Bushman

I don’t want to explore why I stay in the Church.  I just don’t like that question.  Of course I have some pretty horrific experiences that would have persuaded many to leave.  I could give a very salty talk about putdowns I have experienced and insults I have borne.  I have been publicly and privately humiliated on several occasions….But I have forgiven those perpetrators.  I cannot say that I have forgiven the slights.  Instead I have adopted the style of various Church leaders I have known.  They may forgive, but they never forget.

Armaund Mauss says on page 39,

Armaund Mauss

I find the question of why I stay with the Church to be peculiar.  No one asks me why I stay with my family or with my nation, both of which are periodically stressful and no less voluntary than my relationship to the church.

There are some fantastic stories in this book.  Greg Prince says that the data is there for him to stay, and he shared some interesting perspectives: sometimes “Revelation Flows Up.”  From page 97,

Greg Prince

Trickle-up revelation is arguably the most important force of revelation shaping the day-to-day church in which we live.  If you doubt that statement, consider the Relief Society, Mutual Improvement, Sunday School, Primary, Welfare, Genealogy (Family History), and Young Adult programs all began as grass-roots initiatives on the part of Church members, and were then embraced by the central Church.  This means that phrases such as “magnifying one’s calling”, “Men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness”, and “be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a good work.  And out of small things proceedeth forth that which is great”, are not platitudes, but a real call to action.  I have been a first-hand witness and participant in the birth of the Young Adult program in Southern California in the mid-1970’s and a first-hand witness of Lester Bush’s landmark on blacks and the priesthood in the mid-1970s.  A Church that not only allows, but expects its members to assist in continual transformation by placing their unique gifts at the altar has my vote.

Speaking of “trickle-up revelation”, I really enjoyed the only non-LDS essay in the book by William Russell, titled “Staying in the Community of Christ.”  From page 119,

William Russell

In 1970, five of us at Graceland [College] began publishing a quarterly journal titled Courage: A Journal of History, Thought, and Action which was consciously modeled after Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. I wrote an editorial in Saints’ Herald when the first issue of Dialogue came out, praising it and especially applauding an article by Francis Lee Menlove called “The Challenge of Honesty.”  In Courage we took positions which seemed radical at the time but later became the positions of the Church.  In 1970 Courage endorsed the ordination of women, a position the Church adopted in 1984.  In 1971 we endorsed open communion, which the Church adopted in 1994.  We criticized our method of succession in the presidency, arguing that our lineal succession was as bad as the LDS tradition wherein the senior apostle becomes prophet.  In the 1996 World Conference, Wallace B. Smith called W. Grant McMurray to lead the Church and thus ended our lineal descent in the office of Church president.

Russell seems to have been quite a radical.  While LDS members may remember that Ezra Taft Benson believed the Civil Rights Movement was a Communist conspiracy, many in the RLDS Church held similar views.  Following editorials in the Kansas City Star and Independence Examiner, (from page 117)

I was picketed for three days at our Herald House editorial offices and our 1966 World Conference.  The signs read, “The commies just love Wm. D. Russell.”  My pastor was equally convinced that I was a Communist…..(page 117)  About that time I learned from a reliable source that President Smith had compared me to the Reverend Martin Luther King, which I thought put me in good company!  But he thought we were Communists.”

Over the years, the Community of Christ has changed, making it more comfortable for Russell.  He finishes the essay with this gem.

“Therefore, I suspect I will remain in the Community of Christ until the undertaker arrives.  At my funeral, please don’t assign me to heaven.  I have no idea whether such a nice fuzzy place exists. I just hope I can muddle through this place without screwing up too much.  I leave the rest in God’s hands.”

Finally, I wanted to share the story of Lavinia Fielding Anderson.  She is a real enigma to me.  She is one of the September Six excommunicated in 1993.  Despite this, she has continued to attend her ward faithfully every week.  She shares a unique perspective of “Why I Stay”.  From pages 84-91,

Lavinia Fielding Anderson

In spite of being excommunicated, there are six reasons why I keep going to ward meetings month after month, year after year.  The first is for my family.  The gospel was everything to my parents…they both served missions…my father served as bishop in two wards…I’m proud of that heritage and one reason I kept going was that I wanted our son Christian to be proud of it….

The second reason I stay connected to the Church is that Paul and I met, courted, married, and have lived as Mormons.  I didn’t want my relationship with the Church to come between us and our marriage.  Our temple sealing and the covenants we made at marriage are significant to us.  Paul wanted a Mormon wife, and I felt that he deserved one, just as I wanted and felt I deserved a Mormon husband…

The third reason I stay is that I love Mormonism.  I was moved by the Book of Mormon and gained a testimony of it before I knew what to think about Joseph Smith.  The Book of Mormon has continued to speak to me as scripture….

