Journal of Mormon History Vol. 36, No. 4, Fall 2010

Journal of Mormon History Journal of Mormon History

Volume 36

Issue 4

Fall 2010

Article 1

2010

Journal of Mormon History Vol. 36, No. 4, Fall 2010 Journal of Mormon History Vol. 36, No. 4, Fall 2010

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory

Part of the Religion Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Journal of Mormon History

: Vol. 36, Fall 2010: Iss. 4.

This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access

by the Journals at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been

accepted for inclusion in Journal of Mormon History by

an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU.

For more information, please contact

[email protected].

Journal of Mormon History Vol. 36, No. 4, Fall 2010 Journal of Mormon History Vol. 36, No. 4, Fall 2010

Table of Contents Table of Contents

ARTICLES ARTICLES

--Protecting the Family in the West: James Henry Martineau’s Response to Interfaith Marriage

Dixie Dillon

Lane

, 1

--Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church

Jiro Numano

, 18

--“Standing Where Your Heroes Stood”: Using Historical Tourism to Create American and Religious

Identities

Sarah Bill Schott

, 41

--Community of Christ Principles of Church History: A Turning Point and a Good Example? Introduction

Lavina Fielding Anderson

, 67

--History in the Community of Christ: A Personal View

Andrew Bolton

, 71

--LDS History Principles: Public Theory, Private Practice

Gary James Bergera

, 80

--The Sangamo Journal‘s “Rebecca” and the “Democratic Pets”: Abraham Lincoln’s Interaction with

Mormonism

Mary Jane Woodger and Wendy Vardeman White

, 96

--The Forgotten Story of Nauvoo Celestial Marriage

George D. Smith

, 129

--From Finland to Zion: Immigration to Utah in the Nineteenth Century

Kim B. Östman

, 166

--“The Lord, God of Israel, Brought Us out of Mexico!” Junius Romney and the 1912 Mormon Exodus

Joseph Barnard Romney

, 208

REVIEWS REVIEWS

--S. J. Wolfe with Robert Singerman, Mummies in Nineteenth-Century America: Ancient Egyptians as

Artifacts

H. Michael Marquardt

, 259

--William B. Smart, Mormonism’s Last Colonizer: The Life and Times of William H. Smart

Brian Q. Cannon

261

--Richard E. Turley Jr. and Ronald W. Walker, eds., Mountain Meadows Massacre: The Andrew Jenson and

David H. Morris Collections

Robert H. Briggs

, 264

--Edward Leo Lyman, Susan Ward Payne, and S. George Ellsworth, eds., No Place to Call Home: The

1807–1857 Life Writings of Caroline Barnes Crosby, Chronicler of Outlying Mormon Communities

Konden

R. Smith

, 268

--Richard S. Van Wagoner, ed., The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young

Joseph Geisner

, 273

BOOK NOTICE BOOK NOTICE

--D. L. Turner and Catherine H. Ellis,

Images of America: Latter-day Saints in Mesa

, 281

This full issue is available in Journal of Mormon History: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol36/iss4/

JOURNAL OF

MORMON HISTORY

FALL 2010

Front cover: Junius Romney (1878–1971), president of Juarez Stake in 1912

during the Mormon evacuation from northern Mexico. Photo courtesy of

Joseph Barnard Romney.

Back cover: James Henry Martineau (1828–1918), ca. 1882. Photo courtesy

of Noel Carmack.

Mission Statement of the Mormon History Association

The Mormon History Association is an independent organization dedi-

cated to the study and understanding of all aspects of Mormon history. We

welcome all who are interested in the Mormon past, irrespective of reli-

gious affiliation, academic training, or world location. We promote our

goals through scholarly research, conferences, awards, and publications.

Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in Histori-

cal Abstracts and America: History and Life, published by ABC-CLIO.

ISSN 0194–7342

Copies of articles in this journal may be made for teaching and research pur-

poses free of charge and without securing permission, as permitted by Sec-

tions 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For all other purposes, permis-

sion must be obtained from the author. The Mormon History Association as-

sumesnoresponsibilityforcontributors’statementsoffactoropinion.

ii The Journal of Mormon History

Staff of the Journal of Mormon History

Editor: Martha Taysom

Copy Editor: Lavina Fielding Anderson

Editorial Staff: Elizabeth Ann Anderson, Laura Compton, Linda Wilcox DeSimone,

Sherman Feher, Zachary R. Jones, Scarlett M. Lindsay, Linda Lindstrom,

H. Michael Marquardt, Rene Romig, Jerilyn Wakefield

Editorial Manager: Patricia Lyn Scott

Book Review Editor: Boyd Jay Petersen

Compositor: Brent Corcoran

Art Director: Thayne Whiting

Adversing Manager: Steve Eccles

Board of Editors

Polly Aird, Seattle, Washington

Gregory K. Armstrong, University of Arkansas at Fort Smith, Van Burne, Arkansas

Ruth Knight Bailey, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee

Samuel Brown, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City

Keith A. Erekson, University of Texas, El Paso

David J.Howlett, University of Iowa, Iowa City

Hollis R. Johnson, Bloomington, Indiana

Jennifer L. Lund, Salt Lake City

Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Susanna Morrill, Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon

Christopher A. Newton, Terre Haute, Indiana

Jonathan A. Stapley, Bellevue, Washington

The Journal of Mormon History is published four times a year by the Mormon History Asso-

ciation, 10 West 100 South, Suite 610, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 {[email protected]},

(801) 521-6565. It is distributed to members upon payment of annual dues: regular mem-

bership: $55; joint/spouse membership: $65; student membership: $25; institutional

membership: $75; sustaining membership: $125; patron membership: $250; donor mem-

bership: $500. For subscriptions outside the United States, please add $20 for postage, in

U.S. currency, VISA, or Mastercard. Single copies $15. Prices on back issues vary; contact

Patricia Lyn Scott, executive director, at the address above. Also a fully digitized copy of

all back issues up through 2007 is available on DVD for $40 plus $2 for postage ($15 for in-

ternational postage). Contact the MHA office.

The Journal of Mormon History exists to foster scholarly research and publication in

the field of Mormon history. Manuscripts dealing with all aspects of Mormon history are

welcome, including twentieth-century history and contemporary history, regional and lo-

cal history, folklore, historiography, women’s history, and ethnic/minorities history. First

consideration will be given to those that make a strong contribution to knowledge

through new interpretations and/or new information. The Board of Editors will also con-

sider the paper’s general interest, accuracy, level of interpretation, and literary quality.

The Journal does not consider reprints or simultaneous submissions.

Papers for consideration must be submitted to Martha Taysom, Editor, Journal of

Mormon History, at [email protected], preferably in Word. The

author’s name and contact information must be located on a page separate from the

manuscript. Illustrative materials must be attached in a separate file, not embedded in the

Word document. The Journal’s style guide, based on the Chicago Manual of Style and the

LDS Style Guide, and specifications for photographs and other illustrative materials, are

available on the Mormon History Association’s website {www.mhahome.org}.

iii

JOURNAL OF MORMON HISTORY

Volume 36, No. 4

Fall 2010

CONTENTS

Protecting the Family in the West: James Henry

Martineau’s Response to Interfaith Marriage

Dixie Dillon Lane 1

Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church

Jiro Numano 18

“Standing Where Your Heroes Stood”: Using Historical

Tourism to Create American and Religious Identities

Sarah Bill Schott 41

Community of Christ Principles of Church History:

A Turning Point and a Good Example?

Introduction Lavina Fielding Anderson 67

History in the Community of Christ:

A Personal View Andrew Bolton 71

LDS History Principles: Public Theory,

Private Practice Gary James Bergera 80

The Sangamo Journal‘s “Rebecca” and the “Democratic Pets”:

Abraham Lincoln’s Interaction with Mormonism

Mary Jane Woodger and Wendy Vardeman White 96

The Forgotten Story of Nauvoo Celestial Marriage

George D. Smith 129

From Finland to Zion: Immigration to Utah in the

Nineteenth Century Kim B. Östman 166

“The Lord, God of Israel, Brought Us out of Mexico!”

Junius Romney and the 1912 Mormon Exodus

Joseph Barnard Romney 208

REVIEWS

S. J. Wolfe with Robert Singerman, Mummies in

Nineteenth-Century America: Ancient Egyptians as Artifacts

H. Michael Marquardt 259

William B. Smart, Mormonism’s Last Colonizer: The Life

and Times of William H. Smart Brian Q. Cannon 261

Richard E. Turley Jr. and Ronald W. Walker, eds.,

Mountain Meadows Massacre: The Andrew Jenson

and David H. Morris Collections Robert H. Briggs 264

Edward Leo Lyman, Susan Ward Payne, and S. George

Ellsworth, eds., No Place to Call Home: The 1807–1857

Life Writings of Caroline Barnes Crosby, Chronicler of

Outlying Mormon Communities Konden R. Smith 268

Richard S. Van Wagoner, ed., The Complete Discourses

of Brigham Young Joseph Geisner 273

BOOK NOTICE

D. L. Turner and Catherine H. Ellis, Images of America:

Latter-day Saints in Mesa 281

CONTENTS v

James Henry Martineau

PROTECTING THE FAMILY IN THE WEST:

AMES HENRY MARTINEAU’S RESPONSE

INTERFAITH MARRIAGE

Dixie Dillon Lane

IN THE SPRING OF 1895, Alexander von Wendt, a Russian baron

with business interests in Arizona, accidentally burned the day-

lights out of his foot. No servants with basins or nurses with salves

came running to aid the agonized aristocrat, however. Instead,

von Wendt collapsed onto a cot in the living room of a most un-

likely friend— James Henry Martineau, a devout Mormon and lo-

cal surveyor. Yet strange as this connection between a European

nobleman and a humble Mormon Utahn might seem, it was about

to become even stranger. For at nearly the same moment as he

* DIXIE DILLON LANE {ddil[email protected]} first encountered the

Martineau diary while working as the assistant in Western American histori-

cal manuscripts at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California,

where she had the privilege of processing the library’s copy. She is now a

doctoral candidate in American history at the University of Notre Dame.

Her dissertation is a study of homeschooling across the American religious

and political spectrums since 1950. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: She thanks

Peter J. Blodgett, Richard Francaviglia, Noel Carmack, Michael Landon,

William P. MacKinnon, Melissa Lindberg, Christopher Lane, the editors

and reviewers at the Journal of Mormon History, the Manuscripts Depart-

ment at the Huntington Library, and the members of the Colloquium on

Religion and History at the University of Notre Dame for their great help

and kindness in the preparation of this article.

2 The Journal of Mormon History

fell onto the cot,

von Wendt also fell in love with Martineau’s

twenty-four-year-old daughter, Gertrude, one of the last of the

Martineau children remaining in the parental home—and at the

idea of his daughter marrying a non-Mormon, James Martineau

almost fell apart.

If the clash and competition of cultures has long been a theme

in the story of the North American continent, cultural conflicts with-

in the family offer a fascinating microcosm of that theme. Encounters

withoutsidersofonesortoranotherhaveprovokedavarietyofre-

sponsesinAmericanhistory,butforamanlikeJamesMartineau,the

prospect of allowing a person of another religion to actually enter into

the sacredness of the family unit posed a particularly pressing prob-

lem. A limited smattering of historical studies have discussed the ef-

fect of intermarriages on American families, but most have not ad-

dressed how interfaith romance reflects the meaning of the family to

individual Americans, groups, or the country in general; Anne C.

Rose’s book Beloved Strangers is the only recent work of historical

scholarship on the topic.

2***

In addition, such studies tend to focus on

marriages between American Roman Catholics and Protestants or

between Christians and Jews—an understandable approach, but one

that leaves much room for additional research. The unusual theologi-

cal and practical experience of Mormon family life in the nineteenth

century, however, offers a unique opportunity to examine the re-

sponse to cross-faith attachments within families more deeply and to

connect it to the place of the family in American life. It also invites

closer examination of how religion, family, and friendship have af-

fected responses to major cultural differences within one nation in

American history.

James Henry Martineau, Diary, 1850–2004 (majority of entries be-

tween 1850 and 1921; material after 1921 miscellaneous family photo-

graphs and obituaries), FAC 1499, Huntington Library, San Marino, Cali-

fornia, 2:20, April 2, 1895; hereafter cited parenthetically in the text by vol-

ume and page. The diary opens with an undated summary of Martineau’s

ancestral history, family origin, and life before his conversion; when the

date of a particular incident can be inferred or when Martineau provides it,

I designate such events as “occurred.” In all other cases, the date is

Martineau’s for the relevant diary entry.

***

Anne C. Rose, Beloved Strangers: Interfaith Families in Nineteenth-Cen-

tury America (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001).

James Martineau’s remarkable 1,230-page diary chronicle of

faith and family, recently made available to researchers, attests to the

tensions between insider and outsider and the struggles between faith

and kinship that could be caused by interfaith romance in this period,

offering a rich and evocative example of the complicated conflicts

that could attend interfaith connections.

3****

Although von Wendt’s un-

expected death prevented the actual union in this case, the Martineau

diary offers an unusually detailed and reflective record of how fami-

lies struggled with the prospect of interfaith marriage itself. The an-

guished triangle of a pious father, a foreign “Gentile,” and a beloved

daughter—as recorded in the father’s diary—not only provides a ex-

traordinary opportunity to examine interfaith romance and family in

specific detail, but also suggests that, for at least one arresting portion

of the American population at the turn of the century, the ultimate

breaking point in a variety of cross-cultural relations came not with

threats to fortune, or culture, or pride, but to the simple and essential

safety of a family, cast in terms of eternal salvation.

James Martineau lived to be more than ninety years old, leaving

behind a long life of varied experience that exemplifies much of the

nineteenth-century Mormon pioneer world and its place in American

history. This article begins by surveying the general outline of the

Martineau family’s life and that of their friend von Wendt in order to

provide context for discussing the main interfaith issue at hand. It

then examines James Martineau’s approach to non-Mormons in gen-

eral and to von Wendt in particular, leading into an analysis of the cri-

sis that most keenly illustrates the relationship between this Mormon

pioneer, his family, and the outside world.

Born in Montgomery County, New York, on March 13, 1828,

Martineau’s life included many experiences typical of adult Mor-

mons after the flight to Utah. Yet while he suffered through the

usual struggles, Martineau was also a man of unusual talent. James’s

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 3

****

While researchers have known for some time that Martineau kept a

detailed diary, its whereabouts were unknown for decades. However, a pho-

tocopy of the original became available to researchers through the Hun-

tington Library, in San Marino, California, in 2004. An edited version of

the diary, prepared by Noel Carmack, is forthcoming, while a family version

is already available: Donald G. Godfrey and Rebecca Martineau-McCarty,

eds., An Uncommon Common Pioneer: The Journals of James Henry Martineau,

1828–1918 (Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2008).

father, John Martineau, of Huguenot descent, died when the boy

was nine or ten, and James’s Baptist mother, Eliza Ann, a great-niece

of Revolutionary War hero Ethan Allen, then married a Presbyte-

rian (who, coincidentally, pressured her to stop attending Baptist

services) (1:15). By his own admission, young James’s will often

clashed with those of his elders; in 1846, for example, he enlisted in

the U.S. Army to fight in the Mexican War, only to be yanked out

again by his mother because he was only sixteen. In 1847 he enlisted

again and spent what was left of the war clerking for the army near

Cincinnati. Reasonably well-educated in “English and Latin Gram-

mar, Arithmetic, Geography, History, Natural Philosophy, Algebra,

Chemistry, Geology,” he worked for a few Midwestern newspapers

before deciding, like tens of thousands of other adventurers, to head

to California to “see the elephant” (1:17) .

After spending the winter of 1849–50 in Missouri, Martineau set

out boldly with a group of traveling companions but, near South Pass,

faced a geographical quandary. Should they curve slightly northward

(presumably passing through Fort Hall) and only then proceed south-

west to San Francisco, or should they take their chances and head di-

rectly through the infamous Mormon enclave near the Great Salt

Lake? Martineau’s curiosity and maverick tendencies nudged him to-

ward the southern route, but gossip along the journey had contended

that the Mormons there “lived in common together, like cattle, and

were all thieves and murderers.” These outlaws, Martineau’s compan-

ions at South Pass feared, would “surely kill or at least rob us.” But

Martineau stood his characteristic independent ground, countering

that “if we minded our own business and were careful, we would not

be molested.” The party divided, and Martineau went off to “see the

Mormons” (1:25; occurred 1850).

Not only did Martineau see the Mormons, but within a matter

of months he had become one. His conversion story is not unusual.

Curiosity, fascination, and confidence in his ability to resist conver-

sion prompted him to spend the winter of 1850–51 at Salt Lake City,

where two widows living near him convinced him of the truth of

their faith and the error of his former ways (2:99, February 24,

1897). Baptized in January 1851, Martineau heartily embraced his

new way of life. Within a year, at age twenty-three, he married Susan

Ellen Johnson, the fifteen-year-old daughter of Joel Hills Johnson

and, by age sixty, had married three plural wives. Only two of his

wives had children, but they totaled nearly two dozen—the exact fig-

4 The Journal of Mormon History

ure is debatable because a few children may have been adopted or

had even more complicated origins and relationships with the fam-

ily. Five children died before reaching adulthood, and some of the

diary’s most touching passages describe their deaths. Decades later,

Martineau was still writing poems in their honor and dreaming

about them at night.

In addition to maintaining an absorbing family life, Martineau

also served in the militia during the Utah War (1857–58), which, at

least in theory, amounted to a severe test of his new allegiance, served

as a teacher and clerk, and had a nearly life-long career as a surveyor, a

trade he began to practice under the guidance of W. H. Dame.

helped establish a number of towns and even a Mexican Mormon col-

ony; surveyed and mapped railroads, towns, and landscapes across

Utah, Arizona, and Nevada; and walked astounding distances in his

old age to bestow healing blessings. In nearly all of these deeds,

Martineau found himself repeatedly in contact with members of the

culture he so determinedly wished to leave.

Alexander von Wendt’s birth year is not known, but he came to

the United States around 1877 as an adult, so he was probably in his

forties. Martineau’s relationship with Alexander von Wendt, the non-

Mormon immigrant who fell in love with Gertrude Martineau, was

one of the most important interfaith contacts of his later life. Von

Wendt was not some insolent outsider who tweaked Gertrude’s pig-

tails and then impertinently asked for her hand. Far from it. He was

Martineau’s business partner, friend, and even roommate. An owner

and investor in a variety of types of mines, von Wendt was based in

Tucson when Martineau first mentioned him as a business partner in

1891 (1:683, April 18, 1891). Although an agnostic, he was in many

other ways a man after Martineau’s own heart and so close a friend

that he even once gave Martineau money for new dresses for Susan El-

len and her daughters, Gertrude and Dora (2:9, May 23, 1894).

Relatively little biographical information about von Wendt has

survived, but Martineau’s diary, along with a small collection of von

Wendt’s correspondence, provides some understanding of at least his

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 5

For more detailed information on Martineau’s contributions to

planning and mapping the American West, see Noel A. Carmack’s article

“Running the Line: James Henry Martineau’s Surveys in Northern Utah,

1860–1882,” Utah Historical Quarterly 68 (Fall 2000), 292–312.

business affairs.

5++

Martineau notes that von Wendt “came to Arizona

for the benefit of his lungs, which were somewhat affected,” but fi-

nancial speculation seems also to have been a draw (2:112, June 2,

1897). In the early 1890s, von Wendt invested in a variety of mines, of-

ten in partnership with Martineau, who contributed both funds and

his surveying and engineering expertise to the ventures. Over the

course of six years, the two men’s finances became increasingly inter-

dependent. In 1893 von Wendt’s discouragement at a failing venture

roused Martineau’s compassion and a small loan; in contrast, an 1896

von Wendt speculation threatened “us all” and sent James and Susan

Ellen into fervent prayer (1:716, August 26, 1893; 2:65, August 4,

1896).

As Martineau and von Wendt’s business associations became

closer, so did their unlikely friendship. As a surveyor, Martineau

spent much of his time working among non-Mormons, yet even be-

fore von Wendt’s interest in Gertrude, the Russian appeared in

Martineau’s diary far more frequently than any other non-Mormon

figure. Most, though not all, of Martineau’s references to non-Mor-

mons describe either persecution—a certain robbery trial was “part

of a crusade against the Mormons” (1:650, December 15, 1889)—or

ignorance and rapaciousness. One train passenger, supposing

Martineau was not Mormon, commented: “‘We’re going to have a

big army here before long and the Mormons have got to get out.

They can’t sell out for we won’t need to buy. We’ll just take such

places as we like and they can’t help themselves.’” Martineau re-

plied, “‘if any body [sic] tries to take my home, I’ll kill him if I can’”

(2:351-52, January 7, 1910; occurred sometime “in the ‘70s”).

6+++

Yet

Martineau wrote positively of von Wendt, whom he called his

“friend and chum” (2:9, May 23, 1894). They were clearly not just

6 The Journal of Mormon History

Alexander von Wendt’s correspondence with Selim M. Franklin,

along with other related correspondence, is housed with the Franklin Pa-

pers, A 2336, Box 44, fd. 8, Special Collections, University of Arizona Li-

brary, Tucson. The materials cover 1894–97.

+++

Martineau was not being supercilious or bigoted in his wariness of

non-Mormons. In addition to these examples, among his genuinely nega-

tive encounters with non-Mormons were surveillance in the 1880s by U.S.

deputies trying to find evidence of his polygamy (1:595, March 15, 1887),

extended estrangement from his non-Mormon relatives, and frequent ca-

sual misunderstanding and hostility as he traveled about the West.

compatible associates but close friends. They often contentedly

boarded together and cooked their meals together, and increasingly

shared the ups and downs of their lives. “Some way I feel very much

drawn to him,” wrote Martineau in 1893, “as well as he to me. ...I

have cheered him up all I can, and he seems to think me his only

trusted friend in Tucson” (1:718, September 14, 1893). Inevitably,

religion was part of the relationship, also, and the two men even

shared a few dark nights of the soul, in which Martineau pressed his

friend to trust in the God of Joseph Smith and interpreted the non-

Mormon’s dreams as gifts of comfort from God (2:105, March 21,

1897). In this mutual attraction—which could, Martineau hoped,

lead to von Wendt’s conversion from agnosticism—Martineau saw

the hand of the Lord (1:718, September 14, 1893).

As this friendship exemplifies, in spite of his common experi-

ences of dishonesty and persecution from non-Mormons other than

von Wendt, Martineau still often yearned to reconcile with the

non-Mormons he met and to share his Mormon faith with them. As a

result, Martineau’s diary, among other valuable contributions, re-

cords an agonized and complex estimation of non-Mormons, a prob-

lematic issue that he re-examined and refined throughout his life.

Martineau and others like him knew non-Mormon injustice well.

Three times in his life—once during the Utah War, again during the

federal raid against polygamists in the 1880s, and finally in the

1890s—Martineau exhibited strong desires to reject the secular/Pro-

testant United States once and for all. In fact, it was one of his strong-

est motivations for deciding to establish one home base in Mexico in

the early 1890s. “I wish to be with the Saints and help build up Zion,”

he wrote, “and not to help build up that Gentile nation.” He would not

“labor for the wicked Gentiles” (1:694–95, February 9 and 7, 1892).

Yet in the end, in spite of his conversion and all his negative experi-

ences, he never made a definitive break. Near the end of his life, he

even became a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, writ-

ing that “I take pride in this membership of an Association acknow-

ledged by special act of Congress” (2:366, April 30, 1910).

In particular, in spite of his generally mistrustful relationship

with outsiders, Martineau consistently looked for f lickers of Mormon

truth and goodness in the non-Mormon soul. Although he believed

that von Wendt was “in deep darkness,” he also saw that his friend’s

“religion consisted in doing all the good he could, and in making oth

ers happy” (2:55, June 16, 1896; 2:112, June 2, 1897). More to the

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 7

point for Martineau, “[von Wendt] thought that the Mormon religion

was the nearest right of any, so far as he understood it,” and was there-

fore a mere step away from accepting the faith (2:112, June 2, 1897).

Martineau also more than once specifically noted that his friend was

religiously unaffiliated—“he did not believe in any of the churches or

religions of the day”—rather than identifying him by denomination

(2:20, April 14, 1895). Martineau seems to have considered this status

evidence of von Wendt’s apparent nearness to the Latter-day Saint

faith.

Indeed, Martineau records positive interactions far more often

with agnostics—those he might have called “unbelievers”—than with

members of other faiths. In 1875, for example, Martineau met Sam-

uel Beach Axtell, governor of Utah Territory, who Martineau under-

stood was “not a member of any church.” Martineau enthusiastically

recorded that the non-Mormon gave a group of schoolchildren excel-

lent advice: “to avoid profanity, liquor, obscene language, tea, coffee

ortobacco...toobserveandkeepholytheSabbathday,tohonorthe

aged and to be good, true citizens obedient to the laws.” Because

Axtell praised Mormon virtue, saw some pragmatic good in polyg-

amy,andwasasincerephilosopher,hewas“oneofthe‘Honorable

men of the Earth’” (LDS D&C 76:75). Yet more importantly, because

he seemed to Martineau to share Mormon opinions, Martineau de-

clared him “all unknown to himself, a natural born Mormon” (2:353,

355, January 7, 1910).

Thus, Martineau believed that the unconverted, such as von

Wendt, could be and were influenced by the Holy Ghost. This belief

was crucial for Martineau. In his unpublished anthology of doctrine

and wisdom, “Pearls Collected from Church Works,” Martineau

quotes Brigham Young, who refers to all non-Mormons (Christian

and non-Christian) in asking, “Do they receive the Spirit of the Lord?