Fourth, I love Mormon theology.  I love its emphasis on grace and works.  I love its open canon.  I love the presence of a Mother in Heaven even though we aren’t supposed to talk about her at present…

Fifth, I love the Mormon community….we can count on the Primary kids to sing for special programs with enthusiasm if not tunefulness, and that the bishop will wear a funny tie at least a couple of times a month.

Parts of it aren’t always comfortable. I am not happy with the fact that sacrament speakers, including visiting high counselors, are now asked to base their talks on a general conference talk from the Ensign magazine.  Usually Paul sits on the aisle so he can take the sacrament and then indicate to the deacon to go on so that I don’t have to personally refuse it.  A few weeks ago when I was sitting on the aisle, an elderly high priest made a big deal of stretching way past me to hand the tray of bread to Paul.  Maybe he was just being tactful.  Maybe he thought I’d contaminate the tray if I touched it.  But when he came around with the water, I grabbed it from him, glared, and passed it to Paul, then back to him. Then I got the giggles….

I need to say that the sixth most important reason for me to stay in the Church is that I not only love the Church, but in some ways it loves me back.  I feel loved within the Church—not by the stake president and various officials, particularly, but by my Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother and truly by Jesus.  I can’t help loving them in return.  I want to love them more deeply, in part by keeping the promises I made at baptism and in the temple.  Those promises are important to me.

I have to say that I really loved this book.  I’ve given excerpts from just 5 of the 20 contributors.  I loved Lavinia’s testimony—she is a remarkable woman.  I loved Greg’s “trickle up revelation.”  I loved the personal accounts.  Finally, I want to ask, “Why do you stay?”

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?

We often think that the Bible has a set number of books.  However, this is not true.  The King James Version (that many Protestants and Mormons use) has 39 Old Testament Books, but the Catholic Bible has 46 books, and the Eastern Orthodox Bible has 51 books.  The extra 7 books in the Catholic Bible are:  Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom.  In addition to these books, the Orthodox Bible also contains 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, and Letter of Jeremiah.  A few other books are considered part of the Apocrypha:  Bel and the Dragon, Song of the Three Young Men and Prayer of Azariah, Prayer of Manasseh, Story of Susannah.  The Book of Esther has 6 additional chapters in Greek, not found in the KJV.

Recently, I purchased the New American Bible.  It is the standard Bible for American Catholics.  One of the things that I was surprised to see in the NAB was scholarly information integrated within the Bible.  For example, there is a brief introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis right before the Book of Genesis.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest available versions of many Biblical books (in some cases by 1000 years), and this version of the Bible includes corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I found that pretty cool.

As part of my introduction to “the Apocrypha”, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the book of Judith.  (Here is a post on some other apocryphal books I have discussed previously.)  As I was looking through the table of contents, I was immediately struck by the female name of Judith.  After all, except for Ruth and Esther, I can’t think of any books of scripture with a female name.  So, I decided to pick this one first.

Judith was the widow of a man named Manasseh.  The Assyrians were attacking Israel, and cut off the water supply.  Concerned for her people, Judith dressed up in “her festive garments and all her feminine adornments” (Judith 12:15) , and approached the Assyrians.  She gains the trust of Assyrian General Holofernes, and promises to deliver Israel to them with no loss of life for the Assyrians.  At this point, the story gets really interesting, starting in chapter 13.

2  Judith was left alone in the tent with Holofernes, who lay prostrate on his bed, for he was sodden with wine.  3 She had ordered her maid to stand outside the bedroom and wait, as on the other days, for her to come out; she said she would be going out for her prayer.  To Bagoas she had said this also.

4  When all had departed, and no one, small or great, was left in the bedroom, Judith stood by Holofernes’ bed and said within herself: “O Lord, God of all might, in this hour look graciously on my undertaking for the exaltation of Jerusalem: 5 now is the time for aiding your heritage and for carrying out my design to shatter the enemies who have risen against us.”  6 She went to the bedpost near the head of Holofernes, and taking his sword from it, 7 drew close to the bed, grasped the hair of his head, and said, “Strengthen me this day, O God of Israel!”

8 Then with all her might she struck him twice in the neck and cut off his head.  9 She rolled his body off the bed and took the canopy from its supports.  Soon afterward, she came out and handed over the head of Holofernes to her maid, 10 who put it into her food pouch; and the two went off together as they were accustomed to do for prayer.”

Judith and her maid return to Israel and show them the head of Holofernes.  Encouraged, the Israelites then rout the scared Assyrians.

So why is this story considered apocryphal?  The NAB Bible cautions, “Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail.”  The Jewish Encyclopedia says,

with the very first words of the tale, “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh,” the narrator gives his hearers a solemn wink. They are to understand that this is fiction, not history. It did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply “once upon a time,” the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.