They do, and enjoy the light of it, and walk in it and rejoice in it.”

7++++

Though they were not Latter-day Saints, non-Mormons were neither

therefore automatically bereft of virtue nor unworthy of God’s divine

assistance.

Just as importantly, Martineau held firmly to the LDS doctrine

8 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

James H. Martineau, “Pearls Collected from Church Works,” 1887,

133, MSS COLL 238 (Bd Ms 108), Special Collections, Merrill-Cazier Li-

brary, Utah State University; he is citing Contributor 11, no. 3 (January

1890): 87.

that non-Mormons were destined to play an important part in build

ing up God’s kingdom on earth and that the Latter-day Saint “gather-

ing” of believers did not imply shunning non-Mormons. Here again,

“Pearls” is instructive. Under “Mixing with Gentiles,” Martineau re-

corded an address by Apostle Orson Pratt from May 20, 1855: “If

there were no gentiles among us we could not see whether there was

any integrity among the people. Do you suppose that this people will

be kept away from the Gentiles? No, verily, the Lord does not intend

we should separate from the world altogether.”

Without the chaff,

that is, there could be no wheat. Martineau also quoted 3 Nephi

21:23–24: “And they [“Gentiles”] shall assist my people, the remnant

of Jacob, and also, as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that

they may build a city which shall be called the New Jerusalem; and

then they shall assist my people, that they may be gathered in who are

scattered upon all the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.”

9**

Although the verses that immediately precede these in the Book

of Mormon insist that these outsiders must repent to have this privi-

lege (and that those who do not could meet a very unpleasant fate),

Martineau quoted only this section, giving it the subheading: “New Je-

rusalem, Gentiles will help build it.” In both quotations, it seemed

more important to Martineau to remember that non-Mormons had a

part to play in Zion than to condemn them as unbelievers or worse.

This is the interpretation he left to guide his children and grandchil-

dren.

Thus, Martineau was able to reconcile himself with being von

Wendt’s business partner and his only friend in Tucson. For at least

six years, the European was nearly always a positive influence on

Martineau and his family, both financially and emotionally. Though

notaMormon,hewasfriendlyandrespectfultowardMormonism,

providing true friendship, companionship, and financial partnership

to his Mormon companions. The increasingly affectionate mentions

in Martineau’s diary are not surprising under these circumstances. If

Martineau had any spiritual qualms about his non-Mormon chum, he

seems to have been able to resolve them easily. Von Wendt was most

certainly not a threat, and so his unbelief caused little difficulty.

It caused little difficulty, that is, until von Wendt fell in love with

Martineau’s daughter. Born on September 28, 1870, Gertrude was

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 9

Martineau, “Pearls,” 20.

Ibid., 100.

one of the youngest of the Martineau brood and held a special place

inthefamily.SheandheradoptedsisterDorawerethelastofthechil-

dren to live at home. When Dora died, Gertrude became the lone

child in a household that had at many times had held seven or eight

children. Her health was not good. She suffered from lameness, fits

and convulsions, and “agonizing pain behind her eyes.” Her parents,

James and Susan Ellen, were constantly concerned, especially when

Gertrude several times collapsed, had convulsions, and seemed close

to death because of her infirmities (1:705, November 14, 1892). Her

headaches were so pronounced as to make her periodically blind, un-

able to sit up, and even unable to eat. Martineau speculated that she

might have meningitis and consulted surgeons around the country re-

garding her condition (see, e.g., 1;705, November 14, 1892; 2:11,

August 2, 1894).

Yetalongwiththeworryandcaresheinspired,Gertrudewas

also a great comfort to her parents; and when she eventually married

(not to von Wendt) and left home, James Martineau wrote that “to her

mother and me the change was a sad one” (2:318, August 6, 1906). In-

deed, despite his large family, Martineau’s diary indicates specific

and intimate relationships with each child and undeniable care and

affection.

By making known his desire to marry Gertrude, Alexander von

Wendt shocked and alarmed James and Susan Ellen. When deciding

to move his family from Mesa to Tucson a few months earlier, James

Martineau had “had some fear that Gertrude might be led to love my

friendAlex.vonWendt,whois...attractive”andwhohad“often

urged” the move to Tucson; but he had prayed about his concerns and

felt that he had received assurance that nothing untoward would hap-

pen (2:18, February 7, 1895). Based on this testimony, and having al-

ready welcomed his own intimacy with von Wendt, Martineau thus

had also evidently resolved to trust his friend to respect the insider/

outsider boundary in the case of romance, just as any other Victorian

father might trust a friend not to attempt a seduction of his daughter.

YetvonWendthadnotperceivedtheseimplicitlimits.Althoughvon

Wendt was clearly offering honorable marriage, and Martineau does

not suggest that any kind of sexual impropriety had occurred, Martin-

eau saw the romance as a betrayal of his hospitality and indeed of his

friendship. Since his brief concern in February, “I had not thought of

such a thing,” he wrote in distress. “I had given him a home in his ill-

ness from his burn, and I knew he liked our family, but I did not think

10 The Journal of Mormon History

ofanywishonhisparttomarrymydaughter.Ifeltmuchdisturbedat

the thought of my daughter marrying one not of the faith, and told

him it was contrary toour principles to permit” (2:20, April 14, 1895).

In spite of their closeness, Martineau had assumed a division in

his family’s relationship with von Wendt so fundamental that a ro-

mance would be beyond possibility. Von Wendt, obviously, had not

made the same assumption, nor did he consider his offer inappropri-

ate. But while they might be friends, to Martineau the religious divide

was absolute unless von Wendt converted. And indeed, religion

seems to have been Martineau’s only objection to the suitor, as nei-

ther Gertrude’s health nor any age difference between the two (von

Wendt was at least middle-aged and perhaps fifteen or twenty years

older than Gertrude) arose as marked obstacles. As for Gertrude’s

ownfeelingsonthematter,shetoldherparentsthat“shewouldleave

it all to us, although she loves him with her whole heart” (2:21, April

15, 1895). The details of her more specific reactions or of any clear

courtship between Gertrude and von Wendt before the proposal did

not reach the pages of her father’s diary.

Now that von Wendt presented himself as a serious prospect to

enter the family, his agnosticism became an active concern for the

Martineaus. Interfaith friendship was one thing, but interfaith mar-

riage was quite another. The matter absorbed James, Susan Ellen,

Gertrude, and of course von Wendt for the next several months and

even years, and the already significant number of references to this

non-Mormon in Martineau’s diary increased dramatically. The mu-

tual affection between the Martineaus and von Wendt continued to

grow, as well: von Wendt developed pet names for Gertrude and Su-

san (the “Princess” and the “Duchess”), and both Gertrude and James

corresponded with von Wendt when they were apart (2:114, June 2,

1897; 2:114–16, June 5, 1897). Yet the malaise and concern contin-

ued also.

Where exactly, however, did the danger lie? Although an agnos-

tic, could von Wendt not be considered, like Governor Axtell, also a

“natural born Mormon?” (2:355, January 7, 1910). After all, Mart-

ineau thought von Wendt to be an ethical and moral individual, and

such people were not only candidates for conversion but were indis-

pensable as non-Mormons to building up the kingdom of God. Mart-

ineau willingly conceded that von Wendt’s “religion consisted in do-

ing all

the good he could, and no harm or evil to any” (2:20, April 14,

1895; emphasis his). But marrying out of the faith was a step Mart-

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 11

ineau could not accept for his beloved daughter.

Four years earlier, in 1891, Martineau recorded a revelation that

had promised that “Gertrude and Anna [another daughter] shall

both have mates to love and cherish them always, and gain a celestial

exaltation” (1:689, October 12, 1891). Simply put, marriage to an un-

believer might endanger that promised exaltation. While salvation

might be enough for non-Mormons, to one who might have been ex-

alted, it would seem to be only a very small step above damnation. As

Martineau himself wrote, for the LDS “there is a vast difference be-

tween salvation

and exaltation” (2:72, October 20, 1896; emphasis

his). Theologian and anthropologist Douglas Davies writes that, for a

Mormon in this period, “to perceive [him]self in that lower state

knowing that a higher could have been achieved, might, itself, be to

know damnation.”

10***

This is what threatened to happen to Martin-

eau’s daughter, who had placed the decision wholly in her parents’

hands.

As might be expected, James and Susan Ellen both prayed fer-

vently about the matter over the next several hours (and, eventually,

over the next two years). Their anxiety was intense. Yet, ironically, the

same faith that caused Martineau to fear giving his daughter to an ag-

nostic led him to consent to their engagement the next day. As a result

of his prayers, Martineau believed that he received a testimony that

“no evil shall come to thy daughter Gertrude through [von Wendt] or

any other man,” and he put his faith in the earlier promise of holy

mates for Gertrude and Anna (2:20, April 14, 1895). Still, he required

a waiting period (while von Wendt was in New York City for several

months on business) before the betrothal became official, revealing

his continued hesitation; and he remained anxious “about Gertie’s

union with one out of the church” (2:21, April 15, 1895; 2:22, May 1,

1895).

For example, even after accepting von Wendt as Gertrude’s

fiancé, Martineau continued to pray about his decision. Over the next

few days, he received revelations that von Wendt would eventually

convert to Mormonism and “do a mighty work in Zion” and that both

GertrudeandvonWendtwouldbe“exalted...inthecelestialglory.”

Gertrude would not “violate her covenants” by marrying von Wendt.

The young woman’s mother, Susan Ellen, received similar promises;

12 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Douglas J. Davies, The Mormon Culture of Salvation: Force, Grace and

Glory (Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2000), 3.

and Gertrude, for her part, had already confessed her love. Yet for all

these assurances, Martineau indicated that the whole matter “was

quite a trial to my faith” (2:20–22, April 14–15, 17, 1895). Over the

next two years, the engagement remained “to my natural sense very

obnoxious” (2:55, June 16, 1896).

The Martineau parents’ uncomfortable accommodation to

this interfaith engagement accords with the trajectories of other in-

terfaith families in America in the nineteenth century. Anne C. Rose

argues that, while marriages among Roman Catholics, Protestants,

and Jews caused considerable distress to the family elders, over time

most families found ways to accommodate religious outsiders as rel-

atives. Yet as Rose states, “in the process, interfaith families helped

change American religion” over the nineteenth and twentieth cen-

turies, turning the nationwide religious atmosphere from hierarchi-

cal control of churches, families, and individuals towards “self-deter-

mination.”

11****

Churches began to lose their power over individuals’

marriage choices, she argues, and parents and grandparents chose

maintaining relationships with youth over risking a breach in a fam-

ily through inflexible opposition. Yet according to Rose, the reli-

gious fears of Catholic and Jewish parents were still particularly well-

founded. Families who incorporated Protestant or secular spouses

stuck together, but they also overwhelmingly became Protestant in

the next generation. It remained to be seen whether Latter-day

Saints who married outsiders would follow the same pattern.

Apparently neither von Wendt nor Gertrude pressed for an im-

mediate wedding, for they were still engaged when von Wendt died

on May 26, 1897, nearly two years after the engagement (2:111). De-

tails about von Wendt’s final illness and death in Tucson are sketchy.

The Martineau family had just relocated to Colonia Juárez, and so a

Martineau cousin, John Angus Johnson, rather than the Martineaus

themselves, nursed von Wendt as he died. James Martineau had previ-

ously recorded symptoms suggesting that von Wendt may have suf-

fered from a pulmonary or gastric complaint caused by long-term ex-

posure to poor mining conditions, which may have been the cause of

death (2:27–28, September 18 and October 2, 1895; 2:112, June 6,

1897). Although he had been sick for six weeks, the death “came as a

great shock to us all, as he seemed to possess a wonderfully strong

constitution, and, excepting some lung trouble, seemed in perfect

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 13

****

Rose, Beloved Strangers, 190.

physical condition” (2:111, June 2, 1897).

Deeply grieved at their loss, Martineau and his daughter took

comfort in seeing that the temple ordinances of vicarious baptism and

endowment were performed for von Wendt a few months later in the

Salt Lake City Temple (2:217, June 27, 1902; 2:324, November 15,

1906), Martineau’s friend Ernest (or Everett) Guy Taylor standing

proxy.

12+

Martineau felt sure, through revelation, that von Wendt ac-

cepted these ordinances, thus becoming a posthumous Latter-day

Saint (2:111–16, June 2–5, 1897; 2:324, November 15, 1906). Gertrude

thought so as well, and one night dreamed that “some one showed her

two beautiful crowns, one of which was for her in her own reward, the

otherwashersbecauseoftheworkshehaddoneinthetempleforthe

BaronAlex.vonWendt....Shetriedthemon,andtheybothfittedher

beautifully” (2:217, June 27, 1902). The Martineau family still in Col-

onia Juárez (where Taylor usually lived as well), Taylor’s help in resolv-

ing the issue may be evidence of the growing intimacy between this de-

vout young man and the grieving Gertrude. Gertrude and Taylor were

married four years later, probably in Mexico, Gertrude becoming Tay-

lor’s first plural wife.

13++

Gertrude later financed the posthumous seal-

ing of her former fiancé von Wendt to Margaret Leavitt, a Scottish

non-Mormon (whose baptism and endowment were also performed),

with James Martineau and a woman named Afton Young standing

proxy. They believed that von Wendt had known and loved Leavitt

many years before (2:314–15, June 29–July 2, 1906; 2:323–24, Novem-

14 The Journal of Mormon History

Von Wendt was endowed on October 4, 1897, and must have been

baptized sometime before that date, although Martineau does not record

this event. Taylor may be the same E. Guy Taylor who took a plural wife,

Lilly Hicks, on September 16, 1905, more than a full year after the Second

Manifesto.

When the couple became engaged in 1900, Martineau wrote:

“Knowing his integrity and worthiness, I gave my consent. But I do not see

just now, how it can be effected, as Prest L. Snow has closed the door of plu-

ral marriages” (2:178, January 2, 1900). Martineau does not explain or write

about the marriage in detail; he does not in fact note the date of the actual

marriage, just the engagement and then the fact, later, that they are mar-

ried. Since Gertrude continued to live with her parents on and off, it is pos-

sible that the marriage was secret in the United States. If source material

can be found, Gertrude’s marriage and family would be a rich subject for a

case study of plural marriage in this period.

ber 15, 1906). Thus, in the minds of the Martineaus, faith eventually

provided an acceptable fate for everyone.

Still, during von Wendt’s life, Martineau was never fully accept-

ing of the engagement and prospective marriage. He continued to re-

visit and agonize and pray over his decision to consent to the engage-

ment. More than a year later, Martineau wrote that “I have been

greatly troubled in mind because of the deep darkness of my friend A.

von W. He desires to marry Gertrude, but he believes not in God nor

His Son Jesus, the Redeemer. Why do I have him about my family, if

this be so, and I know the result of such a thing?” (2:55, June 16, 1896).

And in fact, Martineau never actually used the term “engagement” in

reference to von Wendt and Gertrude until after Gertrude had been

safely married to Taylor (2:217, June 27, 1902). While he accepted the

prospect of an outsider son-in-law, it gave him no peace.

It is impossible to know what would have been the result if Ger-

trude had actually married von Wendt, but it is likely that Martineau

would have adjusted further to the match, though probably in some

continued discomfort. He might have even revised his views on non-

Mormons in general. As it was, the Martineau family continued to fit

Anne Rose’s pattern of reluctant acceptance and increased youthful

self-determination. When one of Martineau’s grandsons married a

Catholic nearly fifteen years after von Wendt’s death, the decision was

“much to the surprise of his father and all of us,” and Martineau was

grieved as well as shocked. Yet although the young man was, he wrote,

“thefirstofmyfamilytomarryoutofthechurch”and“hisfatherwas

much displeased,” the youth’s parents and grandparents had to accept

the marriage as a fait accompli (2:374, March 8, 1911). Although Martin-

eau did not mention von Wendt at the time, perhaps he thought about

his friend when he recorded the hope that the young Catholic woman

might “finally receive the Gospel” (2:374, March 2, 1911).

14+++

Thus, even though his resistance weakened and his behavior

could be generous, Martineau’s anxiety about the possibility of inter-

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 15

+++

Martineau does not record whether she did before the diary ends.

Whether Martineau’s grandson’s family eventually lost its Mormon (or

even Catholic) identity, however, is another question, and one to which I do

not know the answer. Rose suggests also that by the late-twentieth century

“faiths acquired in childhood were so muted” in liberal households, at least,

that interfaith marriages within such families had no effect on religion, and

vice versa—the change from control to self-determination, carried out over

faith marriage did not really change. This anxiety, formed around the

safety of his family, exemplifies how he and others like him thought of

non-Mormons in general. This faithful convert was constantly chal-

lenged by confrontations with his former culture. Like most LDS

adults before 1900, Martineau had once belonged to the non-Mor-

mon world and still loved many in it. Yet his life and hopes revolved

around the Mormon definition of marriage and family, and his inter-

faith actions always fell according to his family’s eternal and—second-

arily—temporal needs. Though his affections were wide, the case of

his daughter and his dear friend show that the theology and priorities

of this typical Utah pioneer consistently centered on the eternal con-

sequences for his wives, his children, and himself. When non-Mor-

mons threatened this most important of concerns, James Martineau

experienced genuine anguish. This case study suggests that, for the

sincerely religious at the turn of the century, enriching and protecting

the family were the defining issues in how an individual handled

religious and cultural difference.

The meticulous Martineau diary thus reflects the fundamental

place of personal interfaith attitudes in the individual Mormon and

family experience of the nineteenth-century American West. Yet this

is far from the only use historians should have for this remarkable

source. The diary, combined with scattered other sources, provokes

several important questions for future research. A case study tracing

thefamily,inthemodeofbookslikeMargueritevanDie’sReligion,

Family, and Community in Victorian Canada: The Colbys of Carrollcroft,

could extend and deepen the understanding of Mormon approaches

to non-Mormons—and indeed, any number of other issues—over

time.

15++++

Also, Noel Carmack and Richard Francaviglia have each

worked on important evaluations of surveying, geography, and reli-

16 The Journal of Mormon History

several generations, is complete (183). Major segments of the American

population, however, including a high percentage of Latter-day Saints, were

strongly religiously active in the last half of the twentieth century and in the

first decade of the twenty-first; perhaps another study of interfaith families

could follow marriages between the religiously orthodox and Americans

with no or weak faith. Could such families lead to an increase in religiosity

and institutional strength over the next decades?

++++

Marguerite van Die, Religion, Family, and Community in Victorian

Canada: The Colbys of Carrollcroft (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University

gion in the nineteenth-century West through Martineau’s records.

16*

The diary’s sketches, descriptions, and harrowing stories of nearly fa-

tal catastrophes in running the surveying line will no doubt further

enrich these areas of study. Martineau’s journal is also a potential gold

mine for gender and women’s historians, who might begin the work

of resurrecting the lives of Susan Ellen Martineau and her sister-wife

and cousin Susan Julia, as well as studying the gender dynamics of a

sincere polygamist family. I have attempted to show in this article that

a commitment to the Latter-day Saint family ideal was the firm base of

everyday Mormon interfaith interactions for men like James Mart-

ineau in the late 1800s. As other researchers examine these sources,

they will also discover new treasures.

DIXIE DILLON LANE/JAMES HENRY MARTINEAU 17

Press, 2006).

Carmack “Running the Line”; Richard V. Francaviglia, Over the

Range: A History of the Promontory Summit Route of the Pacific Railroad (Logan:

Utah State University Press, 2008); and Francaviglia, Believing in Place: A

Spiritual Geography of the Great Basin (Reno: University of Nevada Press,

2003), 36.

HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN:

HE EARLY 1980SIN

THE

LDS CHURCH

Jiro Numano

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, with its urgent

emphasis on preaching the gospel to the world, is not immune

from the misguided enthusiasm that sometimes produces waves of

hasty baptisms from zealous proselytizing. Examples are “the base-

ball baptism program” in Great Britain in the late 1950s and early

1960s

1**

and the phenomenal expansion of membership in Latin

American countries in more recent years, due to fairly easy stan-

dards of conversion.

2***

In Japan, too, there was a short but extraor-

dinary period of hasty proselytizing in the late 1970s and early

* JIRO NUMANO {j_n[email protected]} taught English at Hiro-

shima Kokusai Gakuin University, Japan, until March 2009 and is teaching

Japanese at Star College in Harbin, China. He has published articles on the

Church in Japan in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and Sunstone.An

earlier version of this article appeared in a Japanese journal, Mormon Forum

8 (Spring 1992): 12–22, and he delivered a summary report at the 2002 Salt

Lake Sunstone Symposium. Japanese names are given in English style: first

name, then family name. I express appreciation to the board of editors for

providing helpful feedback and suggestions on this article.

D. Michael Quinn, “I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions: The Mormon ‘Base-

ball Baptism’ Era,” Sunstone 16, no. 7 (December 1993): 35.

***

Malcolm Twigg writes of “the rarely-acknowledged problem of very

1980s,

3****

which some Japanese members still remember negatively.

Historically, Japan has had a very small percentage of Christians

compared to other countries—a little less than 1 percent.

The nation

has somehow resisted both conversion to and continuing affiliation

with Christian religions, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-

ter-day Saints.

5++

Japanese LDS members tend to be cautious in refer-

ring their friends to missionaries as prospective investigators partly

due to a reserved national character and also to the high degree of

secularization in the society in which talking of religion is regarded as

something to be shunned.

6+++

Despite the reticence about religious con-

version in general, enthusiastic calls for missionary work sweep

through missions of the Mormon Church in Japan off and on, creat-

ing abnormal peaks in baptisms on a regular basis.

7++++

One particular

period, however, is so extraordinary in terms of its scope, nature, im-

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 19

poor LDS retention and activity rates in Latin America, which in large mea-

sure is a consequence of widespread quick-baptize techniques, pressure for

baptismal numbers with little regard for retention, and poor-quality teach-

ing of past years.” Malcolm Twigg, “Trends in LDS Church Growth,”

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.twigg (accessed March 14, 2008). See

also David C. Knowlton, “Mormonism in Latin America: Toward the

Twenty-first Century,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29 (Spring

1996): 160–62, 166; Henri Gooren, “Analyzing LDS Growth in Guatemala:

Report from a Barrio,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33 (Summer

2000): 97, 98, 101.

****

See Quinn, “I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions,” 41, 42; and R. Lanier

Britsch, From the East: The History of the Latter-day Saints in Asia (Salt Lake

City: Deseret Book, 1998), 153.

Yasuo Furuya, Nihon-dendo-ron [Proselytizing in Japan] (Tokyo: Kyo-

bun-kan, 1993), 22; Mark R. Mullins, Christianity Made in Japan: A Study of In-

digenous Movements (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998), 11;

Wikipedia Japan, “Christianity,” http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ (accessed

March 15, 2008).

An estimated 16 percent of Japanese members were active in 2006,

estimate based on sacrament meeting attendance provided by the Asia

North Area Presidency. My independent research in 2009 also indicated a

2008 activity rate of around 16 percent.

+++

Jiro Numano, “Mormonism in Modern Japan,” Dialogue: A Journal of

Mormon Thought 29, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 227–28.

++++

For example, from 1957 through the early 1960s under mission pres-

pact, and consequences that it is the focus of this article.

VERVIEW

From September 1978 to the spring of 1982 the number of

baptisms in Japan skyrocketed. Before this period, the monthly bap-

tism total of the twelve missions in the Japan-Korea area had been

between 200 and 300, but the figure increased steadily; and after

August 1979, it exceeded 1,000 and then 1,500.

The Tokyo South

Mission led the movement with more than 500 baptisms per month.

However, the Okayama and Kobe missions were not far behind; and

other missions soon followed, as pressure to raise baptism numbers

increased when the Area News, the newsletter published by Elder

Yoshihiko Kikuchi, published a performance graph of all Japanese

missions. Even the least successful missions began to produce from

fifty to around 100 baptisms a month. Thus, the total LDS member-

ship in Japan, which was 35,000 at the end of 1978, doubled to more

than 70,000 by the middle of 1982.

9**

Elder Kikuchi of the First Quo-

rum of the Seventy was area supervisor (later executive administra-

20 The Journal of Mormon History

ident Paul C. Andrus, the usual total of around 200 baptisms a year swelled

to more than 600 annually, producing the exceptional peak of 1,322 in 1961

alone. Paul C. Andrus, “Bring Your Friends,” Seito-no-michi 6, no. 3 (March

1962): 137. Seito-no-michi [The Way of Saints] was the Church’s official mag-

azine in Japan, a predecessor of the Liahona, the current international

Church magazine published in a variety of languages. The period reflected

admiration for Christianity as pre-war nationalism was replaced with new

Western values. About a decade later, after the Osaka Expo ’70, baptisms

again increased considerably. For example, the Japan Central Mission in

Kobe under President Masaru Shimizu had 1,313 baptisms a year between

September 1970 and August 1971—more than twice as many as in the previ-

ous twelve months. Masaru Shimizu, “One Year from Then,” Seito-no-michi

16, no. 1 (January 1972): 47. See also articles “News from Japan Central Mis-

sion,” Seito-no-michi 14, no. 12 (December 1970): 340; “What Is happening

in Japan Central Mission,” Seito-no-michi 15, no. 4 (April 1971): 114; “Record

Number of Baptisms: 132 in March,” Seito-no-michi 15, no. 5 (May 1971):

147. Seito-no-michi is a reliable source as its statistical data came from the

same source as the Church Almanac.

“Number of Converts in Japan-Korea Region 1977 through 1980”

(two graphs), Seito-no-michi 25, no. 3 (March 1981): 47.

“Development of Japanese Mission during the Last 81 Years and

tor) in Tokyo, serving from July 1978 to June 1982.

The apparent reason for this phenomenon was President

Spencer W. Kimball’s emphasis on missionary work. Beginning

with his ordination as prophet and Church president in 1973, Presi-

dent Kimball energetically directed members to spread the gospel

to the whole world. Soon outstanding successes were reported from

overseas. In the spring of 1974, President Kimball appealed to re-

gional representatives saying, “Are we complacent in our approach

to teaching all the world? We have been proselyting now 144 years.

Are we prepared to lengthen our stride?”

10***

He insisted that the

Church send more missionaries into the field and prepare for the

time when China, Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union would

open their doors. In 1975, he reorganized the Quorum of the Sev-

enty,

11****

giving it oversight and control of missionary work on a gen-

eral level. Then in June 1978, prior to the dedication of the São

Paulo Temple in the fall of 1978, he took a long step further when he

announced the revelation which extended priesthood ordination to

all worthy men regardless of race. This policy change led to the

rapid increase of members in Brazil; and about that time, member-

ship increased sharply in Mexico

12+

and other Latin American coun-

tries as well.

Viewed against such a backdrop, readers may think that the

sharp increase of baptisms in Japan at that time could be regarded

positively as one of the supposed outcomes of this counsel. Some

leaders, such as Shozo Suzuki, president of the Missionary Training

Center in Tokyo, argued that such extensive membership expansion

should be evaluated affirmatively even though the retention rate was

poor.

Others point out that, despite the dismal retention rate, a

number of fine members were baptized during that period and still

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 21

Membership Increase,” Seito-no-michi 26, no. 6 (June 1982): 63.

***

Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride:The Presidency of Spencer W.

Kimball (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), v, 18.

****

Ibid., 254.

President Kimball reported that in 1975 missionaries in Mexico,

who comprised only 4.7 percent of all the missionaries in the world, pro-

duced 22.1 percent of all the converts in the world. A mission in Mexico re-

ported 1,323 baptisms in January and, in January 1976, 3,007. Yoshihiko

Kikuchi, ed., Proclaiming the Gospel: Spencer W. Kimball Speaks on Missionary

Work (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987), 63.

remain active.

There are actually several such members to my knowl

edge. However, I maintain that the manner and consequences of

proselytizing at that period cannot be justified as positive.

ELBERT H. GROBERG’S PROGRAM

In 1978, the average conversion rate was fewer than two con-

verts per missionary per year for the seven missions in Japan, com-

pared to six convert baptisms per missionary per year world-wide.

14+++

Given this low rate, when Delbert H. Groberg was called as president

of the Tokyo South Mission in 1978, he came with the goal of improv-

ing the efficiency of missionary work, a plan which started even be-

fore he arrived in Tokyo.

15++++

He met Elder Kikuchi, then the Japan area

administrator, at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City and learned

of Elder Kikuchi’s grand design to greatly increase the number of

converts in Japan, particularly in the Tokyo South Mission where

Groberg was about to begin his service. Thrilled with the concept,

Groberg responded to Kikuchi’s design with enthusiasm. Both Presi-

dent Groberg and Elder Kikuchi were committed from that point to

fulfilling the expansive vision of President Kimball.

President Groberg first tried to remove stumbling blocks by us-

ing innovation and creating change. During his first three months, he

focused on articulating his own concept of the mission and instruct-

ing missionaries and members in the plan. During the next three

months, he organized the mission systems to implement that con-

cept. Beginning in the seventh month, the focus shifted to actually

carrying out his program. Specific elements of his plan were (1) shift-

ing the major target of proselytizing from mature adults to teenagers

and young adults, and (2) shortening the time spent as an investiga-

tor. During the remaining two years of his presidency, he pursued his

goals, remarkably accelerating the growth rate.

In brief, his strong desire forimprovements such as increased ef-

ficiency, his commitment to the work, and his faithful efforts to fulfill

the vision of the Church President were all quite understandable and

22 The Journal of Mormon History

I personally heard him make statements to this effect more than

once; 1979 notes in my possession.

+++

Conference Report, 1978, quoted in Delbert H. Groberg, “Toward a

Synoptic Model of Instructional Productivity” (Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young

University, 1986), 1, “Phase I, Introduction and Background.”

++++

Ibid. This section is based on “Phase I: First Person Description.”

even commendable.

NCREASED BAPTISMS, 1979–82

Now let us trace the actual circumstances of the hasty baptism

period in Japan. A convenient and accurate contemporary record is

the Area News, a bulletin of around ten pages in Japanese, published

by the Church area executive administrator’s office in Tokyo, which

was sent weekly to mission presidents, regional representatives, stake

presidents, bishops, and branch presidents. The bulletin, which func-

tioned as a medium of providing common knowledge and direction,

was published through Elder Kikuchi’s administration from the fall

of 1978 through mid-1982.

16*

In December 1978, he announced the

ambitious plan of creating stakes throughout Japan (Area News,No.

18). Then in January 1979, bulletin No. 23 featured the remarkable

success story of J. Thomas Fyans of the First Quorum of the Seventy

in Mexico and Central-South America where new converts intro-

duced their friends to the Church. Then beginning with No. 30 in

February, the bulletin published the number of baptisms for all of the

Japan-Korea area in a graph, along with a breakdown of the per-

formance figures for each mission.

This increased attention had an immediate effect. With the pub-

lication of baptism successes and lofty growth goals, monthly convert

baptisms started to increase. The Kobe Mission exceeded 100 bap-

tisms in February 1979. By June 1979, three more missions had more

than 100 baptisms each: the Tokyo South Mission under Delbert H.

Groberg, the Okayama Mission under Ryo Okamoto, and the Kobe

Mission under Robert T. Stout, with Tokyo South leading the way.

Thenthesethreemissionsoncemoreincreasedtheirbaptismnum-

bers to as much as 200 to 300 from summer to fall. In 1980, Tokyo

South markedly increased and surpassed all the others, reaching 500

a month in June and July. During that time, the Area News published

motivational messages encouraging readers to make every possible

effort to create stakes throughout the country, going so far as to fore-

cast a surge of convert baptisms around Christmas. Beginning in

1980, the executive administrator for the area, Elder Kikuchi, di-

rected stakes and missions to report the number of baptisms to the

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 23

Area executive administrators, also often called area supervisors,

then served without counselors. The system of area executive administra-

tors was replaced by the still-current system of area presidencies in 1984.

Tokyo administration office by the 5th of each month.

An important characteristic of this hasty baptism period was

the “dendo-sho,”

17**

a kind of “outpost room” for investigators and

new converts. These rooms, separate from the regular ward and

branch meetinghouses, were rented in many places in 1980 and used

by missionaries for teaching investigators. New members were to

meet for Church services only with missionaries, not with other Jap-

anese members in regular wards or branches, until “they would be

accustomed to church services.” Many of the “dendo-shos” were set

up on major streets for easy access; and by September 1981 there

were 133 of them,

18***

each producing many baptisms. This approach

may seem like an effective way to teach and prepare converts for ac-

tive Church life, but in reality many of the consequences were nega-

tive.

The significance of President Groberg’s Tokyo South Mission

cannot be overestimated in this baptismal surge. Consisting of just

twenty-eight units, it baptized several hundred new members per

month. According to Area News, it attained the high point of 585 bap-

tisms in June 1980, meaning that a typical unit averaged just over

twenty new members that month.

19****

A returned missionary from a

different mission in Japan asked a returned missionary from Tokyo

South Mission how many baptisms he had had during his two years of

service. The second man replied, “Two hundred.” The first man was

stunned. He had had only eight baptisms during his two years at

about the same period.

20+

In 1981, the Tokyo South Mission set the goal of 1,000 baptisms

24 The Journal of Mormon History

Originally, the “small program” concept purportedly enabled

members living far from meetinghouse to attend services easily by locating

meeting places close to them. This concept was changed into “dendo-sho”

to serve as front-line posts of missionary work. See Area News No. 25 (Janu-

ary 10, 1979), 35 (March 1, 1979), 57 (August 10, 1979). These places were

set up mostly in heavily traveled downtown areas with convenient access to

mass transit lines such as train stations.

***

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Spreading

throughout the Nation,” Seito-no-michi 25, no. 10 (October 1981): 67.

****

Area News No. 104 (July 30, 1980): Graph.

Tsutomu Watanabe, re: Hasty Baptism, posting to lds-j, a Japanese

news group, November 26, 2005, printout in my possession.

amonthforonceatleastandachievedit,

21++

according to Shun-ichi

Kuwahata, who was the mission leader of the Mitaka Ward. Bound-

a ri es o f t h e To kyo S ou t h M is si on r a nge d f ro m To ky o We st , to To kyo

South, Yokohama, and Shizuoka; and its mission office was located on

thepremisesofMitakaWardinKichijoji,Tokyo,whichismorethan

eighty-five miles away in a straight line from Shizuoka, the western-

most area in the mission. Shun-ichi Kuwahata was on the ground in

the thick of this movement. He described how missionary work had

been done under President Groberg:

We began to learn by hearsay that “dendo-shos” were being set

up at various places, and the number of baptisms performed there

was sharply increasing. In my ward, too, we saw youngsters who, even

when seen in a most favorable light, didn’t seem to have changed their

lifestyle and attitude. They were getting baptized one after another

but would stop coming to church the following Sunday. Meetings for

arrangements on the date of baptism etc., had been regularly held be-

tween missionaries and the ward priesthood executives until then,

but there arose a failure of giving information and cases of holding

baptisms on weekday mornings when members were unable to at-

tend.

What perplexed us most was the level of understanding of newly

baptized members. Frankly speaking, they were immersed without

understanding any commandments such as the Word of Wisdom,

tithing, or Sabbath-day observance, which regular members regarded

as basic, important tenets. Persons not coming to church on Sunday

and those who didn’t commit to live the gospel were receiving bap-

tism. When members criticized these practices, asking, “Aren’t the

current missionaries teaching commandments?” we heard that they

replied, “We are teaching correctly.” About this time I began to real-

ize that missionaries were teaching haphazardly to rush investigators

to baptism. The mission president reportedly countered, “If the ward

will not cooperate, I will withdraw all the missionaries from the ward

and place them at a ‘dendo-sho’ to start a church there.”

22+++

Being mission leader, I soon became skeptical about the situa-

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 25

Shun-ichi Kuwahata, interviewed by Numano, December 28, 1991;

notes of the interview in my possession.

+++

Tokuyama Ward in the Okayama Mission, which I was attending at

the time, experienced such a withdrawal of missionaries in 1981. At about

the same time in New Zealand, standards of baptism were deviating from

the tradition, creating conf licts between local members and the missionar-

ies, who asserted that they would form their own unit if conflicts continue.

tion. Then I was called to serve as a “dendo-sho” leader. There I wit-

nessed how a meeting was held and how the missionaries achieved

baptisms. On Sunday, only one meeting was held which was made up

of sacrament and a missionary’s talk along with opening and closing

hymns and prayers. It was exceedingly simple and far from the image

of church services. Youngsters not knowing what they were here for

entered an apartment room and, when the service was finished, went

out into town for pleasure.

In extreme cases, they would baptize an investigator on the day he

or she was found. They would not give more than a few lessons at most.

I joined their lessons several times and found out that they did not fol-

low the due process of conversion, namely, encouraging investigators

to accept the message and leading them to commitment, moving for-

ward step by step. I think the real goal was to have the person baptized

before he or she was aware of it, just like a pushy salesperson does. Fur-

thermore, to my great surprise, a missionary’s weekly report was very

detailed, including an annual total of baptisms, a weekly-divided goal,

and its accomplishment rate, similar to a salesperson’s report.

23++++

Apparently to give impetus to the movement, President Groberg

wrote a mission song, “Onward! Follow the Prophet’s Voice,” the lyr-

ics of which repeatedly stressed that “thousands” would join the

Church and which read in part:

We know the work is URGENT

and the time for it is NOW!

We’ll do what’s not been done before,

We’ll simply find out how.

24*

In another effort to encourage high baptisms, the names of mis-

sionaries without baptisms were listed in the mission newsletter, with

an asterisk being added for each month if this situation continued,

25**

while in contrast, the mission president offered missionaries who bap-

26 The Journal of Mormon History

J. David Muir, a New Zealand embassy staff member, telephone interview

by Numano, February 13, 1992.

++++

Kuwahata, interview.

Groberg, “Toward a Synoptic Model,” Phase I, 19 “Building a Mis-

sion Image.” The song composed by a missionary had been posted on a

webpage of “Japan Tokyo South Mission” until the site was changed. The

current webmaster, Phillip J. Windley, sent me the song June 9, 2010.

One missionary who served in the Tokyo South Mission reported

tized in large numbers “lavish dinners and other rewards.”

26***

Needless

to say, a very intense dispute arose among leaders of the Church in Ja-

pan over whether it was right or wrong to baptize an “investigator” just

onedayafterheorshewasidentified.

In the summer of 1982, a sister of Kichijoji Ward, with the help

of a few other members, called at the homes of inactive teenage mem-

bers who had been baptized in the Tokyo South Mission in 1980 and

1981. The purpose of the contact was to find out how they were doing

and to invite them to church. She reported that, in several cases, the

individualhadnomemoryofbaptismorhadonlyavaguememoryof

hearing missionary lessons. Other members recalled their baptisms

but voiced criticism of the teaching. One commented, for example,

“After being taught once or twice, I was put into the water without un-

derstanding anything.”

27****

In the early ’90s, also at Kichijoji, an investi-

gator was baptized but his membership record was already in the

ward, with a baptismal date of the early 1980s. He himself could not

remember having received the rite of baptism earlier.

28+

Missions where baptisms increased markedly were all similar to

the Tokyo South Mission. To illustrate, a Japanese elder in the Nagoya

Mission was reported to have baptized 100 persons in two years.

29++

Nishinomiya Ward, Hyogo, where I was attending church in 1979, a

small prefabricated one-room house placed in the meetinghouse’s

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 27

being ranked as one of these non-baptizing missionaries for months.

Tsukasa Nagamine, posting to Irreantum, a Japanese listserv, November 7,

2001, printout in my possession. Another returned missionary who worked

in the Tokyo South Mission, though after this period, confirmed the report

of non-baptizing missionaries’ names being posted in the mission newslet-

ter. Name withheld by request, interviewed by Numano, February 7, 1992.

***

Kuwahata, interview; similar report in Quinn, “I-Thou vs. I-It Con-

versions,” 41; Groberg states, “We had a special dinner, not only for the top

producers, but for every category of achievement.” D. H. Groberg, email to

Numano, December 6, 2008, printout in my possession.

****

Miyuki Tanaka, “Memorandum,” July 23, 1982, reports a leader’s

visits to twenty-six young members in Mitaka and Musashino, Tokyo. These

young people had been baptized during the period when they were teens,

and most reacted negatively to the visits.

Name withheld by request, Interviewed by Numano, February 7,

1992.

Watanabe, re: Hasty Baptism.

yardwasdesignatedasa“dendo-sho,”whichgavemeaverystrange

impression and made clear the movement’s contradiction by having

two separate congregations on the same premises. In April 1980, I

moved to Yamaguchi prefecture and saw that as many as thirty-two

students of Tokuyama University joined the Church by the fall of

1982. Of course, the number was quite remarkable because, prior to

the hasty baptism period, there had been only one or two LDS stu-

dents in the university at a time. Two-thirds of that group ceased to

come to the church soon after their baptisms, and only six remained

active as of December 1991.

ROBLEMS CAUSED BY THESE HASTY BAPTISMS

What problems did this manner of proselytizing cause? First

and foremost, it drastically lowered the qualifications and standards

of baptism both in form and in substance. It appears that several

leaders began to regard attaining baptismal goals as the highest pri-

ority and justified the means if the end of baptism was met. Such at-

titudes were strengthened as President Kimball’s emphasis on mis-

sionary work stressed its urgency and asked missionaries to think in

terms of large numbers.

30+++

The news from Latin American countries

also had an impact. Observers noted many heretofore unthinkable

lapses in form: failure to complete all six missionary lessons; the

baptisms of investigators who had never attended a Sunday meeting

or read the Book of Mormon; non-observance of commandments

including the Word of Wisdom; and great abbreviations in the pe-

riod of investigation. In terms of substance, there were also prob-

lems. Investigators were not required to demonstrate that they un-

derstood the gospel message, and missionaries neglected to system-

atically teach the processes of repentance, faith, and commitment to

the religion.

28 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

President Kimball, speaking at the New Mission Presidents Semi-

nar, June 27, 1974, said, “There’s urgency in our program. We’re directed

and commanded to convert the world.” In the January 1977 First Presi-

dency message in the Ensign, “The Things of Eternity—Stand We in Jeop-

ardy?” President Kimball stated: “Our great missionary program among

mortals is the most extensive it has ever been in all dispensations as we

preach, teach, and baptize tens of thousands of our fellowmen.” Both

quoted in Kikuchi, Proclaiming the Gospel, 37.

Second, hasty baptisms injured all concerned: those who were

baptized, many of those who performed the baptisms, local members

who were asked to receive these new “converts” in their congregation,

and nonmembers acquainted with the hastily baptized. All these par-

ties suffered.

31++++

A bishop told me that an elderly nonmember woman

was invited to visit a missionary who had been transferred to a distant

city. Because she felt congenial toward this missionary, she traveled to

the distant city to meet him, only to be baptized on that day. More

than ten years later, the woman was still indignant, claiming she had

been deceived.

32*

The story raises significant questions about how the

missionary persuaded her to accept a religious rite for which she had

no desire. It seems likely that his own motivation was not her spiritual

well-beingbuthisownstandinginthemission.Insuchcases,itisall

tooeasytoinferthattheproselytizerlackssincererespectforthein-

vestigator and fails to recognize the solemn nature of conversion—a

serious process that should involve deep thought and a transforma-

tion of life.

Tsutomu Watanabe tells of the adverse effects of such a pro-

gram on the missionaries themselves. One returned missionary told

Watanabe that he had had 100 baptisms but never again referred to

his mission experience and later confessed that he was haunted by the

experience.

33**

Missionaries who had reservations about such teaching

and baptizing programs would have had to find a way to reconcile

those feelings with guilt at their lack of “faith” or unwillingness to

obey their mission president’s instructions. Missionaries who had no

such reservations during their missions might very well have suffered

later ethical qualms about their motivations and methods, like the

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 29

++++

Gordon B. Hinckley remarked, “Missionaries must be sure that con-

version is real. . . . Nobody gains when there is baptism without retention.

The missionary loses, and while the Church gains statistically, the member-

ship suffers, really, and the enthusiasm of the convert turns to ashes.”

Quoted in “News of the Church: New Mission Presidents Trained,” Ensign,

September 1998, 79.

The bishop visited her in the early 1990s. He told me about her

when I was serving as his counselor in the bishopric.

Watanabe, re: Hasty Baptism. He found him very ill in the early

1990s. To his question, “What happened?” the man replied, “I suppose I’ve

been weary after my mission.” Watanabe reports that the person died a few

years ago in his forties.

missionary Tsutomu Watanabe mentioned.

In early 1983, a missionary companionship met a person in Oki-

nawawhobrokedownintearswheneldersintroducedthemselvesat

thedoor.ShehadservedintheTokyoSouthMission,returninghomea

year earlier. Although she did not have a particularly high number of

baptisms, she confessed that she had never felt at peace during her mis-

sion and could not now continue attending church.

34***

An American re-

turned missionary who labored in the Sendai Mission just before the

1978–82 period observed, “My perception is that the negative effects

far outnumbered the positive in those Groberg years, both in terms of

retention of those quickly baptized and the influence on missionaries,

many of whom later also fell away from the church.”

35****

Five years later,

he confirmed this observation to me: “Since I live in Salt Lake and the

topic of missions comes up, I’ve been in many conversations with

Groberg returned missionaries that are no longer active LDS. Many

blame him; some, I’m sure, would be inactive in any case.”

36+

Local Church members, while at first welcoming these hasty

converts, could not help feeling distrustful of the mission program—

and of the individual missionaries as well. Even though the massive

numbers of young converts were celebrated, the members noticed al-

most immediate retention problems. In fact, while membership in-

creased sharply from 1979 to 1981, attendance at sacrament meeting

in Japan declined dramatically after 1981: 10,707 in 1980; 16,853 in

1981; 13,678 in 1982; and 10,384 in 1983.

37++

It put an extraordinary

burden on the local stalwart members to reactivate or, more often,

merely to locate these new “members” because so many quickly stop-

ped attending church altogether. Offering those nominal members a

hand of fellowship in the ward and providing regular home and

visiting teachers taxed ward resources to the utmost.

30 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Nagamine, posting to Irreantum.

****

T. O., “Convert Baptisms,” posting to j-lds news group, February 16,

2004, printout in my possession.

T. O., email to Numano, April 14, 2009, printout in my possession;

used by permission.

Kirisuto-kyo Nenkan [Christianity Yearbook of Japan] (Tokyo: Kiri-

suto-Shimbun-sha, 1980); also 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 editions. These

figures were based on annual reports each Christian church was asked to

supply the publisher. It was the Tokyo administration office of the Presid-

ing Bishopric’s Office that provided these data.

Third, the practice of hasty baptisms was received unfavorably

by those baptized, their parents, and their circle of acquaintances,

with the result that the Church itself fell into disrepute.

38+++

Reportedly,

missionary work in the Tokyo South Mission encountered consider-

able difficulty thereafter for some time.

EACTIONS TO THE MISSION PROGRAM

What were the reactions to these proselytizing practices? Some

mission presidents, enthused by the increase in figures, rapidly

adopted the same methods as those of the Tokyo South Mission. How-

ever, President Shigeki Ushio of the Osaka Mission, President Michael

A. Roberts of the Tokyo North Mission, and President Kiyoshi Sakai

of the Sendai Mission did not. Masataka Kitamura, then serving as di-

rector of temporal affairs of the Presiding Bishopric’s Office in To-

kyo, told me: “Presidents Ushio and Roberts were the coolest” toward

the new program, and “Ushio said he would not imitate what others

do.”

39++++

When I queried President Roberts about his response to the

Tokyo South Mission program, he responded firmly: “We do not ac-

cept that the somewhat pejorative term ‘hasty baptism era’ applies to

the Japan Tokyo North Mission; nor does it characterize the training

we gave to our missionaries.” He clearly added: “We did not baptize

people who were not ready to commit to living the commandments,

neither did we baptize young people without the permission of their

parents.”

President Sakai told me that he felt considerable pressure

to conform with the new programs but deflected it by developing his

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 31

+++

Tanaka, “Memorandum,” reports cases in which parents did not

know that their children (ages fourteen through seventeen) had been bap-

tized. Some of the mothers showed anger in their responses. Akira Sugano,

Kaiba-ga Mimi-kara Kakete-yuku [A Seahorse Runs Away from an Ear] (To-

kyo: Shinshokan, 1999), a book of essays, 20–21, includes the experience of

a boy in Tokyo in his early teens who was baptized “by the immersion of his

head in the water-filled bath tub.” He had agreed to be baptized so he could

receive free English lessons from the Mormon missionaries. He thoughtthe

experience amusing and took his friends to the missionaries one by one. In

half a year, most of the male students of his class had been baptized Mor-

mon, causing a big problem in the PTA. Sugano found that this story

showed the Church in an unseemly light.

++++

Masataka Kitamura, Conversation, December 26, 1991, memoran-

dum in my possession.

own program, by submitting an implementation schedule, and by

producing results.

He consistently sought to find and convert adults,

who would be “parent birds that gather their little ones under their

wings”—rather than young people.

41**

Reactions of Church members in Japan to this program can be

classified as follows: (1) those who accepted the policy submissively

and tried to cooperate with it; (2) those who supported the movement

and were willing to defend it; (3) those who felt doubtful and critical

of the policy but did not protest; (4) those who found occasions on

whichtheycouldattempttocorrectthesituation;and(5)thosewho

criticized strongly and left the Church.

Members of the first and third group basically chose to wait un-

til the situation changed, either by the end of mission president’s

term of service or when higher Church authorities intervened. Those

in the fourth group were, for the most part, conscientious and loyal

Church members, who raised their voices, usually in private meet-

ings, to express concern regarding the method of proselytizing. How-

ever, some went so far as to criticize openly and call for correction. In

Tokyo, I am acquainted with moderate critics who were bishops, an

ex-regional representative, and a district president. In the Tokuyama

Ward in the Hiroshima Stake, of which I was a member, the ward ob-

tained, after persistent protests, the right to interview candidate inves-

tigators for baptism for about a year. However, the president of the

Okayama Mission immediately retaliated by withdrawing elders for

more than six months.

Elder Kikuchi earnestly supported and encouraged the prosely-

tizing activities on several occasions. He summoned stake presidents

to Tokyo to promote the program fervently. Seiji Katanuma, the presi-

dent of Sapporo Stake in Hokkaido, attended the first meeting but

did not comply with his directions. When Elder Kikuchi called a sec-

ond meeting, President Katanuma sent his counselor to the meeting.

During the meeting, the counselor was blamed bitterly and the Sap-

poro Stake was specifically criticized. He returned to Hokkaido deep-

ly shocked. President Katanuma, after hearing his report, telephoned

Elder Kikuchi to protest and also visited him at the administrative of-

32 The Journal of Mormon History

Michael A. Roberts, email to Numano, February 12, 2009; printout

in my possession.

Kiyoshi Sakai, “Kokeshi Dolls and Missionary Work,” Seito-no-michi

26, no. 11 (November 1982): 51.

fice in Tokyo to argue intensely against the popular proselytizing pol-

icy.

42***

Shun-ichi Kuwahata, who was then serving as mission leader of

Mitaka Ward in the Tokyo South Mission, remembers:

As missionary activities escalated, I considered resigning from the

office of ward mission leader because I could not approve of what we

were involved in. In real earnest, I thought of leaving the church after

weeks of suffering and distress. I thought that knowing something was

wrong and doing nothing about it was the same as giving tacit consent.