Many believe this book to be historical fiction.  Martin Luther noted that books of questionable authenticity are found only in Greek, not Hebrew.  Jews also do not consider the book canonical.  Catholics consider the book written “by godly men”, but not quite on par with other scriptures.  However, they do consider the book canonical.  What do you think of this story?  Is it nice to have a feminine hero?

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?

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.

This book was published in the fall of 1984.  There sort of a back story to it. Both of the women who wrote the book were faithful, active members.  One has passed away; the other is still alive today.  They both still remain active members of the church.  There was sort of a controversy around the book.  A priesthood circular went all, I think all through Utah telling all priesthood leaders that they were not allowed to have either woman speak about the book in any setting.

At the time, during the 1980′s there was the “Know Your Religion” series, and it was really common to have firesides about people who knew something about something or the other.  They got stopped immediately.  The two women actually requested and were granted a meeting with the top brass; they met with [Dallin] Oaks and [Neal A.] Maxwell [both were apostles].  This would be around the early summer of 1985.

The meeting went back and forth.  What was really confusing to the authors is that they remained members in good standing, although there were rumors going around that they would be excommunicated or whatever, but they were never told anything.  That went out into that sort of secret circular letter and they only knew about it because they had friends who were stake presidents who shared it with them.  When they met with the Brethren, they said ‘what’s going on?’

Oaks said something very informative.  I pulled this out of Dialogue magazine.  ”If Mormon Enigma reveals any information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith then it is necessary to try to”–I can’t read my own writing–to try to, I think “stop it’s influence and that of its authors.”  They basically said, it doesn’t matter if what you are saying is true or not, if you’re going to say something that’s outside the normal line, we don’t want you talking about it.

Of course the authors were blacklisted.  You can read about the blacklisting in Arrington’s book, Adventures of a Church Historian.  He talks about it quite extensively.  The church maintains a blacklist of all the books and authors that are not allowed to be quoted.  This effectively ruined the two women’s careers for speaking or engaging with the active Latter-day Saints, although you can still buy this book through Deseret Book.  It remains sort of an enigma itself, so I guess that’s fitting for the book.

That’s the background of the book.  Zilpha’s wagging something in my face.  What’s this?

Oh yeah, the book won several awards.  In 1984 it won an award from the Mormon History Association for best book.  It also won an award from BYU, which sort of put the church in a bind because they had recognized it as a great book and then they were stopping it at the same time.

This sort of action really bothers me.  As I mentioned in my previous post, I would like to start writing Mormon history articles and/or books.  I’m looking to write good, honest history.  This blacklisting just seems a bit sneaky and dishonest to me.  I don’t think the rumors about these 2 women’s reputation is fair or Christlike.  It’s as if the church is saying in a Jack Nicholson voice, “You can’t handle the truth.”

Why can’t we be honest with our history?  Is it really a good idea to suppress unflattering information?  None of us are perfect.  Joseph and Emma weren’t either.  Is it really good to believe in whitewashed myths about them?  Can’t truth be inspiring as well?

The September Six refer to a group of 6 intellectuals that were disciplined by the church in 1993.

1. Lynne Whitesides*
2. Paul Toscano
3. Maxine Hanks
4. Lavina Anderson
5. Michael Quinn
6. Avraham Gileadi**

*Five of the six were excommunicated with Lynne Whitesides being the exception–she was disfellowshipped.

**Of the six disciplined, only Avraham Gileadi was rebaptized. Lindholm notes in the Introduction,

A conservative biblical scholar, Gileadi consistently refused to speak to the press following his excommunication, and he remains the only member of the September Six to be rebaptized and admitted back into the fold.  In keeping with this precedent, Gileadi did not respond to my interview request for this volume.

Lindholm also interviews 3 others who have been disciplined by the church since 1991:

• Margaret Toscano,
• her sister Janice Merrill Allred, and
• Thomas Murphy.

For balance, Lindholm interviews Donald Jessee, former employee of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department.

I really liked the book.  My only mild criticism was the fact that it is apparent these interviews occurred several years ago, but the book is just coming out now.  For example, the author asked every guest if they believed Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet, rather than Thomas S. Monson.  I asked the publisher why some of the material seemed dated, and he said it took quite some time to get permission from all of the people.  The last interview took place in 2004.

The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications themselves) was learning about the Strengthening the Church Committee (SCMC).  I had never heard of it before.  In describing it, Lynne Whitesides said on page 6,

There is a Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.

Footnote 4 on page 181 further clarifies this.

According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the Strengthening Church Members Committee is a “clipping service” that “pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems.  That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.”  Quoted in “News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,” Sunstone 92 (November 1993): 69.  The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the Strengthening Church Members Committee when it stated, “This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics.  It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.”  Quoted in “News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,” Sunstone 88 (August 1992): 63.  Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.