So I determined that this was a very serious question which would be a

crossroad in my life, and decided that I should express my opinion

clearly, otherwise I would live to regret it. So I raised my hand of oppo-

sition as a last resort when the congregation was asked to raise their

hands in support of the First Quorum of the Seventy which included El-

der Yoshihiko Kikuchi at the stake conference in March 1981.

Later I wrote to President Hinckley, then a counselor in the First

Presidency, saying there was a grave problem going on in Japan. He

took time to meet me when he came to Japan in May and replied to

the effect that he understood what I meant but asked me to support

the Church. It was also apparent that letters had been sent to Church

headquarters from returned missionaries as well. Later, in a Church

publication, I read President Hinckley saying that what the Church

desires to have is converts and not baptisms.

43****

There I could read his

clear message. Japanese members heard visiting General Authorities

admit at stake conferences that the proselytizing means got beyond

the bounds in the excess of zeal.

44+

However, if Japanese members

needed a visiting General Authority’s denunciation to realize the ab-

normality of hasty baptisms for themselves, how weak is the mind of

local members, I deplored. I reflected that that period was an occa-

sion when the true quality of each and every Japanese member was

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 33

***

Seiji Katanuma, former president of Sapporo Stake in Hokkaido.

He related this incident to me on August 8, 1991, in Tokyo; memorandum

in my possession.

****

Gordon B. Hinckley, then a counselor to the First Presidency, is re-

ported to have said, “With all the powers of persuasion that I am capable of,

I plead with you [newly appointed mission presidents] to train and motivate

your missionaries to the point of view that it is converts they are out to win,

rather than numbers of baptisms,” John L. Hart, “Mission Goal: Saving

Souls across World,” LDS Church News, July 3, 1983, 3.

Marion D. Hanks of the Seventy was one of the General Authorities

who visited Japan to stop the practice of hasty baptisms. My conversation

with him, August 7, 2002, Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah; memo-

randum of this conversation in my possession.

tested just as with litmus-paper.

45++

EVALUATION OF THIS BAPTISM PERIOD

In hindsight, the years 1979 through 1982 in Japan were part of

adverse currents against Christianity in general. A nationalistic trend

begun in the mid-1960s was strengthened by Westerners admiring

perceptions of Japan.

46+++

Encouraged by this esteem of Japan, Prime

Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone openly proposed a “New Nationalism,”

stressing the superiority of Japanese culture to that of the monotheis-

ticWest.TheJapanesebecameveryconfident—andsomeevenbe-

came arrogant—in positioning Japanese culture as superior and its

traditional religions as superior to Christianity, including Mormon-

ism, of course. It is fair to say that the grand mission of converting

thousands of Japanese was colliding with a climate unfavorable to

Western thought and culture in Japan.

47++++

In retrospect, President Groberg’s expectations for missionary

work and conversion should have been more cautious and painstak-

ing, especially given the fact that traditional Japanese religions were

not Christian or even monotheistic. It is reasonable and even desir-

able to set goals, but it was not a religious requirement to endeavor to

achieve such ambitious goals in such a limited time. An enthusiastic

program like Groberg’s requires a far longer time-frame than three

years. Furthermore, the long-term plan should have included prepa-

ration for the substantial involvement of the local Churchmembers.

President Groberg’s expectations were overly zealous. He de-

voted the first three months of his presidency to building his own

mission vision with little regard for Japanese culture and customs.

Particularly troubling was his plan to shift the major target of mis-

sionary work from adults to teenagers. In fact, at one point he de-

34 The Journal of Mormon History

Kuwahata, Interview.

+++

See, for example, Ezra Vogel, Japan as Number One: Lessons for Amer-

ica (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979).

++++

Yasuo Furuya, who holds a doctor of divinity degree from Prince-

ton Theological Union, observes there were cycles of good times and bad

times for Christianity in Japan and that the two decades between 1965 and

1985 were a bad one. Furuya, Nihon-dendo-ron [The Proselytizing of Japan],

81. A similar observation is found in Otani Yasuaki, What Is English for the

Japanese: A Question of Cross-Cultural Understanding (Tokyo: Taishukan Press,

2007), 92, 93.

cided that the legal age of adults in Japan was not twenty but eigh-

teen,

48*

and he approved baptizing those under twenty without the

permission of their parents. He based this decision on his own re-

search and consultation with a Church attorney, but this decision

was not according to Japanese law nor was it in accordance with the

assumptions of the general public in Japan.

49**

This was no small

breach. Besides seeking out underage converts, President Groberg

also took steps to shorten the conversion process, perhaps the most

phenomenal characteristic of the period and the source of its most

serious problems as it later led to many quick baptisms and many

quick exits from the Church. Speeding the process entailed, in many

instances, omission of lessons. When I queried President Groberg

on whether speeding and omitting traditional steps in the conver-

sion process to such an extent was justifiable, he replied, “During

the whole period of presiding over the mission I do not remember of

ever doing anything contrary to the guidelines.” As for reports of ex-

treme cases or deviations from the norm, he commented: “Al-

though many false rumors of inappropriate activities arose, they

were so farfetched and almost silly to me, [that they had] no sub-

stance in reality for our mission.”

50***

I made the same inquiry of El-

der Kikuchi, who declined to reply but wrote, “It [the whole turn of

events] came like a Tsunami.”

51****

Finally, there is the actual operation of the program. In Gro-

berg’s doctoral dissertation on his missionary program, written in

1986, he quoted from an analects of President Spencer W. Kimball col-

lected by Elder Kikuchi in 1981: “If we really want to make a difference,

we can! But sometimes to make a difference, we must do things differ-

ently and better!”

I assume that this attitude prompted such innova-

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 35

Groberg, “Toward a Synoptic Model,” Phase I: Part IV, 28, “Re-

searching the Legal Age of Adults.”

The fourth article of the Japanese civil law reads: “A person shall

come of age at twenty,” allowing him or her to drink, smoke, and vote.

There have been debates, though, on whether Japan should lower the legal

age of adulthood to eighteen.

***

Delbert H. Groberg, “Some Responses,” email to Numano, Decem-

ber 6, 2008, printout in my possession.

****

Yoshihiko Kikuchi, email to Numano, February 9, 2009, printout in

my possession.

tions as

building collapsible baptismal fonts,

53++

expanded use of “Den-

do-sho,” and so forth. While President Groberg had support for the

programs, it also appealed to his desire to follow President Kimball’s

injunction to “lengthen your stride” as a mission president. While cre-

ative innovations require a willingness to depart from established prac-

tices, such methods always bring with them the risk of the “ends justify

the means” thinking. Achieving high goals depended on practices that,

in retrospect, were unjustified, chief among them the baptisms of

young people who were not prepared for so major a step.

As another consequence, a democratic safeguard of Church pro-

cedures was pushed aside. Noriaki Fukuda, president of Shizuoka Dis-

trict, in the Tokyo South Mission was called into a Church court and

disfellowshipped on April 19, 1981. All three members of the presi-

dency had signed a letter drawing President Groberg’s attention to

problems caused by the hasty baptisms, but the others were not pun-

ished. Elder Neal A. Maxwell said in a conference talk given early in this

period on the subject of fellowshipping new converts: “Since priest-

hood leaders have determined that the newcomers’ visas are in order,

let us greet them genuinely.”

54+++

I interpret “priesthood leaders” as re-

ferring not only to missionary leaders who interview investigators but

also to local priesthood leaders such as mission leaders and members

of bishoprics. I asked Elder Maxwell if this interpretation was correct

when he visited Japan in 1995, and he confirmed that it was.

55++++

The whole process of President Groberg’s mission plan was

36 The Journal of Mormon History

Yoshihiko Kikuchi, an analects of President Spencer W. Kimball, a

collection of photocopies of talks on missionary work 1981. The quotation

is in Groberg, “Toward a Synoptic Model,” Phase I: Part VII, 45, “Creating

‘Ensign Teams.’”

In his second year, President Groberg had missionaries skilled in

carpentry and woodworking build fonts for every small unit. He describes

these portable fonts as much smaller than the regular chapel fonts. They fa-

cilitated, he reports, the increase of convert baptisms. Ibid., Part IV, 29,

“Removing Some of the Physical and Procedural Difficulties in Performing

Baptisms.”

+++

Neal A. Maxwell, “The Net Gathers of Every Kind,” Ensign,Novem-

ber 1980, 14.

++++

My conversation with Elder Maxwell at a stake conference in Oki-

nawa,Japan, June 24, 1995. I was attending this conference as a translator.

evolutionary as he himself admits.

56*

Numerical targets moved ever

higher as time passed. If a stumbling block presented itself, he de-

vised an action to overcome the lapse. While creativity and energy

are commendable, perhaps the presence of these obstacles should

have prompted reflection on whether the problem lay in the pro-

gram itself. Ted Lyon, a former mission president in Chile, ref lect-

ing in an interview on causes of hasty baptisms mentioned that the

pressure to baptize comes mainly from mission presidents who feel

that they are being compared unfavorably to baptism rates in other

missions; in some cases, though not all, mission presidents may try

to make names for themselves. However, baptizing pressures also

come from individual missionaries. As he put it: “Missionaries want

to baptize; they get a great pleasure out of baptizing.” If a missionary

did not have any baptisms for a long time, he or she would be greatly

discouraged.

57**

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

In July 1982, William R. Bradford of the First Quorum of Sev-

enty became executive administrator of Japan and Korea and imme-

diately raised the level of qualifications for baptism as follows:

1. Lessons should be taught over a period of at least three

weeks.

2. Investigators should complete all of the missionary discus-

sions prior to baptism.

3. Potential converts should attend sacrament meeting at least

three times.

4. The baptism date should be set by the bishop and missionar-

ies, and the convert.

5. A missionary should interview the investigator a few days be-

fore baptism.

6. The bishop should hold a separate interview to orient the in-

vestigator and welcome him or her to the ward.

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 37

Groberg, “Toward a Synoptic Model,” Phase I: “Introduction and

Background.”

Ted Lyon,“Tough Lessons from LDS/Mormon Missionary Work in

Latin America,” November 22, 2007, YouTube video, http://mormonstories.

org/?p=342 (accessed April 28, 2009).

Ayear

***

later in June 1983, the mission priorities were shifted to:

(1) the reactivation of inactive members, (2) seeking referrals from

members, and (3) making house-to-house visits. Missionaries were to

spend more than half of their time in reactivation efforts, according

to the instructions received in the Japan Okayama Mission where I

served in the bishopric of Tokuyama Ward.

59****

Apparently due to this change, the number of baptisms de-

creased drastically for the next several years. Then in June 1991,

the First Presidency, consisting of Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B.

Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson, sent a seven-page letter titled

“Basic Particulars to Consider When Teaching the Gospel” to the

area presidency, mission presidencies, stake presidencies, and bish-

oprics in Japan.

60+

It instructs that “three phases of the process, viz.,

‘conversion,’ ‘retention of converts,’ and ‘reactivation’ should be

carried out in sound balance.” It admitted that “a practice concern-

ing baptism which did not suit the teachings of the Savior took

place due to too much emphasis on just one of the three.” It explic-

itly required that “the description of the increase of baptisms

should be removed from the mission report” and listed the follow-

ing conditions of conversion: (1) “A person should obtain a testi-

mony regarding the truth he or she learned for the first time, and

acquire a new life-style”; (2) “The time needed for conversion varies

according to environments and situations,” and (3) “In non-Chris-

tian nations, special attention is required for a convert to under-

stand and become able to abide by promises that accompany the life

of a church member.” The letter also notes a number of scriptures

which specify conditions for baptism.

While these new policies created a healthier proselytizing cli-

mate, the period of hasty baptisms has created misgivings among

members who remember it. I have heard reports that members and

38 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Notes transcribed from Bishop Mitsuyasu Taguchi’s photocopy,

September 1982, in my possession.

****

Summary of reports in my possession. The summary was made

from minutes of council meetings of bishopric and priesthood executives

of Tokuyama Ward, Hiroshima Stake.

First Presidency, Letter: “Basic Particulars to Consider When

Teaching the Gospel,” June 17, 1991. The notification quotes similar in-

structions issued by the First Presidency dated August 31, 1979. Quotations

are my re-translation into English of the Japanese translation.

missionaries in the Tokyo South Mission were greatly burdened be

cause of the enormous numbers of inactive members.

61++

In 2007, a

Japanese member asked Ryuichi Inoue, who served as a mission presi-

dent immediately after Groberg (1981–84), if the Groberg disserta-

tion would be helpful to the Church in Japan if it were translated into

Japanese. President Inoue responded plainly: “It would not be of

much use.”

62+++

Even given the staunch members who were baptized

during this period, it is possible to argue that they would have wel-

comed the gospel with the same warmth and commitment if they had

encountered it through more traditional teaching styles. But it is im-

possible to see many positive effects in the unwillingness of many Jap-

anese to receive missionary visits or in the host of missing members,

resulting in very low rates of church attendance, very low home and

visiting teaching statistics, and a never-ending burden of tracking lost

members.

ONCLUSION

I have heard arguments that, when calculating retention rates in

Japan over a period of decades, the results do not differ greatly from

the low retention rates that occurred during the period of hasty bap-

tisms. The retention rate is still very low in Japan; and the average

time an LDS investigator spends before baptism is fairly short com-

pared to that of other Christian churches in Japan.

63++++

Still, I argue that many factors were extraordinary. Missionaries

were under heavy pressure to reach baptismal goals and were emo-

tionally vulnerable to mission presidents who urged them to baptize,

even if it required cutting corners. Also injured were “converts” who

were baptized without being properly taught, those for whom religion

became a sort of exploitation rather than a solemn passage into a

JIRO NUMANO/HASTY BAPTISMS IN JAPAN 39

Tanaka, “Memorandum,” illustrates the situation.

+++

Ryuichi Inoue, letter to Numano, December 5, 2008.

++++

In the Catholic Church in Japan, investigators usually spend a year

before baptism attending workshops. Taeko Inui, staff at the secretariat of

Takatsuki Catholic Church, Interview, April 23, 2009. Protestant churches

are more flexible, but a minister of the largest denomination in Japan said

three months would be the shortest period of time before an investigator is

baptized after catechizing began. Rev. Shigeyoshi Sato, Takatsuki Church,

United Church of Christ in Japan, Interview, April 25, 2009. Takatsuki is a

city in Osaka.

more spiritual life, and devoted Church members who were asked to

assume burdens for which they and their wards were not equipped.

Shusaku Endo, a well-known Catholic writer in Japan, has a

character in his short story, “Ryugaku” [Study Abroad], confront a ho-

lier-than-thou comment from his French host family: “Let us pray that

more light of Christianity will shine on your country.” The character,

apparently based on Endo himself, observes, “It won’t easily be done.

...Thenationisnotsosimpleandeasyasyouthink.”Thus,Endore-

sists the assumptions of superiority by the French Catholic family.

64*

To the Japanese, the program of hasty baptisms cannot be termed re-

spectful of the dignity of “proselytes.” Rather, it represents an “I-It

Conversion,” or “commodity acquisition” strategy as defined by D.

Michael Quinn.

65**

If such a program represents an abuse of mission-

aries and young innocent “investigators”—and certainly this was the

effect on at least some of them—then it also represents an unpleasant

and discourteous religious activity to the average Japanese individual.

“We are made wise,” George Bernard Shaw said, “not by the rec-

ollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.” The re-

sponsibility of our future lies in learning from history.

40 The Journal of Mormon History

Shusaku Endo, “Ryugaku” [Study Abroad], in Endo Shusaku

Bungaku Zenshu [Shusaku Endo Literary Works] (Tokyo: Shinchosha,

1999), 2:28.

Quinn, “I-Thou vs. I-It Conversions,” 30.

“STANDING WHERE YOUR HEROES

STOOD”: USING HISTORICAL

TOURISM TO CREATE AMERICAN

AND

RELIGIOUS IDENTITIES

Sarah Bill Schott

“Thereissomethingaboutstandingwhereyourheroesstood,

whether it is Normandy or Gettysburg. It is like voices from the

dust. That is what I love about Nauvoo.” —Mormon visitor

ORMANDY, GETTYSBURG, NAUVOO—what do these places have in

common? In addition to being heavily visited tourist sites, they are

also, as the quotation suggests, places that connect visitors with

their collective history and create personal identity. However, Nau-

voo, in addition to being a historical tourist site, is also a religious

tourist site. Places like Gettysburg and Normandy might be ex-

pected to spark feelings of national pride or American identity, but

I contend that historic Nauvoo gives visitors an intertwined double

identity—both American and Mormon—despite the historical ambi-

* SARAH BILL SCHOTT {sbil[email protected]} is an adjunct soci-

ology instructor in the Chicago area. She received her M.A. from the Uni-

versity of Chicago Divinity School and her Ph.D. from Loyola University,

Chicago. Her previous work includes “Pilgrims, Seekers and History Buffs:

Identity Creation through Religious Tourism” in On the Road to Being There:

Studies in Pilgrimage and Tourism in Late Modernity, edited by William H.

Swatos Jr. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006).

guity of a not always harmonious relationship with the host culture

and despite the fact that the Mormon story has two expressions rel-

evant to this study: that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints (LDS), which owns and manages “Historic Nauvoo” and that

of Community of Christ, which owns and manages the Joseph

Smith Historical Sites. Both expressions of this American religion

tell how faith sustained Joseph Smith and his followers until his

death in 1844 and beyond, but the sites also reinforce a sense of

American historical identity for visitors.

By “American historical identity,” I am referring to a sense of

exceptionalism that is often communicated through popular culture

and through a general understanding of American history and myth-

ology. This feeling of American pride is promoted through secular

holidays such as Independence Day, by quasi-religious holidays such

as Thanksgiving, and by textbooks and movies that relate the achieve-

ments of the “Founding Fathers” and their “fight for independence.”

According to historian Kyle Ward’s study of history textbooks, the

identity they promote has a more conservative perspective of U.S. his-

tory, which they manifest through “extol[ling] the virtues of Amer-

ica’s past by emphasizing great leaders and heroic events,” rather

than by focusing on “minority, ethnic and socially disadvantaged

groups.”

1**

American history and mythology focus on the Protestant work

ethic of early Puritans, the religious freedom fought for by the Quak-

ers and others, and the development of new styles of art and architec-

ture from American Gothic to Norman Rockwell. These ideals are

teased out of the popular writings and speeches of American political

and cultural founders such as John Winthrop, Thomas Jefferson,

Benjamin Franklin, and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

2***

In To Begin the

World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities of the American Founders,histo-

rian Bernard Bailyn discusses the creativity of the founding fathers.

They were free to be so imaginative because “nothing was assured;

42 The Journal of Mormon History

Kyle Ward, History in the Making: An Absorbing Look at How American

History Has Changed in the Telling Over the Last 200 Years (New York: New

Press, 2006), xxv.

***

Bernard Bailyn, To Begin the World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities

of the American Founders (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003); Neil Baldwin,

The American Revelation: Ten Ideals that Shaped Our Country from the Puritans

to the Cold War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2005).

the future was unpredictable. Everywhere were turns and twists that

had not been expected.”

3****

Part of being in the New World was work-

ing hard to address conflict, develop new ideas, and discover more ef-

ficient ways of doing things. Living in the “borderland”

away from

the traditions of Europe, allowed them the freedom to try to live life

in a different way. These particular ideas about history are also rein-

forced and reinterpreted through American tourist and history sites.

Eric Gable and Richard Handler’s research on authenticity at Colo-

nial Williamsburg illustrates the connection and potential conflict

between history and tourism.

5++

At Colonial Williamsburg, site manag-

ers must balance issues of historical accuracy with visitor comfort, a

critical task since this site has a well-known mythology that does not

always correspond to history. Visitors often are more interested in

experiencing the mythology—or what they think Williamsburg was

like in colonial times—rather than what historical information seems

to say.

Those responsible for developing the tourist focus of a religious

site may not have the intention of influencing the American identity

of visitors, but such an influence is a frequent side effect of trying to

present a sense of religious legitimacy and a narrative that will be

common to the variety of visitors that they receive. Site workers and

managers want to appeal to both LDS Church and Community of

Christ members and nonmembers. To do that they have to create a

site that will resonate with both; it cannot be overwhelmed with insid-

er knowledge or too general.

Appealing to tourism and history rather than theology and pil-

grimage is one way to try to accomplish both of these tasks. For in-

stance,manyAmericanreligioustouristsitessuchasHistoricNauvoo

and the Joseph Smith Historic Sites have strong connections to a tra-

ditional sense of American history—a history focusing on values that

are often attributed to early Americans such as hard work, religious

freedom, creativity, development, and innovation.

The creators of Historic Nauvoo and the Joseph Smith Historic

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 43

Bailyn, To Begin the World Anew, 5.

Ibid.

Eric Gable and RichardHandler, “After Authenticity at an American

Heritage Site,” American Anthropologist 98, no. 3 (1996): 568–78; Richard

Handler and Eric Gable, The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past

at Colonial Williamsburg (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1997).

Sites have tapped into these common perceptions of American his-

tory to position themselves and their identities in the context of that

history for visitors. They can make such connections because early

Mormons created their theology and enlarged their membership in

the United States at a time of burgeoning growth and developing val-

ues. The Mormons influenced and were influenced by a youthful,

emergent American identity. Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon,

and a core of fervent believers demonstrated what a new prophet, a

new book of scripture, and a new religious movement could look like,

both being influenced by and influencing other faith-based groups

that were developing at the same time. In Robert V. Remini’s popular

biography of Joseph Smith, he said, “The founder of this Church, the

Prophet, Joseph Smith Jr., is unquestionably the most important re-

former and innovator in American religious history.” Smith made “an

enduringcontributiontoAmericanlifeandcultureand...wasinflu-

enced by the intellectual milieu and events of his time.”

6+++

Nauvoo provides an excellent example of this strategy for maxi-

mizing American historical identity. The site creators are legitimizing

their religious organization by connecting it to values and history that

the visitors know. Legitimization is an understandable goal for the

Latter-day Saints because, despite their lengthy U.S. history, they are

still frequently seen as marginal by the larger society. Historically,

Mormons have reinforced this perception by separating themselves

from larger society and have held a sectarian perspective on their

place in the world.

Because of the multiple stakeholders in Nauvoo tourism—lead-

ers of both Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ Lat-

ter-daySaints,membersofbothchurchesandotherchurches,pil-

grims, tourists, and townspeople—there are different ideas about

what Nauvoo is and how it should be marketed to visitors. Like Kirt-

land, Ohio, Nauvoo is considered an important religious site for both

Community of Christ and the Mormons. Both own property in Nau-

voo. Community of Christ owns and manages the Joseph Smith His-

toric Sites (a visitors’ center, several original buildings from the 1840s

settlement, including the Joseph Smith Homestead, Mansion House,

Red Brick Store, Nauvoo House, and the Smith Family Cemetery),

while LDS properties include the Nauvoo Temple (built on the site

and to the footprint of the original temple), a visitors’ center that

44 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Robert V. Remini, Joseph Smith (New York: Viking, 2002), ix.

shows Mormon-themed films, and both replica and original build

ings including homes, a print shop, post office, mercantile, variety

store, and boot shop. Visitors can witness bricks being made in the

brickyard and sample gingerbread cookies at Scovil Bakery.

Despite differing histories, theologies, and organizational

goals,boththeLatter-daySaintsandCommunityofChristhavecon-

structed similar identities that resonate with many types of visitors.

This identity, based on a traditional conception of American histori-

calidentity,positionsearlyMormonsaspartofawaveofwesternpio-

neers with a strong work ethic who were searching for religious free-

dom. It is the presentation of American identity at Nauvoo that I

discussinthisarticle.

In my research into American religious tourism,

7++++

Ihavefound

that site creators use two main methods to convey their message or

their social-religious ideals:

1. They use a pilgrimage model to create spiritual space. If visi-

tors are experiencing what they think of as a spiritual or religious

place, they are more likely to be susceptible to the site’s social-reli-

giousmessage.Somesitesfocusprimarilyonthesacrednatureof

their space by referring to miracles that occurred at the site or re-

minding visitors of their connection to other spiritual sites. For in-

stance, through replicas of famous religious stories and Stations of

the Cross, Our Lady of the Snows, an Oblate shrine outside Saint

Louis, reminds visitors of the miraculous experiences that have oc-

curred at Lourdes and near Mexico City. However, I conclude that the

site creators of Historic Nauvoo and the Joseph Smith Historic Sites

have focused on the second method.

2. They use a tourism model to create an educational environ-

ment. The site creators borrow from the model provided by nonreli-

gious tourist sites to attract visitors and keep their attention long

enough to teach them about their social-religious ideals or religious

identity. These elements include electronic media, dramatic produc-

tions, brochures, exhibits, tours, and one-on-one interaction between

volunteers and visitors. Based on my interviews with site workers and

managers, I conclude that these techniques work well at religious

sites, too. The site creators achieve their primary goal of communicat-

ing their social-religious ideals, but these techniques have unintended

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 45

++++

Sarah Bill Schott, “Religious Tourism in America: Identity Forma-

tion of Sites and Visitors” (Ph.D. diss., Loyola University, Chicago, 2008).

consequences as well. The site creators have designed sites that have a

familiar national message, one that visitors can understand and iden-

tify with. This is not tosay that Nauvoois not aspiritualsite,butrather

that it does not rely on traditional elements of the pilgrimage model

to draw in visitors and inf luence them. This finding is somewhat dif-

ferent from previous studies that have looked at Salt Lake City and

other important LDS Church sites as places of pilgrimage.

Using a tourism framework leads, unsurprisingly, to the cre-

ation of a more secular identity creation (American history) while us-

ing a pilgrimage framework leads to the creation of more spiritual

identity—for instance, in which visitors are led to think more about

their role in the world. Historic Nauvoo and the Joseph Smith His-

toric Sites tend to focus on American historical identity (American

exceptionalism) rather than a global identity (the U.S. role in the

world). Concentrating on this historical identity may or may not be

conscious; but on a micro-level, it molds the experience of each indi-

vidual visitor and, on a macro-level, helps define the Mormon iden-

tity for those who experience Mormonism at just this site. The visitors

take the site creators’ view of Mormonism and Mormon history from

the site into their social context. Therefore, in the end, the type of

framework used is important because what the visitor learns moves

beyond the visitor and the site to larger society.

This article is based on participant-observation and interviews

of sixteen visitors and seventeen employees/volunteers at the Joseph

Smith Historic Sites and Historic Nauvoo. I examine these sites to-

gether, rather than contrasting them, because visitors usually experi-

ence the sites together, sometimes not even realizing that they are

managed by different religions. Of my interviewees, nine were wo-

men and fourteen were men. For the most part, the visitors to whom I

talked and whom I observed came as couples, as families, or with

groups of friends. This pattern corresponds with previous research

conducted on visitors to Temple Square in Salt Lake City.

9**

Bus tours

with a religious focus (usually concentrating just on Community of

Christ or LDS members) come in from around the country, a pattern I

46 The Journal of Mormon History

Lloyd Hudman and Richard Jackson, “Mormon Pilgrimage and

Tourism,” Annals of Tourism Research 19, no. 1 (1992): 107–21; Douglas

Davies, “Pilgrimage in Mormon Culture,” Social Anthropology of Pilgrimage,

edited by Makhan Jha (New Delhi: Inter-India Publications, 1991), 310–25.

Richard H. Jackson, Gisbert Rinschede, and Jill Knapp, “Pilgrimage

also observed at Hill Cumorah, a Mormon pilgrimage site in New

Yo r k .

OOLS OF THE TRADE

LDS and Community of Christ site creators in Nauvoo have bor-

rowed several techniques used in non-religious tourism such as bro-

chures, films, and dramatizations in live theater to communicate a

message about the value of hard work, self-determination, and reli-

gious freedom. Furthermore, teaching about the work ethic of the

early Mormons also looks like teaching about the work ethic of early

Americans. Focusing on the historical similarities rather than the

theological differences makes the sites more appealing and accessible

to a larger audience than only Mormons and Community of Christ

members, since this topic is relevant to the modern visitor.

Brochures

Often the first information a visitor receives about a site is from

a brochure. Brochures are important for creating identity for both the

site and the visitor to the tourist and education sites.

10***

Both site cre-

ators and site visitors need a way to transmit and receive information

to make the visit valuable to both sides. Because of Nauvoo’s open

plan, the visitors are not forced to talk to the site creators or receive in-

troductory lectures before wandering among the buildings. There-

fore, the brochures’ emphasis on positioning the Mormon story for

Nauvoo as part of American history demonstrates what the site cre-

ators think is important, what they want the visitors to know about the

site,andwhattheythinkthevisitorswanttoknow.Forinstance,one

of the LDS brochures depicts Nauvoo’s Mormons this way: “Though

the Saints were energetic, they were also poor. Monetary donations

were in short supply, but hearts and hands were found willing.”

11****

This LDS brochure focuses on visitor-participant action, such as

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 47

in the Mormon Church,” in Pilgrimage in the United States, edited by Gisbert

Rinschede (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1990), 27–61; see also Hudman

and Jackson, “Mormon Pilgrimage and Tourism,” 107–21.

***

Roy Buck, “The Ubiquitous Tourist Brochure: Explorations in Its

Intended and Unintended Use,” Annals of Tourism Research 9, no. 4 (1977):

195–207; Dave Cooper, “Portraits of Paradise: Themes and Images of the

Tourist Industry,”Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 22 (1994): 144–60.

****

Illinois Nauvoo Mission, Never a Better Time to See Nauvoo (Nauvoo:

carriage rides, wagon tours, pageants, music concerts, Sunday Soc-

iables, and demonstrations of brick making, weaving, bread making,

ropemaking,printing,andbaking.Thebrochureleadsthepotential

visitor to anticipate a busy experience where they will participate in

the lives of the early Mormons. The LDS brochure leads visitors to ex-

pect that they will actively participate in a re-creation of history, not

just observe it. Because the site creators focus on activities common

to all early Americans, the brochure encourages visitors to position

themselves, not only within the Mormon narrative, but also within

the American one.

The Community of Christ brochure, Nauvoo: City Beautiful,

12+

alsofocusesonanAmericannarrative.Itoutlinesthedevelopmentof

the city without much discussion of the town’s religious intentions,

theology, global initiatives, or Community of Christ differences from

the LDS Church. The Nauvoo Board of Tourism also publishes its

own brochures, which again are strongly keyed to an American, rath-

er than a religious, theme. According to the Nauvoo Tourism Office

brochure, “What you really find out first-hand is that the early settlers

of our country were truly educated, inventive, and capable of estab-

lishing the many complex functions necessary to survive and help

contribute to the development of our United States.”

13++

This quota-

tion focuses on all American pioneers, not just on Mormons. Both

the Nauvoo Tourism Office and Community of Christ want to pro-

mote the city’s historical aspects as a way of appealing broadly to visi-

tors who are unconnected to either church but in a way that does not

alienate LDS visitors, who are a significant portion of the visitors. (No

statistics are available about the religious background of visitors.)

Consequently,iftheCommunityofChristandtheNauvooBoardof

Tourism choose to focus on the hard work and capability of all the

early settlers, this message will likely appeal to LDS members and

nonmembers alike and attract all types of visitors.

Space

Site creators have many choices about how they organize and

48 The Journal of Mormon History

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2006), 9.

Community of Christ, Nauvoo: City Beautiful (Independence: Com-

munity of Christ, 2002).

Nauvoo Area Chamber of Commerce, Historic Nauvoo (brochure)

(Nauvoo: Nauvoo Area Chamber of Commerce, n.d.).

use the space available to them. Religious tourist sites may decide on

spaces for prayer and contemplation, museums, replications, or art

exhibits among others. The challenge is how best to employ their

space to teach visitors their social-religious ideals and have them un-

derstand the spiritual nature of the site. They must also decide what

they are going to display in that space. Their objectives lead site

spaces to be constructed and controlled in different ways. Site cre-

ators must decide if they want to control their visitors (i.e., visitation is

allowed only via guided tours) or allow them to wander based on their

interests. At the Joseph Smith Historic Sites, visitors must take a tour

to see inside the historic buildings, but at Historic Nauvoo sites, visi-

tors may roam about, entering the buildings they choose. However,

once inside these buildings, they meet guides who present informa-

tion and interpretations. Naturally, such tour guides and site guides

are a sensible security precaution as well as sources of information.

All of the Community of Christ space is historically focused and

so are most of the LDS sites. Both are predominantly visitors’ centers,

tours, films, and historic and replicated buildings. The re-created

buildings owned by the Latter-day Saints include period homes, a

brickyard, gunsmith shop, log home and school, post office, print

shop, bakery, and blacksmith shop. Each building has period-cos-

tumed volunteers who tell how each particular business or family con-

tributed to the development of Nauvoo. No one is required to enter

the visitors’ centers or buildings to view the building exteriors. One

can drive or walk about, view the exteriors, and read the informa-

tional signs. Unless they enter the visitors’ center or the replica build-

ings, they will not receive information about Mormon beliefs, have

questions answered, or learn anything new about the site or the rel-

igious group.

Decisions about space use also include exhibit space. Site cre-

ators need to decide how much space and how many exhibits will be

devoted to learning about the religion’s doctrines and history, and

how much space will be reserved for reflection and spiritual issues.

On this point, the site creators indicate a commitment to Mormon

and American history by maintaining and developing the historic

town, an approach that not only communicates the site creators’ so-

cial-religious ideals but also helps legitimate them. Connecting the re-

ligion to such traditional American values as hard work, develop-

ment, innovation, and community unity lets the visitors know that

this tradition is not new. It is a legitimate religious tradition.

SCOTT C. ESPLIN/CHURCH COLLEGE OF NEW ZEALAND 49

All of these decisions are related to sociologist Dean MacCan-

nell’s ideas on site sacralization and staging. He finds that tourist at-

tractions are developed out of the relationship between the tourist (a

visitor), the site (something to visit), and the marker (“a piece of infor-

mation about a site”). Markers tell the tourist that society (or a part of

it) has designated this particular place as worth visiting. Site creators

are not randomly making these decisions but are marking certain

spaces and items by framing, protecting, or spotlighting.

14+++

They thus

communicate that visitors should pay attention to these items. Al-

though visitors are drawn to the backstage area (parts of the site that

are off-limits to visitors), it is the volunteers’ responsibility to keep the

visitors focused on the chosen material. For instance, Community of

Christ’s visitors’ center uses lighting to direct the visitors’ gaze toward

original paintings by David Hyrum Smith, while the LDS visitors’ cen-

ter places old editions of the Bible and various translations of the

Book of Mormon in a way that helps the visitors see the LDS Church’s

long and expanding influence.

AlthoughtheLatter-daySaintsandCommunityofChrist

churches are worldwide religions, they have a particular connection

to the United States, which visitors see in Nauvoo. Their founding

prophet and original members were North American and recent Eu-

ropean immigrants; their mythology is connected to high American

religious achievement in the religious and secular worlds. For in-

stance, Joseph Smith preached that Christ’s second coming would oc-

cur in Missouri. According to Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton,

“The Mormons were to establish the moral, social, and political con-

ditions necessary before Christ’s return could occur.”

15++++

As part of

secular American history, the early Mormon Church is known for its

successive community-building in Ohio, Missouri, and Ohio, then

specifically for its western expansion to the Great Basin.

16*

The LDS

visitors’ center exhibits make the point that Mormons often settled in

undeveloped areas where they established farms and businesses and

that, according to historian Robert B. Flanders, “Mormon town build-

50 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Dean MacCannell, The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 41.

++++

Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A

History of the Latter-day Saints (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 37.

Ibid.

ing was orderly and industrious.”

17**

Both the volunteers and the ex-

hibits stress that, at its peak, Mormon Nauvoo was Illinois’s second

largest city.

18***

A three-dimensional topographic model of Nauvoo ef-

fectively demonstrates the physical effect of Mormon settlement on

theareaandtheextentofthecity’sdevelopment.TheLDSvisitors’

center displays inform visitors about towns in the region that early

Mormons settled, their economic development, and government and

military institutions.

Historic Nauvoo, however, goes beyond this American story

with its focus on educational tourism toward a more religious and

spiritual one, at least for Latter-day Saint visitors. The LDS Church

also owns the jail twenty-two miles away in Carthage, Illinois, where

Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were murdered by an armed

mob. Unlike the many Nauvoo buildings that are replicas, this jail is

original, so volunteers call attention to the site’s authenticity. During

my visit, missionary-guide Sister South (all names are pseudonyms)

pointed out that “the mob” shot through “this door,” and Joseph

Smith fell through “this window.” She encouraged us to “think about

how you feel about Joseph Smith and what he went through for us.”

Site creators are thus asking visitors to make a personal, spiritual con-

nection—which Mormon visitors often do. Brett, a thirty-year-old fa-

therwhowasbringinghisyoungsonsforthefirsttimetoNauvooand

Carthage, said, “It was pretty emotional after hearing all of the sto-

ries. I felt a closeness to Joseph Smith. He went through a lot of crap.

Thereisnootherwaytosayit.Itwasamazingtobeattheplacewhere

Joseph lived and was martyred. I felt the Spirit.” By personally testify-

ing and encouraging the visitors to also share their own religious ex-

perience, the volunteers risk alienating nonmember visitors and pos-

sibly members. The spiritual identity of Nauvoo overcomes its hist-

orical identity at Carthage.

To complicate matters for the LDS members further, the Com-

munityofChristownsmostofthebuildingsthatareauthentictoJo-

seph Smith and his family. At Community of Christ sites where the

buildings are “truly authentic” (i.e., buildings actually constructed

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 51

Robert Bruce Flanders, Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi (Urbana:

University of Illinois Press, 1975), 24.

***

Remini, Joseph Smith, 144. Richard Lyman Bushman also cites

sources establishing that Nauvoo was as large as Chicago in 1844. Joseph

Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 385.

and/or lived in by Joseph Smith), the LDS members hear the Com-

munity of Christ narrative, not their own. They hear about the possi-

bility of other successors to Joseph Smith (his son, Joseph Smith III,

became the first RLDS president in 1860), and the importance of his

first wife, Emma. A twenty-something Mormon couple explained the

differences between the two sites in this way. She said, “The Commu-

nity of Christ sites focus on how they [Nauvoo Mormon] lived. It is his-

torical—how life was like then. It is a different perspective. You hear a

lot of stories about the pioneers and a lot of stories about Nauvoo.”

Her husband responded, “The LDS sites are a more spiritual thing for

us. They [Community of Christ] are coming from a different perspec-

tive; they have a different way of explaining.” Mark, a young Mormon

who had just completed his two-year mission service in Oklahoma

City,saidaboutthesites,“IthinktheCommunityofChrist[site]talks

about the strength and love of the early pioneers. They don’t talk

about religion as much at their site, which is cool. It is more open for

everybody. The LDS sites want to show how early pioneers did things

and how hard it was. I mean we just watched them make candles. It

took a really long time.”

Volunteers

In Nauvoo, the volunteer guides are part of the exhibits, enact-

ing the tasks required by daily life and thus conveying the social-reli-

giousidealofhardwork.AsMark’scommentsaboutcandle-making

demonstrate, the reenactments focus on the physical demands of

nineteenth-century life, from making boots to shoeing horses. A

smooth-running society required hard, skilled labor from all of its

members. The demonstrations at Nauvoo not only distribute infor-

mation and communicate Mormon/American values but also enter-

tain visitors. Forinstance, the retired man who volunteered at the cob-

bler’s workshop told our tour group that he hoped we took away the

knowledge that life was very hard for the cobbler and his family. They

workedhardandfollowed“theProphet”;andbecausetheydid,their

lives had meaning. In the print shop, Elder North demonstrated the

hand-worked press and exhibited copies of two early LDS papers,

Times and Seasons and The Wasp.Healsotalkedabouttheprinter,

John Taylor. Taylor, an apostle and later Church president, was with

Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage Jail and was shot four times,

though not fatally. When I asked Elder North what he wanted us to

take away from our visit, he said, “A little about President Taylor and a

52 The Journal of Mormon History

little about the printing press.” Although he put Taylor first, the dem-

onstration probably more strongly communicated the American

work ethic, showing modern visitors how they can become part of this

narrative by working hard at their own jobs, thereby making better

lives, providing meaning, and benefiting our communities.

Volunteers are able to reinforce their messages by locating Joseph

Smith according to his multiple roles in the lives of Nauvoo’s people

and, by extension, in their own lives. One guide at a Community of

Christ site said, “We want people to understand better that Nauvoo is

not just a religious community and that Joseph Smith was a business

man,apolitician,aleaderofthemilitia,andhewasaprophet....I

want to humanize Joseph versus putting him on a pedestal.” The story

of Joseph Smith fits into a traditional American narrative, which in-

cludes not only physical exertion but also mental exceptionalism. Nine-

teenth-century Americans were able to build a new country with the

sweat of their collective brow, an endeavor that required exceptional

thinking and creativity. Emphasizing Joseph Smith as a prophet does

not necessarily create a sense of American identity for the nonmember

and is sometimes not the focal point of what the site creators are telling

visitors about Smith. When the focus is on his many other accomplish-

ments, his contribution to American history becomes one that both

members and nonmembers can appreciate.

Creating a spiritual space and a message for two groups can be

difficult for site creators. Community of Christ must rely on its on-site

volunteers to mediate the message. Many of them tried to focus on the

history, thus emphasizing the characteristics of Joseph Smith that both

groups can agree on. Some of the volunteers were explicit about trying

to avoid conf lict at the site by creating a message focused on the Ameri-

can historical identity and thus creating an experience in which Lat-

ter-daySaints,CommunityofChristmembers,andthoseofother

faiths or no faith can feel comfortable. This strategy can actively engage

all visitors and alienate no one. Teaching the history without the reli-

gious element seems an effective approach for non-Mormon visitors

who are familiar with this historical model and appreciate not having

their own religious beliefs questioned or challenged.

However, it often backfires because the LDS members are accus-

tomed to being guided into spirituality at the end of a tour or film and

feel that something is missing from the Community of Christ sites.

LDS visitors Michael and Chris, who were visiting Nauvoo with their

wives, expressed this opinion. Michael commented about the Joseph

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 53

Smith Historic Sites and their tour guides, “The stories and the

houses—the sites—are well done. It is a good history. The difference at

theLDSsitesisthatthemissionaryalwaysincludesatestimony.They

bring the spiritual part into it.” Chris responded, “Maybe the Com-

munityofChristshoulddothat....She[thetourguide]grewupin

thechurch.Shewasalifelongmember.Sheshouldhavetoldusher

personal experience—how she found her faith.” This preference dem-

onstrates that LDS visitors move fairly seamlessly between a tourism

and a spiritual model. They expect the volunteer guides to testify

after giving information and history.

However, this model may be confusing and even off-putting for

non-Mormons.ThosewhoseeNauvoo primarily as anopportunity to

learn about American history may be uncomfortable when asked per-

sonal religious questions. For instance, at Carthage Jail the volunteers

were able to emphasize the site’s American authenticity and also the

jail’s importance for the moments of climactic violence that ended Jo-

seph and Hyrum Smith’s lives. Since this event is clearly of greatest

significance to those who revere Joseph Smith as their faith’s found-

ing prophet, much of the site’s spirituality is brought there by the visi-

tors rather than emphasized by the site creators. If visitors bring with

themasensethatitis,insomesense,sacralizedbyJosephSmith’s

death, then it will be a spiritual place for them.

Film and Theater

Like many other museums and tourist sites, religious tourist sites

are finding more innovative ways to present their information, in-

cluding films and live dramatizations. Film is a familiar format for vis-

itors and gives them orienting and contextualizing information to

which they can refer during the tour. Going to the movies is a popular

entertainment, social activity, or treat. Films shown in the classroom

are seen as a break from the ordinary and are usually anticipated by

students. The visual images teach people in a way that a lecture or oral

presentation cannot. Film, whether educational or entertaining, en-

gages the viewers’ senses and therefore provides more of an experi-

ence. At tourist sites,the films usually complement the message of the

exhibits.

In Nauvoo, visitors are also exposed to a traditional view of

American identity through films produced by both the Latter-day

Saints and Community of Christ that portray their founding prophet

as a hard-working American pioneer. At the Joseph Smith Historic

54 The Journal of Mormon History

Sites, Community of Christ President Emeritus Wallace B. Smith, a

great-grandson of Joseph Smith, endorses the information present-

ed.ThefilmmentionsthatJosephSmithworkedhard,hadmany

jobs, was politically active (including running for U.S. president), and

created Nauvoo with a particular plan in mind. All of the main build-

ings were part of his city layout, unlike many other American towns,

which were more random. This film represents an important invest-

ment of time and money by Community of Christ. According to one

of the Joseph Smith Historic Sites employees, “We are in the middle

of a redesign at headquarters. We want to have consistency of message

at all our sites.” Nate, a young Community of Christ priest and volun-

teer, commented that the film is “good for helping the guests. On the

tour, they will be like, ‘Oh yeah, it said that in the video.’”

The film differentiates its message from the LDS sites by two

main points. First, it emphasizes that several men claimed leadership

after Joseph Smith’s death in addition to Brigham Young, who suc-

cessfully headed the LDS contingent. Carol, a college student intern-

ing at the Joseph Smith Historic Sites, said that the film “helps with

learning the early church history—why we are so different from the

LDS.” Second, it mentions the non-Mormon history of Nauvoo, in-

cluding the movement of Icarians, Germans, and Swiss into the area

after Joseph Smith’s death and the departure of Young’s followers to

theWest.ThefilmlegitimatestheCommunityofChristmessageby

demonstrating Joseph Smith’s strength and humanity as the prophet

and by putting the Church’s development in a historical context (i.e.,

Joseph Smith was one of many who lived in the area). Here visitors see

the Mormons as a group of early settlers developing the area rather

than as primarily a religious group.

After touring the Joseph Smith Historic Sites, I met a middle-

aged couple from Britain who were visiting Nauvoo with a couple from

Utah. The two husbands had met as young missionaries and had been

planning this trip as an anniversary celebration since their respective

marriages. Ben (the British husband) commented: “The Community

of Christ [film] is focused on the historical preservation of Joseph

Smith; the LDS [film] is focused on the spiritual things that took place.

The LDS film fleshed it out. It makes you feel what they felt even if you

aren’t LDS. It shows you who, why, and how.” The American husband,

David, added: “The LDS film is an emotional film. You get a sense of

the man [Joseph Smith], his life, family, and circumstances.”

At Historic Nauvoo, visitors find a more extensive discussion of

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 55

Joseph Smith as a prophet than at Community of Christ sites. His role

in the community and his personality are shown as dominant ele-

ments in developing the city of Nauvoo and Mormonism. In the LDS

film shown at Carthage Jail, Impressions of the Prophet,Smithisde-

picted as preaching in chains to his jailers, reining in runaway horses,

playing baseball with young boys, and helping a former slave buy his

son’s freedom. He is portrayed as a loving and beloved husband, fa-

ther, and friend—an exceptional but human man. Like other Ameri-

can heroes, he is a hard-working family man who achieved extraordi-

nary things despite adversity through talent, tenacity, and courage

like other American leaders. Lewis and Clark, Abraham Lincoln, and

Harriet Tubman are all portrayed as American heroes who changed

the United States, not through super powers but through innovation,

hard work, taking chances, inspiring others, and risking their lives.

This is the portrait of Joseph Smith that the LDS Church is creat-

ing—as part of American history.

Creating an American hero may not be an intentional goal of

the LDS site creators, especially of its missionary guides. As Sister

South said during her testimony after the Carthage Jail tour: “Joseph

Smith gave his life for his testimony, and Jesus’s promise is sealed in

Joseph Smith’s blood.” For Sister South, Joseph Smith is more than an

American hero. However, for non-Mormons, descriptions of Joseph

Smith in the films and often by the guides create a picture of Joseph

Smith as an American leader that corresponds to the other historical

messages at these sites.

Not only does the LDS site show at least two films featuring Jo-

seph Smith, but during the peak visitation months in the summer, it

also sponsors daily live theater dramatizations throughout town (“Nau-

voo Remembered: Historical Vignettes”) and Tuesday through Thurs-

day at sunset in an outdoor theater near the Mississippi River. The

town is very quiet in the evening, so attending the play gives visitors

something to do. Afterward, visitors can talk to the actors, all of whom

are volunteers—usually college students—and have photographs taken

with them. In 2006 when I did my research, the actor who played Jo-

seph Smith, was a tall, handsome young man—which is historically ac-

curate, since Smith was in his late thirties during the Nauvoo period.

Both at the Hill Cumorah Pageant and at Nauvoo, I saw many children

run up to the actor playing Joseph Smith before the show and eagerly

wait their turn to have their picture taken with him. This actor is as

close as anyone will get to meeting Joseph Smith in the current life, and

56 The Journal of Mormon History

the encounter seems to be especially meaningful for the children.

Before the play, families can participate in activities typical of

the nineteenth century such as log sawing, round dancing, crafts,

races, and a puppet show. Christopher and his wife had visited Nau-

vooseveraltimes,andhesaid,“Ithinkthattheyhavedoneagoodjob

of making Nauvoo a fun place. It is a spiritual experience, but it is also

fun to learn what they did. My wife and I played pioneer games and

walked on stilts through the fields.”

In 2006, the Nauvoo Pageant was in its second year. Although

the LDS site was participating in performances of “Nauvoo Remem-

bered: Historical Vignettes” and the plays High Hopes and River Boats,

and Just Plain Anna-Amanda,thepageantwasbeingpromotedbythe

visitors’ centers and local shops. That year, the Nauvoo Pageant re-

layed the major Mormon religious ideals that they would like visitors

to understand. For instance, one early theme is that of the “gather-

ing,” or why Mormon converts from elsewhere in the United States

and Europe traveled to Nauvoo.

19****

Theplayhasascenedepictinga

Scots couple whose son died on this journey. Smith comforts the fa-

ther by telling him that God knows what it is like to lose a son. As a na-

tion of immigrants, the United States includes the Mormons who also

recruited new Americans, even though immigration frequently in-

volved hardship and loss. Although the play focuses on European im-

migrants, it clarifies that Mormons are now fully and devotedly Amer-

ican. Before the play begins, children walk to the stage area from the

Social Hall following the American flag and then lead the audience in

singing the national anthem. Once again, the LDS site creators have

used a common view of nineteenth-century America to present their

message about Mormons.

Another important theme is the construction of the Nauvoo

Temple at great financial sacrifice; temple ordinances occupy a sig-

nificant point in the development of Mormon theology.

REATING RELIGIOUS TOURISM

By using the tools of tourism and creating a recognizable por-

trait of the American narrative, both the Community of Christ and

the LDS Church entertain and inform many types of visitors. Al-

though the majority of visitors to the Joseph Smith Historic Sites and

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 57

****

Remini, Joseph Smith, 144–45; Flanders, Nauvoo, 57–91.

Historic Nauvoo are LDS Church members,

20+

this demographic fact

doesnotmeanthatthesitecreatorswouldnotliketoattractothers.