Here is what Donald Jessee, former employee of LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department said when asked about the committee.  From page 217-220,

Donald:  It ‘s a committee that seeks information that, in time, if the proper action is taken, does just that–it can strengthen Church members through proper discipline.

Philip:  How so?  Many excommunicants have claimed that it collected files on them in preparation for potential disciplinary courts.

Donald:  They do it by caring about members of the Church.  Discipline is designed to help members who have gone astray.  The Church from its beginning has gathered anti-Mormon literature and derogatory or false information about the Church.  If the source of this information comes from Church members of record, then action is taken.  The Church must be aware of its critics and enemies.  Again, Church leaders must keep the Church morally clean and ethically straight.

Philip:  Should academics avoid publishing research if it could be understood as contradicting the Church’s position on a given topic?

Donald:  Members can publish whatever they want.  There’s no censorship.  It depends on the context and the person’s motives in doing what has been done.  If a BYU professor, whose salary is paid with Church funds and who has signed an honor code of conduct to keep university rules, then publicly goes out and violates them, then that person is subject to discipline, but he or she is free to speak about any issue he or she wants to….

Philip:  What about those topics not yet given much attention by Church leaders?  Do members have free reign on those topics?  Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for doing genetic research that the Mormon Church had yet to conduct.  How much freedom is one afforded on such controversial but relatively unaddressed topics?  Mother in Heaven is another example of a controversial topic upon which people have published and been punished for doing so.

Donald:  Well, in the case of Murphy, he says that because of DNA he has proven that the Book of Mormon is not true.  How does he know?  There were other groups of people here in America before Lehi arrived here….How could DNA prove or disprove the truthfulness of a book brought here under the hand of God?…

I do not know anything regarding those who have been disciplined for publishing on the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.  Chances are they presented their ideas in a way that ran counter to true religion and to the Church and its teachings.  Speculation on such matters can lead members astray and destroy faith in God the Father.  Praying to a Mother in Heaven is not a true doctrine, no matter how it is defined or presented.  It undermines faith in the true process of offering prayers, which is to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Christ.

Members can believe anything they want.  Church members may believe they have a Mother in Heaven, but to go out teaching that we ought to pray to her, or that we give details about her when both the prophets and the scriptures are silent–this violates the teachings of the Church…

If Church members go to their friends and start talking about practicing plural marriage, they are not in harmony with the Church.  Yes, there are some things where common sense says, “Don’t discuss it in private or in public.”  Otherwise, hey, I’ve got the freedom to think anything I want, but I need to be careful that I’m not trying to represent the Church with my point of view or convince others that a certain doctrine or practice represents true religion or is what the issue or is what the Church teaches.  As an individual, I can speculate all I want on any issue or topic as long as I keep to myself those matters that are not in harmony with truth and the Church and its teachings.

If I am a prominent or well thought of member of the Church, and I present a paper in the name of religious freedom that one might consider worshiping idols, I can expect Church discipline.  That doctrine is contrary to true religion and the teachings of God.  To bring up controversial topics in meetings such as sacrament meeting, Sunday School, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, etc., could raise questions and jeopardize one’s standing in the Church…

Philip:  Yet Janice Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for her insistence on publishing a clearly speculative paper entitled, “Toward a Theology of God the Mother.”⁴ Why was she disciplined for asserting her opinion?

Donald:  I believe I have already established the fact that I can’t comment on Church discipline, as that is confidential and would violate privacy issues.  As a member of the church, I don’t know.  I wasn’t involved there and don’t know the facts.  Such a doctrine has not been revealed through a living prophet, and it is not appropriate to be a member of the Church and teach to others in any setting doctrines or practices that run counter to true religion and the Church and its teachings, such as practicing plural marriage or other theories that are not mainstream teachings of the living prophets.

I really thought Whitesides “Gestapo-like” comment was a wild exaggeration, but after hearing what Jessee had to say, I’m not so sure.  According to Wikipedia,

The committee was formed during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson,[1] soon after Benson became president in 1985.[2]

The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry.^[3] The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). England came to regret his impulsive comments and apologized to all parties individually.^[4]

In response to this public discourse, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee.^[5] LeFevre said that the committee “receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that ‘conceivably could do harm to the church’”, then the committee will “pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” According to LeFevre, however, “the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.” Discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders.”^[6]

After reading all this, I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs.  I find it a little ironic that President Benson started it.  He was quite a conspiracy theoriest, as I mentioned in my post about his anti-Communist rhetoric.  I keep hearing in different settings that the church is much more open now, but I’m not so sure.  For example, at a recent conference at BYU, professor Ronald Esplin said this is one of the best environments to study church history since the “Camelot” era of the 1970s.