By using tourism techniques recognizable to many different types of

visitors, they expand their chances of success.

Site creators who rely on modern tourism techniques to create

suchreligioustouristsitesasNauvooarenotafraidtoappealtomod-

ern visitors and their preferences. Site creators examine other tourist

sitestofindoutwhattypesofbrochures,souvenirs,exhibits,tours,

and websites interest the visitors. More and more religious tourist site

managers are introducing multimedia into their sites. For example,

the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has several theaters

featuring different movies about dinosaurs, creation, and human sal-

vation. The most innovative theater is the Special Effects Theater fea-

turing MeninWhite.According to the Creation Museum website,

“Wendy has questions and Men in White have answers. Come in and

experience the sights, sounds and thrills of the Bible and Science in

our unforgettable Special Effects Theater. Prepare to believe. You

won’twanttomisstheamazingshow.”

21++

The Billy Graham Library in

Charlotte, North Carolina, has also incorporated multimedia into its

presentation. According to its fact sheet, one highlight of the tour is

“AJourneyofFaith:RetraceBillyGraham’sdynamicjourneythrough

stunning multimedia presentations, interactive kiosks, photos and

memorabilia.”

22+++

The use of media creates a more engaging experi-

ence for the visitors and is a common, nonthreatening way to convey

information. Viewing media strengthens the visitor’s sense of being

actively engaged at the site.

In addition to multimedia, visitors have many opportunities to

engage religious insiders at tourism-focused sites because religious in-

siders are the tour guides, ticket takers, and bookshop attendants. Vol-

58 The Journal of Mormon History

This information is based on the conclusions of the staff and volun-

teers that I talked to at both sites.

Creation Museum, “Theater Presentations,” Creation Museum

website, www.creation museum.org/whats-here/theater-presentations/

(accessed August 3, 2009).

+++

Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, “A Journey of Faith: Retrace

Billy Graham’s Dynamic Journey through Stunning Multimedia Presenta-

tions, Interactive Kiosks, Photos and Memorabilia,” 2009, Billy Graham Li-

brary website, www.billygraham.org/pdfs/library/library%20Fact%20

sheet.pdf (accessed August 3, 2009).

unteers often tell personal stories about spiritual experiences in their

own lives (i.e., conversions or ways in which God changed their lives),

but visitors are not forced to share in the same way unless moved to do

so. The volunteers want to help those who are conflicted with religious

questions or doubts, and they discuss their religion with those who are

interested, but they also realize that they can help and inform through

the site. According to Luke, who volunteers at the Joseph Smith His-

toric Sites, Community of Christ uses the site for outreach. “We reach

more people at this site than any other way,” he said. Therefore, the ex-

hibits and the volunteers work in tandem to provide both an informa-

tional and a spiritual experience (for those who want it). By using a

tourism focus, the site creators have tried to make the site inviting and

nonthreatening for visitors who are interested in religion but who are

uncomfortable at places of worship. At religious tourist sites, the volun-

teers are particularly important because they are the part of encourag-

ing spiritually motivated visitors to have the experience they seek.

As previously mentioned, having a tourism focus is not the only

choice religious tourist site creators can make. Whether site creators

choose a tourism approach depends on site creators’ perceptions

about their religious message and how they think other people see

them. In the case of Nauvoo, although both the Community of Christ

and the LDS Church have an international presence, outsiders typi-

cally see them as primarily American religions. Both groups recog-

nize the importance of this history in their messages. Joseph Smith’s

theology was tied to the United States, especially as the setting for the

Book of Mormon and in his millennialist theology. It is logical for

Nauvoo site creators to emphasize an American identity which most

of their visitors will share.

Additionally, Mormons are perceived as being sectarian, and this

history of separation (especially about Utah Mormons) influences

common perceptions in the larger society. This perception is con-

firmed by such continuing LDS practices as dietary restrictions, cloth-

ing requirements, active proselytizing, and restricted access totemples.

ORKING WITH AN AMERICAN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

If site creators are developing and managing a religious site in

the United States, they have a choice about creating an American

identity or something else. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance,

has a long history in the United States and owns several religious sites

but often chooses to focus on its global identity. For instance, the

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 59

managers of Our Lady of the Snows spend more time demonstrating

Catholicism’s global presence with artwork and shrines than focusing

on its U.S. history. The site also has an exhibit showing how the Mis-

sionaryOblatesofMaryImmaculate,whomanagethesitehavepro-

vided service during natural catastrophes such as the tsunami in Sri

Lanka and Indonesia. This order could have easily focused on the ex-

tensivehistoryoftheCatholicChurchinSt.Louisanditsroleinthe

city’s development but have chosen not to.

The Baha’i faith, although less well known and more margin-

alized than the Catholic Church, has a history rooted in Persia in the

nineteenth century and a theology that incorporates many of the

prophets from both Eastern and Western religions.

23++++

The North

American Baha’i House of Worship is located in Wilmette, Illinois,

near Chicago. Although the creators of this visitation site could have

focused on their emigration from Iran throughout the late twentieth

century and their success in Chicago, instead they emphasize their

world missions such as education and peace. These global identities

mean that these sites communicate an international sense and do not

concentrate on legitimizing their groups in the same way as Nauvoo.

They are not focusing on creating a mainstream identity but are

trying to demonstrate their relevancy on the world stage.

The Community of Christ and LDS site creators, in contrast, are

projecting an American identity to transmit their religious identity,

even though creating an American identity is not their primary goal.

Some religious tourism sites, like the Shakers at Sabbathday Lake,

who combine a Shaker museum as part of the home of the living

Shaker community, or the Mennonites at Menno-Hof Anabaptist In-

terpretive Center, may thinkof themselves as providing an alternative

to the American way of life rather than teaching about American life

at their sites. Both the Shakers and the Anabaptists are pacifists; and

the Shakers, the Amish, and the Hutterites live separately from the

general population.

24*

The LDS Church and Community of Christ

also have a strong international presence, so an American historical

identity is not necessarily a given. Although immigration is part of the

60 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Michael McMullen, The Baha’i: The Religious Construction of Global

Identity (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2000).

Donald B. Kraybill and Carl Desportes Bowman, On the Backroad to

Heaven: Old Order Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren (Baltimore,

Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); Richard Francis, Ann the Word:

message of Nauvoo, it does not seem to be the primary one. To attract

a larger audience, the site managers have broadened their message,

consequently focusing on one that is not their primary intention.

Mormonism’s history and connections to the local area create a

sense of American identity at these sites. Using this broader identity,

thesitecreatorsareabletoengagetheirvisitorsonapersonallevel;

these sites seem to be saying, “We are all Americans.” The American

message is beneficial to the site because visitors are more likely to lis-

ten to the social-religious ideals if they can identify with them. Addi-

tionally, by connecting visitors to an American identity, the site cre-

ators also legitimize their religious group and their message. When

the religion is placed in a larger history, visitors can see how the group

contributed to the country’s development. This historical context

shows that the religious group was far from insignificant, either in the

past or in the present; rather, both groups continue to play a valuable

role in the United States. Tourism-focused sites are interested in edu-

cation and have chosen history as the framework within which to

articulate their religious organization’s history.

ECTARIAN ISSUES

An important influence on a group’s identity is its ideas about

other religions and about the rest of the world. Religious organiza-

tions that have a sectarian perspective, historically have been sectar-

ian, or are seen as sectarian, quite commonly develop visitation sites

that focus on tourism and therefore tend to stress their American

identity. Other examples of this are Menno-Hof Anabaptist Interpre-

tive Center and Sabbathday Lake mentioned earlier. Religious groups

with a sectarian perspective believe that their group has something to

offer that other social groups do not. According to religious scholars

Fred Kniss and Paul Numrich, “Sectarian groups usually form a

schism from a larger tradition that is seen as having become apos-

tate—that is, having wandered too far from its original ideals.”

25**

When Joseph Smith began his religious mission, which he termed a

“restoration,” he emphasized its connection to the Old Testament

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 61

The Story of Ann Lee, Female Messiah, Mother of the Shakers, the Woman Clothed

with the Sun (New York: Arcade, 2000).

Fred Kniss and Paul D. Numrich, Sacred Assemblies and Civic Engage-

ment: How Religion Matters for America’s Newest Immigrants (New Brunswick,

N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2007), 22.

prophets and to New Testament theologies that had been lost to the

Christian church.

26***

Kniss and Numrich add: “Sectarians view them-

selves as a faithful remnant, an example to others who have lost their

way.”

27****

Sectarianism may also be imposed by the larger society.

28+

If a

religious group is viewed as too different or threatening, it is less

likely to find general acceptance. Historical tourism gives groups

that have traditionally kept themselves separate from “the world”

and other religious groups (or are perceived as separate) a frame-

work for modern interactions. A tourism structure signals appropri-

ate behaviors for both the volunteers and the visitors; it also lets the

visitors know what type of experience to expect, thus making them

more comfortable.

For sectarian religious organizations like the Shakers, the Am-

ish, and the Mormons/Community of Christ, connecting to this Am-

erican identity lets the visitors know that these groups are less differ-

ent than they might seem. Some of my interviewees expressed this

goal explicitly. Christopher, for instance, said he hoped non-Mormon

visitors “learn that the LDS Church is not a weird thing, that we are

not odd people.” He added later in the interview: “We are not

ashamed that we are peculiar. Any group that goes to church for three

hours on Sunday and then goes to the temple another day of the week

is going to be seen as different. But we [the LDS sites] are there to

make sure that people understand the true church.” Brett expressed a

similar concern: “I hope they learn Church history. Most nonmem-

bers come for educational purposes, not because they are thinking of

converting.IhopetheyrealizeMormonaren’tfreaks,...Ihopethey

have a really neat experience and they realize Mormons aren’t crazy.”

Thus, historical tourism makes sense in reassuring apprehensive visi-

tors that they are getting an educational message similar to that of

other museums or cultural sites. In other words, historical tourism is a

deliberate strategy for the Mormon Church and Community of

Christ in reducing or removing societal misconceptions. Many Amer-

icans have never heard of Community of Christ, and the LDS Church

is still forced to expend energy distancing itself from its historical

62 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Remini, Joseph Smith, 68–71, 80–81.

****

Kniss and Numrich, Sacred Assemblies and Civic Engagement.

Ibid., 35.

practice of polygamy.

29++

Historical tourism also serves a protective function between the

religious organization and the visitors; the visitors are still tourists in a

museum and are not likely to accidentally see something unintended

for the public. Community of Christ temples in Kirtland and Inde-

pendence are open to the public, but LDS temples are not, which

makes temple rites seem mysterious or foreign. The LDS religious

tourist sites can teach nonmembers about Mormonism in an atmo-

sphere that is comfortable for both parties. Community of Christ

tourist sites can teach nonmembers how and why Community of

Christ is different from the LDS Church. Visitors are used to seeing

“Private” on doors or velvet ropes—all signals of where traffic is al-

lowed and where it is not. The visitors can absorb as much of the

messages on offer as they wish in a setting that is designed forthem.

Choosing a tourism framework is also connected to the percep-

tion of sectarianism. Because Mormons (less so for Community of

Christ) are seen as separating themselves from the rest of the world,

some nonmembers may think that they would not be welcome to visit

sites like Nauvoo. Broadening the identity of Nauvoo to include Am-

erican identity helps to overcome the perception of inhospitality. The

Catholic Church and Baha’i faith are not seen as sectarian but have ac-

tively maintained a pilgrimage tradition that includes historically wel-

coming visitors. By using a tourism framework, site creators commu-

nicate that Mormons, like the site visitors themselves, share the same

history and identity and can engage in a mutually profitable dialogue.

Site creators cannot rely only on their religious narrative to at-

tract visitors or they will reach only members; nonmembers lacking

this religious connection would either be uninterested in visiting or

would feel unwelcome if they did. Therefore, site creators have relied

on a broader American narrative to attract a larger audience. Nauvoo

thus becomes not only more accessible to nonmembers but also

makes it easier for members to recommend a visit to Nauvoo to non-

member friends. When I asked Joel, a Mormon from Omaha, if he

had ever suggested that nonmembers visit Nauvoo, he replied: “I

think that with nonmembers I would have a dialogue about the histor-

ical aspects. I think in Omaha especially, there are a lot of connections

to all kinds of pioneers. Many people have connections with settlers in

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 63

Kimberly Maul, “Mormons Seek Distance from Texas Polygamists,”

PR Week (US), July 14, 2008, 2.

the Midwest.” He added: “I think it [Nauvoo] is great for kids. They

can learn how to make a brick and how to create a horseshoe. Kids

don’t have any concept of those things. I would highlight those types

of things if someone was thinking about visiting.”

ONCLUSION

Many American religious tourist sites have chosen to follow the

example of secular tourist sites, but it is not a flawless formula for suc-

cess. Site creators want to communicate a positive picture of their reli-

gious organization and, consequently, often portray American his-

tory with a positive slant. Were nineteenth-century Americans a hard-

working, creative, innovative, hardy people? Were they a “City on the

Hill,” chosen by God? The accuracy of a particular narrative is not an

issue for the site creators—and often not for visitors—because many

Americans accept such narratives as true regardless of their historical

accuracy. Such glorified images of the United States are part of the

popular culture. It is a reasonable identity for site creators to use in

engaging nonmembers.

Another challenge for site creators is balancing tourism with the

religious message. Community of Christ has dealt with this issue by

focusing on its museum qualities and historical message. The guides

generally refer to religion only in terms of Joseph Smith’s teachings

unless a visitor asks about their personal beliefs. One college-age vol-

unteer at the Joseph Smith Historic Sites, when I queried him on this

specific point, responded: “It is a historical site. If people ask, I will

give a vague answer of what I believe. I believe that I may not be fully

qualified to convert or witness to other people. We have missionaries

who are dedicated. We have the ability but we are strictly history. We

pride ourselves on [teaching] history not faith.” Another Community

of Christ guide said, “It is about sharing history. We are not focused

on religious aspects. We are not forcing stuff on people. I am a history

majorsoIstickmostlytothefacts.”

Another element of a tourism framework that can become an

issue involves funding. The Joseph Smith Historic Sites charge a

preservation fee, which for some religiously minded visitors I talked

to was a problem. They did not think a religious site should charge.

Site creators are sensitive to the possible negative consequences of

paying for a tour, buying a souvenir, restricting photographs in a

spiritual space, or presenting obviously costly exhibits to interfere

with the social-religious ideals they are trying to communicate. But a

64 The Journal of Mormon History

“preservation fee” at a historic site seems appropriate for a site fo-

cused on history and education. Additionally, the Joseph Smith His-

toric Sites tries to stay away from selling items that seem too com-

mercial or “touristy.” According to one of the Community of Christ

managers, “We try to sell stuff that is related to the mission of the

site. We put tags on things to tell what they were used for to continue

the educational mission after it leaves the site.” The Latter-day

Saints have tried to alleviate some of this potential conf lict by not

charging for admission or tours. They also do not sell souvenirs at

their sites.

These issues, though occasionally problematic, are usually not

decisive in preventing the use of a tourism framework, with the result

that diverse experiences are available at religious tourist sites. When

people actively choose to participate in religious tourism, site creators

are doing something right. According to the World Tourism Organi-

zation, more than 600,000 Americans travel for religious purposes

each year.

30+++

In a recent study conducted by the Travel Industry Asso-

ciation of America, 25 percent of Americans were interested in “tak-

ing a spiritual vacation that includes religious retreats and pilgrim-

ages.”

31++++

The first annual International Conference of Religious Tour-

ism in 2006 estimated that religious tourism was a “$18 billion-a-year

industry.”

32*

According to Kevin Wright, who founded the World Reli-

gious Travel Association in January 2007, growth in religious tourism

can be attributed to three factors: (1) More Americans are traveling

and taking vacations, (2) There are more Christians, and (3) These

Christians are “now finding ways to integrate their beliefs into their

SARAH BILL SCHOTT/USING HISTORICAL TOURISM 65

+++

Scott Richardson, “Religious Destinations: Holy Sites Drawing

Hundreds of Yearly Tours, Pilgrimages,” The Pentagraph (Bloomington,

Ill.), April 19, 2007, Sec. Entertainment/News, pantagraph.com/entertain-

ment/article_b66d7f06-abb4-5288-a751-6f03950ae99a.html (accessed Oc-

tober 4, 2007).

++++

Cathy Keefe, “TIA Travel Tidbits: Spa Vacations, Voluntourism,

Child-Friendly Destinations, Enrichment Travel and Spiritual Vacations,”

November 22, 2006, US Travel Association. www.ustravel.org/pressmedia

/pressrec.asp?Item=736 (accessed June 15, 2009).

Christine Moore,“$18 Billion Religious Travel Industry Gives Birth

to International Association,” January 29, 2007, World Religious Travel As-

sociation, www.wrtareligioustravel.com/WRTA (accessed June 15, 2009).

everyday lives.”

33**

WhatthecaseofNauvoodemonstratesisthatsitecreatorshave

adapted to modern expectations. They offer more than one identity

to attract more than one kind of visitor. Furthermore, they use mod-

ern entertainment and teaching tools to keep their visitors’ attention.

Although communicating American identity may not be their pri-

mary goal, they see advantages in transmitting this identity. It lets

them continue to attract, entertain, and teach their nonmember visi-

tors. Making a connection to larger American history will likely en-

courage nonmember visitors to have a positive view of Mormon/

Community of Christ history and to understand the beliefs better.

66 The Journal of Mormon History

Kevin Wright, “Religious Tourism: A New Era, A Dynamic Indus-

try,” Leisure Group Travel: Special Edition, November 2007, 8–16.

COMMUNITY OF CHRIST PRINCIPLES OF

CHURCH HISTORY: A TURNING POINT

AND A

GOOD EXAMPLE?

INTRODUCTION

Lavina Fielding Anderson

IN OCTOBER 2008, STEPHEN M. VEAZEY, prophet-president of the

* These two articles by Andrew Bolton and Gary James Bergera were

presented as a session at the Salt Lake City Sunstone Symposium, August

14, 2009. LAVINA FIELDING ANDERSON {lavina@elavina.org} is copy

editor of the Journal of Mormon History and is researching a biography of

Lucy Mack Smith. ANDREW BOLTON {[email protected]} was or-

dained in March 2007 to the Council of Twelve Apostles, the leading mis-

sionary quorum of the Community of Christ. His area of responsibility is

the Asia Field (Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Philippines, South Korea,

and Japan), and indigenous peoples. A native of England, Andrew was bap-

tized at age twenty-two in South Wales; has a Ph.D. from the University of

Wales; an M.A. in religion from Park College, in Missouri; a bachelor of sci-

ence with honours from Wye College, University of London; and a certifi-

cate in counseling from the University of Leicester. He has published books

on the Sermon on the Mount and peace and justice, has co-edited a text on

the sacraments, and has also published articles on Latter Day Saint history

and the Book of Mormon in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Restora-

tion Studies, and the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.GARY

JAMES BERGERA has degrees from Brigham Young University in psychol-

ogy and public administration. Over the past thirty-plus years, he has pub-

lished articles on Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and plural

marriage, Brigham Young University, Ernest L. Wilkinson, and Ezra Taft

Benson in the Utah Historical Quarterly, Dialogue, Sunstone, Journal of Mor-

mon History, Mormon Historical Studies,theJohn Whitmer Historical Associa-

tion Journal, and the Journal of the Illinois Historical Society. He is currently

the managing director of the Smith-Pettit Foundation.

Community of Christ, announced nine principles of Church his-

tory that are now markers for members and historians of the Com-

munity of Christ, with world headquarters in Independence, Mis-

souri. (For the nine principles see Andrew Bolton’s commentary

and the Appendix to this article.)

Some of these statements, like “The church encourages honest,

responsible historical scholarship” and “Our faith is grounded in

God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the continuing guidance of the

Holy Spirit” sound reassuringly like principles that Mormons could

also espouse, although questions may arise over the implementation

of some details. Others, like “The church has a long-standing tradi-

tion that it does not legislate or mandate positions on matters of

church history” and “History informs but does not dictate our faith

andbeliefs,”maysoundfarlessfamiliartoMormonears—possibly

intriguing, possibly alarming.

Aficionados of Mormon history have long been anticipating a

three-volume history by Mark Scherer, Community of Christ histo-

rian, which is scheduled for publication in the next year or so. Since

Mark was quoted in Newsweek in 2005 as saying that some of Joseph

Smith’s plural marriages could be described as “clergy abuse,” I think

it is safe to say that readers are not expecting a rerun of this year’s sem-

inary manual. But the timing raises a question. Are these history prin-

ciples meant to prepare the ground for a much more professional ex-

amination of Community of Christ history?

Andrew Bolton will provide his personal insights into the cre-

ation of the history principles and also their content. To the extent

that it’s appropriate, I’ve asked him to share with us the origins and

implementation of these nine principles in the Community of Christ

with particular attention to the questions: What problems are these

principles supposed to solve? How is this approach working so far?

And what might be some unintended consequences?

Second, Gary Bergera, from the Mormon perspective, will deal

with parallel questions: If there were a LDS set of history principles,

what would they say, and what problems are they supposed to solve?

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of such a set of

principles?

The LDS Church has no formally defined history principles, but

it does have fairly clear positions enunciated by officials on various

levels toward various historical events and attitudes. One of them is

“Approaching Mormon History,” a statement made in July 2007 in re-

68 The Journal of Mormon History

sponse to Helen Whitney’s two-hour The Mormons,shownonPBSin

early April. The unsigned statement, which was posted on the LDS

Church’s website, must be considered authoritative even though it oc-

cupies that gray area between personal opinion (it quotes Church

Historian Marlin K. Jensen, Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, and Church

President Gordon B. Hinckley) and canonized doctrine.

1**

(See

Appendix to this article.)

As another example, President Gordon B. Hinckley in April

2003 conference announced: “Each of us has to face the matter: ei-

ther the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It

is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.”

2***

Later that same

year,PresidentHinckleystressedJosephSmith’sstatus:“‘Itisbecause

of him, and his singular and remarkable experience’ with a vision of

God theFather andJesusChristthatwe know the Savioras we do.”

3****

These statements are not only claims about the Church’s current

status but also strong statements about the Church’s history. At a BYU

symposium on the transitional period in Church history between

1890 and 1920, the keynote speaker was Alexander B. Morris, an

emeritus member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. In his introduc-

tory remarks, he stated:

I must state several caveats. First, the comments and conclusions

made herein are my own. I do not speak on assignment from the

Brethren. The contents of this paper do not represent the official

view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor of its most

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 69

Canonization would require a general conference vote. Considered

only slightly less authoritative but not canonized would be a statement by

the First Presidency or by the Joint Council of the First Presidency and the

Council of the Twelve, an official Church proclamation, or publication in

the Church Handbook of Instructions, and/or in Church curricular materials.

In the latter cases, it would have passed official review by the Correlation

Committee.

***

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Loyalty,“ April 2003 General Conference Ad-

dress, http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&source

Id=917eee9ba42fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118

dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD# (accessed June 10, 2009).

Also quoted in “Approaching Mormon History.”

****

Gordon B. Hinckley, quoted in Carrie A. Moore, “Christmas Spirit

Celebrated,” Deseret Morninq News, December 8, 2003, print-out in my pos-

session.

senior leaders, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Faults, errors, and omissions are mine alone, and I take full and sole

responsibility for them.

Second,letusneverforgetthatthefutureoftheChurch...does

notlieinthehandsofmortalmen,eithergoodorbad....ItisChrist’s

Church,andwecansafelyleaveitsfutureinhiscareandkeeping....

This Church will not fail. The power and authority of God will never

again be taken from the earth. The Church will grow according to

God’s will and divine timetable over the ensuing years.

This statement frames the historical material in particular ways.

His first caveat—that he is not speaking officially—makes it clear that

there are those who can and do speak officially, but they are not histo-

rians. They are the First Presidency and the Twelve. His second ca-

veat, that the Church’s future lies in Christ’s “care and keeping,” im-

plies that ultimately, the answers to all questions of causation are di-

vine,nothuman,social,political,oreconomic.Furthermore,includ-

ed in his second caveat is the triumphalist assertion that “this Church

will not fail.” However he defines “Church” and “fail,” what are the

implications of this statement for episodes that certainly did not sur-

vive, let alone thrive? Nineteenth-century events quickly come to

mind such as the Kirtland Anti-Banking Safety Society, the various at-

tempts to colonize Missouri, polygamy, and the Mountain Meadows

Massacre—and the twentieth century presents another broad range of

similar projects.

I’ve leaned on this second point to stress—almost certainly un-

necessarily—that, even in the absence of formal statements of history

principles, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can cer-

tainly present some official assumptions and attitudes about doing

Mormon history that make a dialogue with the Community of Christ

about the framing of its own historical enterprise an interesting, in-

sightful, and possibly even inspirational activity.

In contrast, Community of Christ President Stephen Veazey re-

turned to the history theme in his April 2009 address to the Church

and described the history principles as created to bring perspective to

the relationship between history and matters of faith:

70 The Journal of Mormon History

Alexander B. Morrison, “The Twenty-First Century: Challenge and

Opportunity,” in Times of Transition: Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium of the

Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saints History at Brigham Young

University, edited by Thomas G. Alexander (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding

Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, 2003), 1.

While affirming the essential role of historical study, the princi-

ples state that history does not have the final word on matters of faith

and unfolding direction in the church today. The history principles

provide the guidelines needed to treasure our history, but not be to-

tally defined by it.

Let me give you an example. Despite how our story often is told,

we no longer can claim that we were just the innocent victims of vio-

lence during the church’s early years. While our forbearers [sic] were

certainly the targets of persecution on various occasions, more than

once they provoked and initiated violence because of judgmental atti-

tudes toward others. In the pressure-filled years of the early church,

violence and militancy overtook Christ’s message of reconciliation,

forgiveness, and peace.

To move ahead with integrity in our emphasis on sharing the

peace of Jesus Christ, we must repent of and learn from the violent ep-

isodes in church history. Only through honest examination, includ-

ing identifying any remaining signs of these tendencies, can we con-

tinue on the restoring path of peace, reconciliation, and healing of

the spirit to which God calls us.

We can take these steps because we know that our history does not

have to be without blemish to reveal the hand of God working in the

movement.

5++

I submit to you that both the content and especially the attitude

toward history of President Veazey and Elder Morrison represent

striking differences—differences worth discussing.

HISTORY IN THE COMMUNITY OF CHRIST:

APERSONAL VIEW

Andrew Bolton

THERE HAS BEEN A TENSION between historians and Church leaders

from the beginning of the early Latter Day Saint movement. John

Whitmer was called by revelation to the task of history-writing in

1831 and expelled from the Church in 1838 for not letting the

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 71

http://www.cofchrist.org/presidency/sermons/_040509Veazey.asp

(accessed August 12, 2009).

Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. correct his history.

1+++

The Community of Christ history association, by calling itself the

John Whitmer Historical Association (JWHA) has, I think, taken sides

in the tensions between the historian and the institution. JWHA takes

thesideofthehistorianandtherightofthehistoriantonotbeintimi-

dated by institutional leaders and to go where the research leads.

Now I need to be clear that many members of Community of

Christ would much prefer nice history filled with Christian heroes and

happy endings. For many of the Reorganization’s 150 years, we pre-

ferred to write inspiring, sanitized history. Samuel A. Burgess, official

RLDS Church historian of many years ago, argued: History should not

be “a record of man’s failings.”

2++++

However, this steady diet of “nice” his-

tory changed with the New Mormon History movement. Bill Russell, a

former president of both the Mormon History Association and the

John Whitmer Historical Association, argues that this critical history

approach was launched by Fawn Brodie (No Man Knows My History,

1945) and Juanita Brooks (The Mountain Meadows Massacre, 1950).

Certainly a part of the New Mormon History Movement was Rob-

ert Bruce Flanders’s Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi (1965). RLDS

officials at the time took no action against Flanders—in fact, just po-

litely ignored his book.

4**

But some RLDS members were so upset by

Flanders’s critical account of Joseph Smith Jr. and Nauvoo that they

vented their hostility at him personally, making him feel so unwelcome

that he withdrew from participation in the Church. So it is not always

easy to write honest history in Community of Christ, but at least the

RLDS leadership for the last fifty years have been sufficiently open to it

that they refrained from excommunicating its practitioners as hap-

pened to Fawn Brodie and as Juanita Brooks was threatened.

Grant McMurray, prophet/president from 1996 to 2004, had

72 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Grant McMurray, “‘As Historians and Not as Partisans’: The Writing

of Official History in the RLDS Church,” John Whitmer Historical Association

6 (1986): 43.

++++

Quoted in ibid., 49.

William D. Russell, personal conversation, August 2009; Robert B.

Flanders expressed the same opinion in a conversation with me October 10,

2010.

Russell, conversation. Flanders, however, commented to me that he

was not allowed to do research in the RLDS Library-Archives and that the

LDS Church History Archives in Salt Lake City were also closed to him.

previously served in the Church History Department and had enthu

siastically embraced the New Mormon History approach. In 1986 he

wroteaverygoodarticlepublishedintheJohn Whitmer Historical Asso-

ciation Journal,“‘AsHistoriansandNotAsPartisans’:TheWritingof

Official History in the RLDS Church.”

Also, perhaps as a non-Smith

president, he did not feel he had to defend the family.

To understand the greater freedom in the Community of Christ

in terms of history it is important to grasp that we are a dissenters’ tradi-

tion. We insist on thinking for ourselves. We identify with William Law

and Emma Smith in openly opposing polygamy in Nauvoo in 1843–44.

Most Community of Christ members support an anti-authoritarian tra-

dition, while we see an acceptance of authoritarianism as more typical

oftheLDSChurch.Itisnotpossibletobeexcommunicatedfromthe

Community of Christ for heresy, although it is very possible to receive

this Church discipline for unchristian conduct. You might be silenced

as a priesthood member if your preaching and teaching is too far off,

but you still cannot be expelled from the Church for it. So if you cannot

be kicked out for heresy, it is even less likely for you to be kicked out for

your views on history—even very unpopular views.

Nevertheless, Church historians before Richard Howard (1966–

94) sought to write the best about the movement, to foster faith, and

to inspire the members. The official line was that Joseph Smith Jr. was

not the author of Nauvoo polygamy. The task of these earlier histori-

ans has been producing faithful history. Richard Howard was differ-

ent.Hewasprofessionallytrainedasahistorian,waspartoftheNew

Mormon History movement, and was more rigorous than his prede-

cessors,althoughhesoughttobepastoralaswell.Stillhehadabouta

dozen eggs thrown at his home by upset Church members. An elder

physically threatened his teenage sons and told them that neither

they individually nor their family belonged in the congregation.

5***

Richard Howard was not always supported by Church leaders ei-

ther. For instance, the First Presidency asked him to write a pastorally

sensitive article on Joseph Smith and the issue of polygamy’s Nauvoo

origins. When he had completed it in 1982, Church leaders discussed

it, and then a member of the First Presidency worked on editorial

changes to further, as I understand the situation, soften and water

down what Howard had written. When published in 1983, the article

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 73

***

I am paraphrasing, almost certainly with less tact, Richard Howard,

email #2 to Andrew Bolton, Wednesday, June 6, 2009.

still caused a public furor. The First Presidency’s press release in re-

sponse incorrectly suggested that they had not known anything about

thearticleeven thoughthey had spent two months involved in its edit-

ing. Howard could say nothing to correct this impression because a

member of the First Presidency had imposed a gag orderon him.

6****

The present Church historian, Dr. Mark Scherer, is even bolder

than Richard Howard. He is presently working on a three-volume his-

tory of the Community of Christ. The first volume is due out in the

next year or two and is called Journey of a People: The Era of Restoration,

1820 to 1844.

This will be a critical account that will disturb many of

the faithful. Many of the criticisms that Scherer will make have been

out in the open for years but, for the most part, in scholarly journals

and books. However, what is different on this occasion is that Scherer

is writing a critical account as Church historian and his book will

wound more deeply some of the faithful who have known only the

traditional apologetic.

In October 2008 President Stephen M. Veazey introduced nine

“Church History Principles” through the Herald,theChurch’smaga-

zine. It was intended to set the agenda for a discussion about Church

history when Scherer’s historical account eventually comes out.

8++

There is no doubt that Scherer’s scholarly work will cause a stir and

upset many. Some will probably leave the Church because of it.

President Veazey, in order to encourage a more helpful discus-

sion on critical history, commented again on the nine “Church His-

tory Principles” in his address, “A Defining Moment” on April 5,

2009. This address was broadcast to the whole Church through the

74 The Journal of Mormon History

****

Richard Howard, email #1 to Andrew Bolton, Wednesday, June 6,

2009.

Since this paper was first given in August 2009, the publication date

for the first volume has been delayed; and as of May 2010, the First Presi-

dency had not made a final decision. It may now be published with the sec-

ond volume, Journey of a People: The Era of Reorganization, 1844–1946,asa

balance. The Reorganization in many ways successfully tackled some of the

major issues of especially the Nauvoo era; and it may help Community of

Christ readers to understand that, if Joseph Smith Jr. made a mess of things,

his son Joseph III and the Reorganization did much to redeem the move-

ment.

Stephen M. Veazey, “Perspectives on Church History,” Herald, Octo-

ber 2008, 10–12.

internet and was also published in the Herald. In the address, Veazey

tookissuewiththecommonattitudethatwewerejustinnocentvic-

tims persecuted by hostile neighbors in our early days. He pointed out

that if we are to be serious about sharing the peace of Jesus Christ “we

must repent of and learn from the violent episodes in church history”

for the early Latter Day Saints “provoked and initiated violence be-

cause of judgmental attitudes towards others.”

9+++

In a follow-up interview, President Veazey said that the “vast ma-

jority of church historians have persuasively concluded that Joseph

Smith Jr. was involved prominently in the doctrine and practice of ce-

lestial or plural marriage.”

10++++

Given that the traditional apologetic in

the Reorganization was that Smith had nothing to do with polygamy,

for the president of the Church to say these things will again cause

pain for a number of the faithful.

So why go for honest history if it causes so much pain?

We must go for honest history first of all because of the gospel.

The good news of God’s grace is for sinners, for weak and frail hu-

mans like King David, Peter, Saul, Joseph Jr., and you and me. As Ste-

phen Veazey argues: “Our history does not have to be without blem-

ishtorevealthehandofGodworkinginthemovement....God’s

grace is revealed most clearly by its working in and through humanity,

especially human weakness and sin.”

11*

To hide sin, to sanitize history,

is to lose faith in the gospel and its power to redeem and save. There

is, therefore, a gospel imperative for writing honest history.

Second, if we are to be serious about our mission to pursue

peace, then the issue becomes one of integrity. Rabbi Simon, son of

Gamaliel, in commenting in the Talmud on Zechariah 8:13, said that

“the duration of the world depends on three things, justice, truth,

and peace.”

12**

We cannot be serious about peace if we are not serious

about truth and justice. Otherwise our history becomes a communal,

tribal history and is in the same darkness as Catholic and Protestant

histories in Northern Ireland or Israeli and Palestinian histories in

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 75

+++

Stephen M. Veazey, “A Defining Moment,” Herald, May 2009, 15.

++++

Stephen M. Veazey, interviewed by Apostle Linda L. Booth, “Facing

Our Challenges,” Herald, June 2009, 10.

Veazey, “A Defining Moment,” 15.

Rabbi Simon, son of Gamaliel from the Mishnah, Aboth 1:15

quoted in Robert E. Van Voorst, Anthology of World Scriptures (Belmont, Ca-

lif., Wadsworth, 1994), 253.

the contested land of Israel/Palestine. We need to write our own his

tory as critically and as honestly as we can. If we can face the darkness

inourpast,thenwemightbeabletofacethedarknessinourselves

and find that God’s grace is still sufficient for us.

Nowforthenineprinciplesthemselves.Aftertheywerefirst

published in the Herald in October 2008 by Stephen M. Veazey writ-

ingfortheFirstPresidency,theywereaddedtothe“WeShare...”

document that pulls together foundational declarations like the

Church’s mission statement, the new “Enduring Principles” docu-

ment,andthe“BasicBeliefs”statementamongothers.

13***

The “We

Share . . .” document is about defining the identity, mission, and mes-

sage of Community of Christ. To add the nine “Church History Prin-

ciples” is to say that part of the identity of Community of Christ is to

embrace honest history. This is of some significance.

Iofferherebriefcommentaryoneachofthenineprinciples.

“1. Continuing exploration of our history is part of identity forma-

tion. As a church we seek always to clarify our identity, message, and mis-

sion. In our faith story, we see clearly God’s Spirit giving this faith com-

munity tools, insights, and experiences for divine purposes. A people

with a shared memory of their past, and an informed understanding of

its meaning, are better prepared to chart their way into the future.”

Renewal comes to religious movements by going back to the

original inspiration, the movement of God’s Spirit. Restorationism is

that of going back to Jesus and the early Christians. The best in our

story can inspire us. The worst in our story can warn us. We are sin-

ners then and now for whom grace is available.

“2. History informs but does not dictate our faith and beliefs. The

foundation and continuing source for our faith is God’s revelation in Je-

sus Christ. Studying history is not aboutproving or disproving mystical,

spiritual, or revelatory experiences that birth or transform religious

movements. Sound history informs faith, and healthy faith leads to in-

sights about history. Theology and faith, guided by the Holy Spirit,

must play an important role in discovering the enduring meaning of

such events as well as the deeper truths found in them. Our under-

standing of our history affects our faith and beliefs. However, our past

does not limit our faith and beliefs to what they were historically.”

76 The Journal of Mormon History

***

The mission statement, “Enduring Principles,” and “Basic Beliefs”

are readily available at the “Our Faith” link. Also on that link under “His-

tory,” among other resources, are the “History Principles.”

This principle is really important. The revelation of God in

Christ is not new as a central concept. Joseph, on his knees as a four-

teen- or fifteen-year-old boy, was told in his first vision of Jesus to

“Hear Him!” “Our history is not our theology” is heard many times in

Community of Christ. The gospel, the good news of Christ, and the

at-hand kingdom of God is what informs our discipleship and shapes

us for service, witness, and mission. Honest history tells us how well

we have done in being faithful to the call of Jesus, to the cause of Zion.

“3. The church encourages honest, responsible historical schol-

arship. Studying history involves related fields. Historians use aca-

demic research to get as many facts as they can; then, they interpret

those facts to construct as clear a picture as possible of what was going

on in the past. This includes analyzing human culture to see how it af-

fected events. Historians try to understand patterns of meaning to in-

terpret what the past means for our future. This process should avoid

‘presentism,’ or interpreting the past based on a current worldview

andcultureinsteadofthecultureofthetime.”

The integrity of historical scholarship is important and should

be respected.

“4. The study of church history is a continuing journey. If we say

that a book on history is the only true telling of the story, we risk ‘can-

onizing’ one version, a tendency we have shown in the past. This

blocks further insights from continuing research. Good historical in-

quiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new un-

derstanding and information comes from ongoing study.”

We sing a hymn that includes the chorus, “God has yet more

light and truth / To break forth from his word.”

14****

So it is also with

scholarship. There are always new insights, new theory, new docu-

ments, and new appraisals of well-known documents. To canonize

one version of history at any one particular time is to create trouble

for later generations and becomes a big integrity issue.

“5. Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history

makes it more believable and realistic, not less. Our history has stories

of great faith and courage that inspire us. Our history also includes

human leaders who said and did things that can be shocking to us

from our current perspective and culture. Historians try not to

judge—instead, they try to understand by learning as much as possible

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 77

****

George Rawson (1807–1889) “We Limit Not the Truth of God,"

Hymns of the Saints (Independence: Herald House, 1981), no. 309.

about the context and the meaning of those words and actions at the

time. The result is empathy instead of judgment. Our scriptures are

consistent in pointing out that God, through grace, uses imperfect

people for needed ministry and leadership.”

There are no heroes in the Bible except Jesus. All fail: Moses, Pe-

ter, Paul. So why do we hesitate to believe that the pioneers of the Res-

toration faith might be both inspiring and also fallen sinners? Sin is in

all of us. To protect the eyes of the faithful from seeing the sin of Jo-

seph Smith Jr. is a false anthropology. It is a betrayal of the gospel of

grace and the power of repentance and confession. To be self-critical

of our past helps us learn from the past to prevent us from repeating

thesamemistakes.

“6. The responsible study of church history involves learning, re-

pentance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on

promoting communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should

be self-critical and honest about its history. It is important for us to

confess when we have been less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ

calls us to be. This honesty prompts us to repent, and it strengthens

our integrity. Admitting past mistakes helps us avoid repeating them

and frees us from the influences of past injustices and violence in our

history. We must be humble and willing to repent, individually and as

a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring God’s sha-

lom on earth.”

I touched on this principle in commenting on Principle 5.

Knowing the truth sets us free, said Jesus (John 8:32).

“7. The church has a long-standing tradition that it does not leg-

islate or mandate positions on matters of church history. Historians

should be free to draw their own conclusions after thorough consider-

ation of evidence. Through careful study and the Holy Spirit’s guid-

ance, the church is learning how to accept and responsibly interpret

all of its history. This includes putting new information and changing

understandings into proper perspective, while emphasizing the parts

of our history that continue to play a role in guiding the church’s

identity and mission today.”

This position is very wise. It has been our standard answer on

the polygamy question for many years. Dealing with the polygamy

question is going to be difficult enough, but imagine if the church

had mandated an official position that Joseph Smith Jr. was not the

author of polygamy and then all this research comes out that says

actually he was.

78 The Journal of Mormon History

“8. We need to create a respectful culture of dialogue about mat-

ters of history. We should not limit our faith story to one perspective.

Diverse viewpoints bring richness to our understanding of God’s

movement in our sacred story. Of course, historians will come to dif-

ferentconclusionsastheystudy.Therefore,itisimportantforusto

create and maintain a respectful culture that allows different points of

view on history. Our conversation about history should be polite and

focused on trying to understand others’ views. Most important, we

should remain focused on what matters most for the message and

mission of the church in this time.”

Here President Veazey is setting the ground rules for the debate

about Church history so that we stay together after it and have not

damaged each other too much.

“9. Our faith is grounded in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and

the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must keep our hearts

and minds centered on God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. As God’s

Word alive in human history, Jesus Christ was and is the foundation of

our faith and the focus of the church’s mission and message.”

Our faith is in Jesus and the living guiding presence of the Holy

Spirit. History is about our past. It becomes idolatrous if it is painted

to look too pretty and if we worship an image of reality. Such a danger

canleadtothefurtherdangerofworshippingJosephSmithJr.Heis

not our saviour.

In conclusion, it should be clear that I recognize the need for

honest, detailed history, including rigorous analysis of the documen-

tary evidence and carefully drawn conclusions. However, the logos of

rational, honest history is not enough. We still need myth, story that

inspires faith. On needing both mythos and logos,KarenArmstrong

has written eloquently. The two should not be confused or conflat-

ed.

15+

We need both wheels, logos and mythos, on our bicycle as we jour-

ney into the future as a movement.

We thus still need to write a compelling story of the Community

ofChristanditsmission.Westillneedmyth,astorythatgivesthevi-

sion and purpose of the movement and includes a theological ac-

count in narrative form that helps people hear the call of the king-

dom. The old myth of the Community of Christ is no longer plausible

for many people, even though for some conservatives it is still power-

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 79

Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism

(New York: Ballantine Books, 2001), xvi–xvii.

ful. The new myth must contain elements of the old.

But we need a new myth that is post-New Mormon History and

that takes the scholarship it has produced into account. We need a new

responsible myth, one that is plausible today, one that can help people

find meaning and purpose in the call of Jesus and the quest for Zion. It

should be honest about human mistakes and weaknesses. Instead of be-

ing a story covering about two hundred years, it should be set in the

contextofthebiblicalstoryandthetwothousandyearsoftheChristian

tradition. The failure of the first disciples is clear in the gospels, the hu-

manity of the first Christians is clear in Acts, and there are many fallible

menandwomeninChristianhistory,includingpopesaswellasre-

formers like Martin Luther and John Calvin. A faith-promotional story,

a version of salvation history, if written responsibly, is complemented

by honest history. Myth describes in story form the vision and call that

answers deep human needs for meaning and purpose. It is about the

future—what could be when humans are faithful and repentant. It sees

the loving presence of God in human lives and in the affairs of history.

Honesthistoryisaboutthepastandisabouthonestevaluationofour

performance in response to the call. Both are needed.

LDS HISTORY PRINCIPLES:

UBLIC THEORY, PRIVATE PRACTICE

Gary James Bergera

I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped

by its history [of the First Vision]. My response was that without

that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular,

and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith. —LDS

Church President Gordon B. Hinckley

1++

I HAVE BEEN TASKED with briefly addressing two ostensibly related

80 The Journal of Mormon History

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,”

General Conference Address, October 2002, http://lds.org/conference/

talk/display/0,5232,23-1-315-24,00.html (accessed August 30, 2009). For a

recent reiteration of this view, see “Approaching Mormon History,” LDS

topics: the first is what “official” position, if any, the LDS Church

has adopted regarding the writing of Church history, specifically

scholarly Church history, including what kinds of history it sup-

ports or may support. The second deals with the practical issues of

writing and publishing scholarly LDS Church history. It is thought

that my past working associations with BYU Studies, Dialogue: A

JournalofMormonThought,SignatureBooks,andnowtheSmith-

Pettit Foundation may qualify me to hazard some tentative observa-

tions regarding the experience of “riding herd” in the Mormon

history community.

The LDS Church, as far as I know, has never attempted to articu-

late an officially authoritative position on the writing of history.

There are, of course, individual sentiments. I call particular attention

to three. The first is Counselor in the First Presidency J. Reuben

Clark’s 1938 “The Chartered Course of the Church in Education,” in

which he stated:

For any Latter-day Saint psychologist, chemist, physicist, geolo-

gist, archeologist, or any other scientist to explain away, or misinter-

pret, or evade or elude, or most of all, to repudiate or to deny, the

great fundamental doctrines of the Church in which he professes to

believe, is to give the lie to his intellect, to lose his self-respect, to bring

sorrow to his friends, to break the hearts and bring shame to his par-

ents, to besmirch the Church and its members, and to forfeit the re-

spect and honor of those whom he has sought, by his course, to win as

friends and helpers.

2+++

The second is Apostle Ezra Taft Benson’s 1976 “The Gospel

Teacher and His Message”:

When a teacher feels he must blend worldly sophistication and

erudition to the simple principles of the gospel or to our Church his-

tory so that his message will have more appeal and respectability to

the academically learned, he has compromised his message. . . . [L]et

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 81

Newsroom, July 5, 2007, http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/

commentary/approaching-mormon-history (accessed June 12, 2010). See

Appendix.

+++

J. Reuben Clark Jr., “The Chartered Course of the Church in Educa-

tion,” in Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints, 1833–1964, edited by James R. Clark, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City:

Bookcraft, 1965–75), 6:44–58; quotations on 51, 53.

us not forget that disaffection from the gospel and the Lord’s church

was brought about in the past by the attempts to reconcile the pure

gospel with the secular philosophies of men. ...Wewould hope that if

you feel you must write for the scholarly journals, you always defend

the faith. Avoid expressions and terminology which offend the Breth-

ren and Church members.

23++++

Third is Apostle Boyd K. Packer’s 1981 address to Church Edu-

cation System personnel at Brigham Young University, “The Mantle

Is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect”:

The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the

theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own

judgment. He should not complain if one day he himself receives as

he has given. Perhaps that is what is contemplated in having one’s sins

preached from the housetops. . . . Those of you who are employed by

the Church have a special responsibility to build faith, not destroy it.

If you do not do that, but in fact accommodate the enemy, who is the

destroyer of faith, you become in that sense a traitor to the cause you

have made covenants to protect.

24*

Such individual statements typically tend not to rise to the level of of-

ficial Church policy, by which I mean policy that is written, signed,

and/or explicitly authorized by the First Presidency of the Church.

Thus, in attempting to offer any kind of guess as to what the LDS

Church’s official position regarding the writing of scholarly history

might be, one is forced to look for hints in and to tease them from offi-

cial statements addressing other concerns. Invariably, these hints are

embedded in such intellectually themed topics as “Education,” “Intel-

lectualism,” “Science,” and “Truth.” Drawing upon these kinds of offi-

cial statements,

5**

it is clear that the Church’s commitment to the quest

for truth, all truth, including historical truth, is unequivocal, though not

without some important caveats. For example, in 1910, the First Presi-

82 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Ezra Taft Benson, “The Gospel Teacher and His Message,” address

to Church Education System religious educators, September 17, 1976, 8,

11.

Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect,”

BYU Studies 21 (Summer 1981): 259–78; quotations from 264, 269.

For a compilation of these and other kinds of official statements, see

Gary James Bergera, ed., Statements of the LDS First Presidency: A Topical Com-

pendium (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2007).

dency stressed: “Our religion is not hostile to real science.”

6***

Thirty-five

years later, the First Presidency then serving insisted that “the Lord has

never withheld from our quest any field of truth. Our knowledge is to be

coterminous with the universe and is to reach out and to comprehend

the laws and the workings of the deeps of the eternities. All domains of

all knowledge belong to us.”

7****

In the late 1960s, the First Presidency con-

tinued to emphasize: “All truth, whether it pertains to the universe, to

this earth, or to the individual and his environment, is a part of the gos-

pel of Jesus Christ.”

In a 1986 “First Presidency Message,” Gordon B.

Hinckley, then a counselor to LDS Church president Ezra Taft Benson,

added: “Fundamental to our theology is belief in individual freedom of

inquiry, thought, and expression. Constructive discussion is a privilege

of every Latter-day Saint.”

9++

More than a decade later when Hinckley was

Church president, one of his counselors, James E. Faust, echoed in an-

other “First Presidency Message”: “People in the Church are encour-

aged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves. They are en-

couraged to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to such

knowledge of the truth as their own consciences, assisted bythe Spirit of

God, lead them to discover.”

10+++

YetasfarastheChurchisofficiallyconcerned,theunfettered

search for truth seems to have its limits. In the 1910 First Presidency

statement previously quoted, the Presidency was quick to add the fol-

lowing note of caution: “Vain philosophy, human theory, and mere

speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything con-

trary to divine revelation or to good common sense.”

11++++

Thirty-six

years later, the First Presidency, then consisting of George Albert

Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay, was equally wary: “The

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 83

***

Quoted in ibid., 399. Serving in the First Presidency in 1910 were Jo-

seph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and John Henry Smith.

****

J. Reuben Clark, quoted in “Charge to President Howard S. McDon-

ald,” November 14, 1945, in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 6:228–38.

The First Presidency then consisted of George Albert Smith, J. Reuben

Clark, and David O. McKay.

First Presidency [David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, and N. Eldon

Tanner], quoted in Bergera, Statements of the LDS First Presidency, 250.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Keep the Faith,” Ensign, September 1985, 5.

+++

James E. Faust, “The Truth Shall Make Your Free,” Ensign, Septem-

ber 1998, 4.