However, discipline for intellectuals still seems to occur.   The Wikipedia article mentions that in 2004, the committee put together a dossier on Grant Palmer, author of Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.  (Palmer was disfellowshipped.)  In the introduction, Lindholm notes on page xii, that excommunications of academics has continued beyond the notorious 1993 September Six (formatting changed)

• In 1994, Professor David Wright of Brandeis University and editor Brent Metcalf were excommunicated for their scripture studies in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:  Explorations in Critical Methodology
• In 1995, author Janice Allred was excommunicated for her writings about Mother in Heaven.
• In 2000, Professor Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for her theological reflections, and
• in 2002, Professor Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for his anthropological work on Mormonism.
• In addition, many other unnamed intellectuals were called into disciplinary interviews that did not result in excommunication.

I know Simon Southerton resigned under pressure from the church following his publication of information on DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Last week, I learned that John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and StayLDS was summoned to a meeting with his Stake President.  He said the meeting went well, and solicited comments to his website.  From my point of view, it bears a lot of parallels with Lynne Whitesides experience in 1993.  John has recently been interviewed on ABC and other news organizations.  Lynne was called in to talk to her bishop following an interview with Chris Vanocur on Channel 4, KTVX.  Here’s what Lynne said on page 4,

In May when my bishop called me to come in to talk, I thought, “Wow…this is great.  Maybe the system does work.  maybe this church really is a place where I can get comfortable.”  I was very excited.  I left early from my feminism class up at teh University of Utah to meet with him.  When I walked in, he was with his two counselors, all in suits, and I’m thinking, “Wow, they really want me back at church.  This is great!”  I sat down, and Virgil Merrill, the bishop, said, “Elder Loren C. Dunn has asked us to meet with you to see if we need to take any ecclesiastical action against you.”

I started to laugh and couldn’t stop.  ”Give me a minute,” I said, “I thought you called m in here because you cared about me.  Let me just have a quick moment to adjust.”  Their faces…you could see that what I has said shocked them, but then we had a lovely talk.  It was not confrontational at all; it was amazing.  At the end, Virgil said he was going to tell Dunn that I was fine.  So, when I received the summons letter I was shocked.

Philip:  Your bishop gave you no warning at all that you were going to be tried by a church court?

Lynne:  No, nothing.  When I found out, I called Lavinia [Fielding Anderson] immediately….We also wrote a letter to the bishop saying that if he went through with the church court, then we were going to let the media know.  Virgil wrote back saying that he wanted to hold it.  He didn’t realize what he was getting into.  He didn’t realize how much press coverage it was going to get.  We heard through the grapevine, he was getting pressure from [Boyd K.] Packer² and other leaders to excommunicate me.

Philip:  Can you elaborate on “the grapevine”?

Lynne:  One of the bishopric counselors involved in my court was relate3d toa  reporter I knew.  Both were at a barbecue once, and the counselor told the reporter, not thinking it would ever get back to me, that they were getting pressure from Church leaders to “do something” about Lynne Whitesides.  Well, it did get back to me, and I knew this going into the trial.

Well, I’ve already quoted quite a bit from the book.  Let me end with a quick summary of things the church apparently doesn’t like us discussing:

• Lynne Whitesides was disfellowshipped for “why I thought it was all right to pray to a female diety.”
• Paul Toscano was excommunicated for defending his wife Margaret.  Basically Margaret was the real target.  To save her, Paul blasted church leaders and was excommunicated for insubordination.  (I’ll discuss Margaret in a bit.)
• Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for her book Women and Authority.
• Lavina Fielding Anderson was excommunicated for documenting ecclesiastical abuse in the Church.
• Michael Quinn was excommunicated for writing a chapter in Hanks book, Women and Authority, and for a Sunstone presentation in 1992 called “150 Years of Truth and Consequences in Mormon History.”
• Janice Merrill Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.
• Margaret  Merrill Toscano was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.  (Note Janice and Margaret are sisters.)
• Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.”  Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.^[3]“

This book is very timely for me.  I have wanted to get more involved in church history.  I also want to maintain good standing int he church.  Lindholm quotes Armaund Mauss in the introduction.  Mauss is a retired Mormon sociologist from Washington State University.  From page xxii

Even the most careful and diplomatic comments will not be much appreciated by many Church leaders, perhaps by most Church leaders, whether general or local.  We have to understand that much going in.  Do not expect to appear on the short list for bishop or Relief Society president if you have been regularly commenting on local or general Church matters.  If prominent Church positions are important to you, keep quiet.  If you’re going to speak up, whether in oral or written media, first cultivate thick skin, then abandon your aspirations for important Church callings; you shouldn’t have them anyway.  Finally, don’t whine when you’re passed over or looked upon with some suspicion.³⁷

Footnote 45 quotes Mauss as saying,

I have come to feel increasingly marginal to the Mormon community during my adult life, at least in a social and intellectual sense, despite my continuing and conscientious participation in church activity (including leadership) and despite my own deep personal faith in the religion itself.

Lindholm goes on to say on page xxiii that

Mormonism is not alone in its desire to censor.  Most Christian traditions–Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike–have a long history of disciplining vocal dissent,⁴² which is a practice supported by a rather strong biblical basis.⁴³.  The LDS Church, however, is different in that its leaders actively discipline select members in order to sustain the appearance of doctrinal purity for the sake of the Church’s integrity and public image.⁴⁴

What do you make of this church discipline?  Do you have any advice for me?

Equating early Mormon female healing with evidence of female priesthood is folly. Kris’ and my paper on female ritual healing is finally coming out in January (JMH). We treat most of your questions and clean up the historiography a bit.

In the interim here is our paper on the development of Mormon healing to 1847, including the role of women.

Well, I didn’t actually equate healing with female priesthood, but there is an interesting connection.  I am finally getting around to reviewing Jonathan and Kristine Wright’s (abbrev SW) paper which was published in the Journal of Mormon History in the summer of 2009.  The article dealt with healings of men and women, but I would like to focus just on the female healings, and see what the “folly” is all about.  SW discusses many instances where Mormon women blessed the sick with the laying on of hands.  From page 59,

The idea that all believers could have access to healing power is illustrated by an area of practice often misunderstood by modern observers-ritual healing by women.⁵⁴ Though female healing was not formalized until the later Kirtland period, forms of the practice were exhibited earlier. Despite Smith’s early revelation that the elders be called to lay hands on the sick, when Joseph smith Sr. First gave patriarchal blessings publicly in 1835, he sometimes bestowed the ‘gift of healing’ or the ‘power to heal’ on women.⁵⁵ One of the extraordinary accounts of healing during this period in Kirtland during this period in Kirtland was later recorded by Sarah Studevant Leavitt, decades after the fact. While her daughter lay critically ill, Sarah prayed fervently. In response, an angel appeared and instructed her ‘to call Louisa up and lay my hands upon her in the name of Jesus Christ and administer to her and she should recover.’⁵⁶ This ritual formulation is precisely that contemporarily described by William McLellin and Orson Pratt.

What’s interesting to me is that healings performed by women was not rare, and I don’t understand why is has vanished from the church.  There is an interesting discussion when Stapley and Wright discuss healing in connection with the early Kirtland Temple worship.  As you may or may not remember, the Kirtland Temple did not practice the later Nauvoo (and LDS) Endowment, though there was something called an endowment, along with ritual washings and anointings that John Hamer and Barbara Walden discussed in my post Kirtland Temple History and Worship.  Stapley/Wright refer to this as a “proto-endowment” on pages 63-65:

As with the proto-endowment of June 1831, the administrationof the temple “endowment of power” of 1836 appears to have elevated Mormon energy and focus on ritual healing.  After the temple dedication in March, women participated in “blessing meetings,” where Church members gathered for communal outpourings of the Spirit and blessed each other in the name of the Lord.⁷² Joseph Smith Sr. continued to publicly bestow on women “power” to heal their family members, with the blessings becoming more and more explicit.⁷³ In 1837 he specifically authorized one sister to “lay thy hands on thy children” when the elders were unavailable.⁷⁴ In these early years, there is no question that Church leaders viewed with primacy the ritual administration of the elders of the Church, but female participation in ritual healing also became normative during this time.⁷⁵

After the Smith family fled from Kirtland in 1838 for its brief stay in FarWest, Missouri, the Relief Society women in Utah later remembered that Lucy Mack Smith participated in the healing of one Mormon girl: “[She] was taken very ill, and her life despaired of, in fact it seemed impossible for her to get better. The mother of the Prophet, Mrs. Lucy Smith, came and blessed the child, and said she should live. This was something new in that age, for a woman to administer to the sick.”⁷⁶ That same year while on a mission in Maine, Phoebe Woodruff administered to her apostle husband, Wilford, when he fell ill.⁷⁷ The apostolic missions appear to have spread the practice of female ritual healing as British women were also anointing the sick by 1838.⁷⁸

While anointing became more and more common after the Kirtland Temple rituals, there still remained a diversity among Mormon healing rituals. Individuals continued to lay their hands on the sick without anointing.⁷⁹ Baptism and confirmation remained a frequent source of physical healing for converts and instances of simply commanding the sick to rise still occurred. There was also additional innovation in healing praxis. Perhaps, in a mixture of folk medical healing and Church ritual, the sick drank consecrated oil.⁸⁰ Following the biblical precedent of the Apostle Paul (Acts 19:12), members of the Quorum of the Twelve sometimes touched or sent handkerchiefs to people in order to heal them.⁸¹ Joseph Smith Sr. issued the first extant instruction on such healing as part of Lorenzo Snow’s December1836 patriarchal blessing, where he declared that Lorenzo would have faith “like that of Peter thy shadow shall restore the sick—the diseased shall send to thee their handkerchiefs and aprons and by thy touch their owners shall be healed.”⁸² Such activities were quite rare compared to other means of healing; however they illustrate the degree to which the early Mormons sought to embody the power of the biblical apostles and modeled their healing practices on New Testament precedents.

In the development of their various healing practices, the most important concept to these Mormons was the idea that people had access to the power of God and the implicit authority to wield it. They do not appear to have been concerned with the theological constructions of grace, magic, and sacrament in relation to their healing activities.

Ok, so this last point is really interesting to me.  It seems to me that SW and Michael Quinn agree on “the idea that people had access to the power of God and the implicit authority to wield it.”  There does seem to be a bit of a semantic argument.  Stapley says it is “folly” to compare female healings to priesthood, but apparently Quinn disagrees.  I posted this quote from Quinn when I discussed Women and the Melchizedek Priesthood, and I would like to quote it again (formatting changed.)

The last major development in LDS priesthood is even less recognized today.  In 1843 Smith extended the Melchizedek priesthood to LDS women through an “endowment ceremony” rather than through ordination to church office.

• For example, in 1843 Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor:
• “You shall be bless[ed] with your portion of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”
• Thirty-five years later, Joseph Young (a patriarch and senior president of the Council of Seventy) blessed Brigham Young’s daughter:
• “These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”

The decline in women’s awareness that the endowment ceremony gives them Melchizedek priesthood corresponds to the decline in women’s status in the LDS church during those same years.  In the process, twentieth-century Mormons–both male and female, conservative and liberal–have identified priesthood with male privilege and hierarchical administrative power.  Therefore, some recent writers regard as insignificant the concept that endowed Mormon women had (and continue to have) the Melchizedek priesthood without ordained office and hierarchical status.
—-
I must say that I agree that  modern Mormons always associate priesthood with administration.  On the other hand, I can remember as a deacon, teacher, and priest, being told the priesthood is “the power to act in the name of God.”  So, even though women may not hold an administrative office, it is fascinating to me that Quinn uses a different definition to discuss women’s priesthood power “to act in the name of God.”  Isn’t this a more important use of priesthood power?

I would be interested to hear SW address Quinn’s point here, because on page 75 SW says,

just one week after receiving temple rituals with his wife, Mary Fielding, in 1843, Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed one woman that she would “be endowed with power.”113  Joseph Smith intended all the Saints, both men and women, to be endowed with power, including the power to heal.

Stapley/Wright discuss healings that didn’t work, as well as healing of animals.  From page 67,

In early Mormonism, ineffectual healing rituals produced great tension. The remarkable healings of infants and even animals formed a puzzling contrast with individuals of great faith who remained afflicted. Wilford Woodruff remembered laboring as a missionary with David Patten, who when their mule fell incapacitated, laid his hands on and blessed it. The mule arose. At first Woodruff felt that such a blessing was sacrilegious but grew to see it as a gift from God.⁸⁸ Ritual healings of animals were not regular events, sporadically occurring on the trek west and into the Utah period;⁸⁹ however, they highlighted the power of the administrant over nature and the devil. Conversely,when Joseph Smith preached to the Twelve preparatory to the 1836 Kirtland endowment and informed them that they would be endowed with power to heal all manner of disease, he also cautioned them, “Let me tell you that you will not have power after the endowmentto heal those who have not faith, nor to benifit them.”⁹⁰ Smith placed the burden of faith on all parties participating in ritual healings.⁹¹

SW further discusses healings in relation to the Relief Society.  From page 73,

The founding of the Relief Society, coupled with anticipation ofthe Nauvoo endowment, ushered in a further amplification of ritual healing.  Women sometimes administered to the sick in more formal settings in conjunction with their regular meetings. Minutes of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo reveal how women felt empowered by greater access to healing rituals.  On April 19, 1842, “Mrs.Durfee bore testimony to the great blessing she received when administered to after the close of the last meeting by Prest. E[mma]. Smith & Councillors Cleveland and Whitney. She said she never realized more benefit thro’ any administration, that she was healed, and thought the sisters had more faith than the brethren.”¹⁰⁷
Female ritual healing apparently caused some controversy; however, Joseph Smith rebuked the detractors on April 28, 1842, “according to revelation,” which he newly preached that day. In the context of Paul’s teachings to the Corinthians on spiritual gifts, he reiterated Christ’s teaching that the signs¹⁰⁸ that follow true believers, “whether male or female,” included the healing of the sick. He stated that it was proper for women to administer to the sick by the laying on of hands and further asserted that, when the temple was complete, the “keys of the kingdom” would be given to them “as well as to the Elders.” ¹⁰⁹

Official sanction to female healings is discussed on page 78:

With Smith’s revelation on female ritual healing, Mormon women engaged in Nauvoo’s healing activities. Church leaders specifically set apart women to administer to the sick¹³⁰ and spoke favorably of women healing in general conference.¹³¹ Emmeline Wells remembered Relief Society women meeting sick immigrants and ministering to them with healing rituals.¹³² Church authorities facilitated healing rituals performed by women;¹³³ and after the martyrdom, Patriarch John Smith continued the practice of blessing women to heal the sick.¹³⁴ Highlighting this focused ritual energy, Bathsheba Smith wrote to her missionary husband in 1842 about their sick infant: “I took him to the fount and had him baptised and sinse then he has not had any feavor.  He is about well now. Looks a little pail. I anointed himwith oil a good many times.”¹³⁵

Furthermore, on pages 81-82:

Female participation in healing and blessing during this time was normative.¹⁴⁶ With the accessibility of the endowment of power, women administered to each other with greater frequency. Over 10 percent of the inhabitants at Winter Quarters were sick in December1846.¹⁴⁷ Louisa Barnes Pratt wrote of her experience during this time, “The shaking ague fastened deathless fangs upon me, fromwhich there was no escape. . . . The sisters were moved with sympathy.  They assembled at my tent, prayed, annointed [sic] me with oil, andlaid their hands upon me.”¹⁴⁸ The following spring, several sisters administered to a child in a manner that highlights continued Mormon willingness to combine healing rituals with frontier medicine. In Utah, a writer for the Woman’s Exponent, probably editor Emmeline B.Wells, remembered the healing of a sick child: “The little one had not seen or spoken for two days, its eyeballs were dried over, the sisters were called in to administer, Sister Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Sister Vilate, Sister Laura Pitkin and Presendia Kimball and one or two others.  They administered, anointing the child with oil, and bathing its eyes with milk and water, and it was restored to life and health miraculously, but the sisters gave God the glory.”¹⁴⁹

Fathers and mothers participated jointly in healings as cited on pages 83-84:

An ethos of unity,¹⁵⁰ which informed these activities, served to subvert the prevalent notion of “separate spheres”within the realm of healing administrations and contributed to a social order of non-hierarchical blessings and healings.¹⁵¹ George A. Smith reflected on the power of this union, when preaching at the temple: “We are now different from what we were before we entered into this quorum. . . . When a man and his wife are united in feeling, and act in union, I believe they can hold their children by prayer and faith and will not be obliged to give them up to death until they are fourscore years old.”¹⁵² Illustrative of this faith union, men and women administered to the sick together.¹⁵³ For example, on March 17, 1847, Patty Sessions noted, “[Mary Pierce] was buried. I went to the funeral.  Brigham preached. I then visited the sick.Mr. Sessions and Iwent and laid hands on the widow Holmons ^step^ daughter. she was healed.”¹⁵⁴

Healing ritual performance during the migration to the Great Basin guided Latter-day Saint practice for the remainder of the century.  While anointing the sick was the most common form of ritual healing, men continued to wash and anoint the sick during the Utahperiod.¹⁵⁵ Similarly, baptism for health was the most commonly performed temple ritual for the living for many years.¹⁵⁶ Men andwomen also continued to administer to the sick collaboratively. For example, Andrew and Elizabeth Ferguson in Scotland sought to unitedly heal their three-year-old son. Ferguson recorded: “Satterday little William is very ill.  had to wait upon him all night . . . I anointed himwith consecrated oil, & his mother & I laid hands upon him & Praid over him.”^157<.sup>

Women also remained potent healers. Louisa Barnes Pratt, whowas anointed by women at Winter Quarters during her illness, later served as a missionary wife in the Pacific Islands and contributed to the spread of female administration throughout the world.  Her husband, Addison, recorded many ritual healings and baptized the native sick for their health,¹⁵⁸ while Louisa carried out a similar ministry among the women and children:

The natives . . . have great faith in the ordinances of the Gospel such as baptism and the laying of hands of recovering the sick to health. I brought with me a bottle of consecreated [sic] oil which was blessed by brother Brigham Young and other of the authorities, previous to my leaving Salt Lake. The females had great faith in the oil, when I told them from whence I had brought it, and by whom it had been blessed. They would frequently bring their young children to mewhen they were sick to have me annoint [sic] them, give them oil inwardly, and lay my hands upon them in the name of the Lord.¹⁵⁹

I think Stapley and Wright have laid out the fact that women have participated in ritual healing episodes dating to the earliest days in the church.  I don’t understand why this practice has changed.  Why do you think it is no longer acceptable for women to lay hands on the sick?