++++

Quoted in Bergera, Statements of the LDS First Presidency, 399.

accomplishments of science seem to be limitless. In many ways, it has

made life more comfortable and beautiful, but it has also made life

hideous. Though it brings into our homes the music of the spheres, at

the same time it slays defenseless women and children indiscrimi-

nately. Manifestly, it cannot save mankind from wars, but it can annihi-

latethehumanrace.Thepromiseofscienceforhumanbenefits,and

particularly as an assurance of peace, is now questioned.”

12*

By the

early 1980s, Church President Spencer W. Kimball explained in a

“First Presidency Message”: “We must remember that neither God

nor His gospel can be found and understood through research alone.

The skeptic will some day learn to his sorrow that his egotism robbed

him of much joy and growth. The things of God—and often the things

of His earth—cannot be understood by the spirit of man, but are un-

derstood only through the Spirit of God.”

13**

As seems clear from President Kimball’s statement, the search

for truth—including, presumably, for truth in history—ideally includes

an explicit recognition of God’s hand in some form in that history. In

1986 in another “First Presidency Message,” Counselor Gordon B.

Hinckley expanded: “The humanists who criticize the Lord’s work,

the so-called intellectualists who demean, speak only from ignorance

of spiritual manifestation. They have not heard the voice of the Spirit.

They have not heard it because they have not sought after it and pre-

pared themselves to be worthy of it. Then, supposing that knowledge

comesonlyofreasoningandoftheworkingsofthemind,theydeny

that which comesby thepower of theHoly Ghost.”

14***

Not quite twenty

years later, by-this-time President Hinckley identified what we are

probably safe in assuming are the four essential foundational faith

claims of the LDS Church, claims that some may believe are inextrica-

bly tied to history: “(1) the reality and the divinity of the Lord Jesus

Christ as the Son of God; (2) the sublime vision given the Prophet Jo-

seph Smith of the Father and the Son, ushering in the dispensation of

the fullness of times; (3) the Book of Mormon as the word of God

speaking in declaration of the divinity of the Savior; and (4) the

priesthood of God divinely conferred to be exercised in righteous-

84 The Journal of Mormon History

Quoted in ibid., 398.

Spencer W. Kimball, “Seek Learning, Even by Study and Also by

Faith,” Ensign, September 1983, 6.

***

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Continuing Pursuit of Truth,” Ensign,

April 1986, 6.

ness for the blessing of our Father’s children.”

15****

While the First Presidency would probably apply its recommen-

dations to the writing of all history, they usually make a special point

of addressing that kind of history produced by the Church’s own paid

educators, including seminary teachers, institute teachers, and teach-

ers employed by the Church’s colleges and universities. “The Church

schools must,” the Presidency stated in 1945, “it is true, give instruc-

tion in secular fields of learning, but this instruction should be given

in such manner and in such terms as will strengthen and build up the

spiritualknowledgeandexperienceofthestudents....Indeed,the

spiritual element, as revealed in the restored gospel, should dominate

allelseintheChurchschoolsystem.”

16+

More than thirty years later,

President Kimball, in another “First Presidency Message,” specifi-

cally referenced Brigham Young University, which, he said, “has no

justification for its existence unless it builds character, creates and de-

velopsfaith,andmakesmenandwomen...whowillbecomestal-

warts in the kingdom and bear witness of the restoration and the di-

vinityofthegospelofJesusChrist....Thisinstitutionhasbeenestab-

lished by a prophet of God for a very specific purpose: to combine

spiritual and moral values with secular education.”

17++

TheChurchhassinceexplicitly“warned”againstany“presenta-

tions” that may “(1) disparage, ridicule, make light of, or are otherwise

inappropriate in their treatment of sacred matters or (2) could injure

the Church, detract from its mission, or jeopardize its members’ well-

being.”

18+++

As James E. Faust, a counselor to President Hinckley, added

in a 2000 “First Presidency Message”: “Those who express private

doubts or unbelief as a public chastisement of the leadership or the

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 85

****

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Four Cornerstones of Faith,” Ensign, Febru-

ary 2004, 7.

First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O.

McKay), Letter to Executive Committee, Church Board of Education, Feb-

ruary 21, 1945, in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 6:220–23. Members

of BYU’s Board of Trustees in 1945 were Adam S. Bennion, Albert E.

Bowen, Charles A. Callis, J. Reuben Clark, Frank Evans, David O. McKay,

Joseph F. Merrill, Stephen L Richards, Franklin L. West, and John A.

Widtsoe.

Spencer W. Kimball, “On My Honor,” Ensign, April 1979, 5.

+++

Church Handbook of Instructions: Book 1, Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics,

2006 (Salt Lake City Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2006), 181.

doctrine of the Church or as a confrontation with those also seeking

eternallighthaveentereduponsacredground...[and]riskseparating

themselvesfromthedivinesourceoflearning.”

19++++

In fact, the official

Church Handbook of Instructions, defines “apostasy,” which may be an

excommunicable offense, as “repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and de-

liberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders” and/or in “per-

sist[ing] in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church

doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher au-

thority.”

20*

This Handbook, which carries the First Presidency’s impri-

matur, is used by the Church’s local and regional officials as perhaps

their primary guide in administering the Church’s ecclesiastical affairs,

including the disciplining of its members.

In 1946, the First Presidency informed one interested writer:

“[W]hile we do not expect people to come here to make studies and to

write their accounts to be propagandists for us nor to violate their own

convictions in order to be kind in their statements concerning us, we

think we have a right to expect that they should be fair and honest and

not distort the truth in order to provide sensation and thus increase the

saleabilityoftheirproduct.”

21**

The Church’s support of scholarly his-

tory that is “fair,” “honest,” and does “not distort the truth” should be

reassuring and laudatory. Yet that very same year, local Church author-

ities excommunicated biographer Fawn M. Brodie for publishing a

book that “den[ies] the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, [and] the

restoration of the Priesthood and of Christ’s Church through the in-

strumentalityoftheProphetJosephSmith,contrarytothebeliefs,doc-

trines, and teachings of the Church.”

22***

Other more recent scholars

whose works have been condemned by Church authorities—most often

by individual leaders over the pulpit—and who in some cases have

86 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

James E. Faust, “Finding the Abundant Life,”Ensign, July 2000, 2.

Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1, 2006. 110.

George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay, Letter

to Joseph H. Weston, April 19, 1946, in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency,

6:251–52. Weston (1911–83), a professional journalist, was working on a

book about the LDS Church and had applied to the First Presidency for ac-

cess to Church documents. The First Presidency’s letter appeared in the in-

troduction to his published work Those Amazing Mormons (Salt Lake City:

Deseret News Press, 1948). He joined the LDS Church within days after fin-

ishing his book.

***

Newell G. Bringhurst, ed., Reconsidering No Man Knows My His-

themselves been disciplined or chastised by local officials, include,

among others, Heber C. Snell, Sterling M. McMurrin, Juanita Brooks,

Duane E. Jeffrey, James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, Linda King

Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, D. Michael Quinn, Lavina Fielding

Anderson, Maxine Hanks, Paul and Margaret Toscano, Janice Merrill

Allred, David P. Wright, David C. Knowlton, Brent Lee Metcalfe,

Thomas W. Murphy, and Grant Palmer. Thus, what some scholars view

as being fair, honest, and not distorting of the truth, some Church offi-

cialshaveviewedasevidenceofapostasy.

The Church has never explicitly identified the particular topics

or approaches in the production of scholarly history that it might ob-

ject to and even condemn. Today, such determinations seem largely to

be left up to the Strengthening Church Members Committee and its

advisors, interested individual General Authorities who may choose

to voice their concerns publicly or in-house through the Church’s bu-

reaucracy, and ward- and stake-level leadership who may feel moved

(or directed) to interpret and act upon such “advice.” Thus, it is typi-

callyonlyafterthefactthatonemaybeabletohazardaguessasto

what those “problematical” areas/approaches might be. Even so,

from the Church-related experiences of past scholars, as well as the

published statements of President Hinckley and other high-ranking

Church authorities, one might speculate that Church members who

in their publications question in any way what might conceivably be

read to undermine belief in the existence of God and Jesus as His Son,

the historical reality of the First Vision, the restoration of the Aaronic

and Melchizedek priesthoods to Joseph Smith, and the “truthfulness”

of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s other revelations might—

and one must stress “might”—find themselves facing official Church

condemnation, or even formal discipline of some sort. Thus, there

seem to be limits to the Church’s support of the quest for the truth—

theextentofthatsupportturningasmuchasanythingonhowone

views that “truth.” The question that those interested in the produc-

tion of scholarly Mormon history must face is the extent to which such

limits inf luence the way such history is produced and consumed.

Given the Church’s studied reluctance to state an official position,

attempts to resolve this question will no doubt continue.

Regarding the second of the two topics I have been asked to ad-

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 87

tory: Fawn M. Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect (Logan: Utah State Uni-

versity Press, 1996), 112.

dress, my doing so presupposes that I agree, first, with the viewing of

attempts to join faith and scholarship as necessarily giving rise to the

kinds of challenges and controversies under discussion; and, second,

with the characterizing of my own past and present involvement in the

Mormon intellectual and historical communities as involving me—di-

rectly or otherwise—in those challenges and controversies. On the one

hand, I realize that my personal history and intellectual interests may

seem to place me somewhere in the midst of recent debates regarding

the roles of intellectual inquiry and religious apologetics. On the other

hand, I worry that agreeing with that particular characterization of

such debates within the Mormon community serves not only to vali-

date the shared meaning of these kinds of controversies but also—and

more important from my point of view—the criticisms (which range

from the constructive to the nasty) of the various parties involved in

them. In other words, to what extent am I actually contributing to, if

not in fact seemingly validating, the very unconstructive discourse I

would like to avoid?

Perhaps, then, a brief inventory of my own beliefs—my own set

of “principles”—may be helpful in explaining how, after more than

thirty years, I now approach the so-called challenges of scholarly Mor-

mon history:

I believe that Davis Bitton, former Assistant LDS Church Histo-

rian, was correct when he observed that one cannot have a “testi-

mony” of the history of the LDS Church. For Bitton, one may

only properly have a “testimony”of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

23****

I believe that, in the words of LDS Church Apostle Stephen L

Richards, “dogmatism and bigotry [are] the deadliest enemies

of true religion.”

24+

I believe that the Church’s members and leaders are, according

to the Doctrine and Covenants, among the “weak things of the

88 The Journal of Mormon History

****

Davis Bitton, “‘I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the

Church,’” Meridian Magazine, www.meridianmagazine.com/historybits/

040820testimonyprint.html (accessed August 8, 2009).

Stephen L Richards, “Epilogue: ‘Continuing Revelation and Mor-

mon Doctrine,’” in Line upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine,editedby

Gary James Bergera (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 185.

earth” (D&C 124:1) and “liable to err.”

25++

I believe that any member of the Church who knowingly does

wrongbecauseheorsheistoldbyanyChurchauthoritytodoso

is, as First Presidency counselor Joseph F. Smith stated, just “as

guilty of that wrong” as if he or she had acted independently.

26+++

I believe, with LDS Church educator Noel B. Reynolds, that “we

musteachstandonourownfeet,onourownperformance.”

27++++

I believe that, as Elder Boyd K. Packer has said, there is no “[free]

agency without choice,” “no choice without freedom,” “no free-

dom without risk,” and no “true freedom without responsibil-

ity.”

28*

I believe that all of us have, according to President James E.

Faust, “the responsibility of making [our] own moral deci-

sions,”

29**

which is why we must always, according to the Doc-

trine and Covenants 4:6: “Remember faith, virtue, knowledge,

temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity,

humility,diligence,...”

I believe that we all must learn and cultivate the kind of intellec-

tual independence and maturity to be able to deal with life’s

many contradictions. “We should not be deceived,” Bruce C.

Hafen has said, “by the clear-cut labels others may use to de-

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 89

Charles W. Penrose, quoted in Deseret News Weekly, September 22,

1880, 536; see also Gordon B. Hinckley, “Keep the Faith,” Ensign, Septem-

ber 1985, 6.

+++

Joseph F. Smith, quoted in Robert Gillespie, Diary, March 30, 1884,

LDS Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

++++

Noel B. Reynolds, “Reason and Revelation,” in A Thoughtful Faith:

Essays on Belief by Mormon Scholars, edited by Philip L. Barlow (Centerville,

Utah: Canon Press, 1986), 217.

Boyd K. Packer, “Let Them Govern Themselves,” March 30, 1990,

Ensign, 7.

James E. Faust, “The Prophetic Voice,” Ensign, May 1996, 6–7.

scribe circumstances that are, in fact, not so clear.”

30***

Paraphrasing the words of LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, I believe

that to omit a portion of our past is to perpetrate a lie;

31****

that tell-

ing the truth requires, as LDS historian Ronald W. Walker has ob-

served, investigating “personality, psychology, physiology and

health, and sexuality,” as well as “human weakness [and] human

relationships”;

32+

that “a frank acknowledgement of the ‘weak-

nesses’ of [people],” according to Davis Bitton, is always “more re-

spectful [of] the[m] than a cover-up job;”

33++

and that “events and

issues, challenges and disappointments, struggles and lapses

should not be ignored or swept aside simply because they might

be considered embarrassing.”

34+++

While the Church currently limits access to historical materials

initsarchivesthatitdeemsconfidentialoroverlypersonaland,

under some circumstances, extends privacy considerations be-

yond a person’s death, I believe that such policies ref lect the

Church’s teachings regarding repentance and mercy but do not,

andshouldnot,circumscribeorhinderinanywaytheworkof

historians and other researchers and writers. Historically the

Church has addressed many such “sensitive” topics openly. The

Church’s scriptures and revelations are replete with detailed ac-

counts of Church tribunals, excommunications, repentance,

sin, and transgression, in, for example, Joseph Smith’s History of

90 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Bruce C. Hafen, “On Dealing with Uncertainty,” Ensign, August

1979, 65. Hafen was then president of Ricks College, now BYU-Idaho.

****

Dallin H. Oaks, “Gospel Teachings about Lying,” Clark Memoran-

dum (publication of the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young Uni-

versity), Spring 1994, 17.

[Ronald W. Walker], “The Challenge of Mormon Biography,” in

Mormon History, edited by Ronald W. Walker, David J. Whittaker, and James

B. Allen (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 137.

Davis Bitton, “Mormon Biography,” Biography: An Interdisciplinary

Quarterly 4 (Winter 1981): 12.

+++

Davis Bitton, “Brushes with Mormon Biography,” in Lives of the

Saints: Writing Mormon Biography and Autobiography, edited by Jill Mulvay

Derr (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint His-

tory, Brigham Young University, 2002), 93.

the Church, on the pages of periodicals such as the Deseret News

and Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, and in the many-volumed,

ongoing scrapbook Journal History of the Church, for example.

I believe that historians should be able, and encouraged, to ex-

plore all aspects of the Church’s and of its members’ pasts—that

nothing is off limits. That said, I also believe that assertions of

faith, however broadly or narrowly defined, by their very a-ratio-

nal nature typically transcend rational confirmation. In other

words, while history may properly address, for example, the “his-

torical” facts of Joseph Smith’s first vision, including its chronol-

ogy, context, antecedents, inconsistencies, etc., it can never an-

swer the question of its “reality” in history.

I believe that how I personally approach the writing and publish-

ing of Church history reflects, in many ways, how I approach life

in general and how I would hope my own life might be por-

trayed,shouldanyonefindinterestinit.WhileIfindmyselfask-

ing on an almost daily basis, “What kind of person do I want to

be?”,I realizethat this kind ofquestioning impacts my approach

to the past. In my own life, I want to be fair-minded, tolerant,

honest,objective,balanced,andanalytical.IfindthatItryto

bring these same qualities to my study of history and biography.

I know that I haven’t always been successful in doing so—espe-

ciallyinthefaceofad hominem criticisms—but this kind of ap-

proach remains my goal.

As regards the so-called post-modern critique of “objective” his-

tory, what I personally find most intriguing, perhaps even persua-

sive, about it is its questioning and skepticism about all authority.

I accept that we all have biases. I believe that the challenge we face

is not simply recognizing our biases but, most importantly, exer-

cising our restraint in keeping those biases at bay when approach-

ing a reconstruction of the past. Thus, I believe the “best” history

is that which in addition to the qualities previously mentioned, is,

so far as is humanly possible, “objective.”

I was recently told of an informal conversation among a small

group of friends during which my name came up. The question

posed regarding me was this: Should I one day stumble upon a letter,

whose authenticity could not be contested, from Joseph Smith to his

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 91

wife, Emma, in which he admitted that he had deliberately fabricated

his story of the First Vision, of the Angel Moroni, of the Book of Mor-

mon, and of the restoration of the priesthood, would I suppress the

letter, or would I publish it? This group of friends was divided as to

what I would do. When I heard this story, my own answer was quick:

Of course, I’d publish it—or encourage someone else to publish it. Of

course, I’d also want to try to contextualize it, to explain it, to under-

stand it. But the thought of notpublishing it never entered my mind.

Based on my past experiences with LDS Church history as both

producer and consumer, I realize that as I approach the task of at-

tempting to produce scholarly Mormon history, I am accountable

first and foremost to my own conscience, to my own moral sensibility.

I believe firmly that such a conviction fully dovetails with the teach-

ings and the best interests of the LDS Church.

PPENDIX:

CHURCH HISTORY PRINCIPLES (COMMUNITY OF CHRIST)

1. Continuing exploration of our history is part of identity formation.

As a church we seek always to clarify our identity, message, and mission. In

ourfaithstory,weseeclearlyGod’sSpiritgivingthisfaithcommunitytools,

insights, and experiences for divine purposes. A people with a shared mem-

ory of their past, and an informed understanding of its meaning, are better

prepared to chart their way into the future.

2. History informs but does not dictate our faith and beliefs. The foun-

dation and continuing sourcefor our faith is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

Studying history is not about proving or disproving mystical, spiritual, or re-

velatory experiences that birth or transform religious movements. Sound

history informs faith, and healthy faith leads to insights about history. Theol-

ogy and faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, must play an important role in dis-

covering the enduring meaning of such events as well as the deeper truths

found in them. Our understanding of our history affects our faith and be-

liefs. However, our past does not limit our faith and beliefs to what they were

historically.

3. The church encourages honest, responsible historical scholarship.

Studying history involves related fields. Historians use academic research to

get as many facts as they can; then, they interpret those facts to construct as

clearapictureaspossibleofwhatwasgoingoninthepast.Thisincludesana-

lyzing human culture to see how it affected events. Historians try to under-

standpatternsofmeaningtointerpretwhatthepastmeansforourfuture.

This process should avoid “presentism,” or interpreting the past based on a

current worldview and culture instead of the culture of the time.

92 The Journal of Mormon History

4. The study of church history is a continuing journey. If we say that a

book on history is the only true telling of the story, we risk “canonizing” one

version, a tendency we have shown in the past. This blocks further insights

from continuing research. Good historical inquiry understands that conclu-

sions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes

from ongoing study.

5. Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history makes it

more believable and realistic, not less. Our history has stories of great faith

and courage that inspire us. Our history also includes human leaders who

said and did things that can be shocking to us from our current perspective

and culture. Historians try not to judge—instead, they try to understand by

learning as much as possible about the context and the meaning of those

words and actions at the time. The result is empathy instead of judgment.

Our scriptures are consistent in pointing out that God, through grace, uses

imperfect people for needed ministry and leadership.

6. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repen-

tance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on promoting

communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should be self-critical and

honestaboutitshistory.Itisimportantforustoconfesswhenwehavebeen

less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. This honesty prompts

us to repent, and it strengthens our integrity. Admitting past mistakes helps

us avoid repeating them and frees us from the influences of past injustices

and violence in our history. We must be humble and willing to repent, indi-

vidually and as a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring

God’s shalom on earth.

7.Thechurchhasalong-standingtraditionthatitdoesnotlegislateor

mandate positions on matters of church history. Historians should be free to

draw their own conclusions after thorough consideration of evidence.

Through careful study and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the church is learning

how to accept and responsibly interpret all of its history. This includes put-

ting new information and changing understandings into proper perspec-

tive, while emphasizing the parts of our history that continue to play a role in

guiding the church’s identity and mission today.

8. We need to create a respectful culture of dialogue about matters of

history. We should not limit our faith story to one perspective. Diverse view-

points bring richness to our understanding of God’s movement in our sa-

cred story. Of course, historians will come to different conclusions as they

study. Therefore, it is important for us to create and maintain a respectful

culture that allows different points of view on history. Our conversation

about history should be polite and focused on trying to understand others’

views. Most important, we should remain focused on what matters most for

the message and mission of the church in this time.

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 93

9. Our faith is grounded in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the con-

tinuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must keep our hearts and minds cen-

tered on God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. As God’s Word alive in human his-

tory, Jesus Christ was and is the foundation of our faith and the focus of the

church’s mission and message.

APPROACHING MORMON HISTORY:LDSCHURCH

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approach-

ing-mormon-history, July 5, 2007 (accessed June 13, 2010)

The increasing media attention devoted to the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints has led many journalists to explore Mormon history. Some

of them have questioned the miraculous aspects of the faith and have in-

quired as to why Latter-day Saints continue to believe them as reality and not

myth.

Some writers have suggested that Mormons have a tougher “sell” with

their faith because the miraculous events associated with its history are rela-

tively recent and not obscured by antiquity. One scholar even wondered

whether the Church—as it becomes more familiar and more widely ac-

cepted—will be pressured by public opinion to step back from those doc-

trines and elements of its history that are unique and challenging to modern

eyes.

ButtodenytheChurch’smiraculoushistoryistodenyitsveryfounda-

tion. During an interview for the recent PBS documentary The Mormons,El-

der Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian and a member of the high-ranking

Quorum of the Seventy, was asked why Mormon history is taken so literally

and not simply treated as a myth. In response he said that viewing history as

a“figmentoflanguageor...imagination”takesawayitsessentialmeaning.

From the perspective of believers, for example, Joseph Smith’s miraculous

visions give real meaning to their lives not because of their symbolic value,

but because they actually happened

According to the scriptural model of history, prophets and apostles

taught spiritual truths through historical narratives. Likewise, according to

Elder Jensen, “the greatest piece of Church history that we have is Joseph

Smith’s story. It’sscripture, and it’shistory, and it’sthe foundation, really, for

everything that we have and we are, and it’s beautifully clear and simple.”

Mormon history is often viewed in terms of how sacred history can be

reconciled with the empirical demands of secular history. It is often asked,

for example, how the Church can reconcile the authenticity of the Book of

Mormon with the absence of archeological proof. This difficulty is inherent

in all religious history and illustrates how spiritual matters are best verified

by spiritual means. For example, the Jewish belief in the reality of the Exo-

94 The Journal of Mormon History

dus is not dependent on archeological evidence but rests on faith. At a time

when many religions are pressured to treat their sacred histories as myths,

the Latter-day Saints on the contrary embrace their history as a literal ex-

pression of their faith.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apos-

tles, was asked how faith interacts with history. He emphasized that ulti-

mately spiritual matters cannot be empirically verified, but require faith: “It

will forever come to faith, or it isn’t religion in any way that I understand reli-

gion.” Furthermore, Elder Holland said that there is no need to hide from

Church history and that it should be accepted for what it is.

Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, also interviewed by Helen Whit-

ney, similarly expressed the need to take Church history literally. Articulat-

ing the difficulty of finding middle ground between myth and reality, Presi-

dent Hinckley said of the foundational story of Mormonism that “it’s either

true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the

most important thing in the world.”

Since the birth and growth of the Church has taken place right before

thepublic’seyesthesepasttwocenturies,itcannotescapepublicscrutiny.

Nevertheless, this scrutiny does not require that the Church compromise or

hide from its history. Far from being a liability, Mormons view their history

as one of the Church’s greatest assets.

ANDERSON, BOLTON, & BERGERA/HISTORY PANEL 95

THE SANGAMO JOURNAL’S “REBECCA”

AND THE “DEMOCRATIC PETS”:

BRAHAM LINCOLN’S INTERACTION

WITH

MORMONISM

Mary Jane Woodger and Wendy Vardeman White

ITWASNOTUNUSUALFORTHESANGAMO JOURNAL, printed in Spring-

field Illinois, to comment on the Mormons during the 1840s: 137

articles mentioned the topic during the decade. What makes the

September 2, 1842, issue of the Sangamo Journal notable was not its

criticism of the Mormons, but rather the authorship of one of its

editorials. “Rebecca,” who identified herself a farming widow in the

county, expressed her discontent with the evil course of affairs in Il-

linois.

“Rebecca” sarcastically remarked, “A pretty mess they [the

Democrats]havemadeofit....ThisStateBankofIllinoiswill

neverbecomeprosperousuntiltheWhigpartyareinpower.And

* MARY JANE WOODGER {maryjane_woodger@byu.edu} is a pro-

fessor of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University. She has

edited Champion of Liberty: John Taylor (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies

Center, 2009); Heart Petals: The Personal Correspondence of David Oman

McKay to Emma Ray McKay (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005);

The Teachings of David O. McKay (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004); and

David O. McKay: Beloved Prophet (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Commu-

nications, 2004). She has also authored numerous articles on doctrinal, his-

torical and educational subjects that have appeared in various academic

journals, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Utah Historical

Quarterly, Journal of Mormon History, and The Religious Educator. WENDY

VARDEMAN WHITE {w[email protected]} earned her B.A. degree in

look at the Mormons—‘Democratic pets!’”

**2***

Afewdayslater,Re-

becca sneered, “‘This plan of securing gold for office holders’—was

a trick, undoubtedly arranged before the election; even the Mor-

mon votes could not have moved the party.”

3****

When “Rebecca’s” ad-

ditional sarcastic editorials resulted in an offended party’s challeng-

ing the alleged widow to a duel, Abraham Lincoln claimed author-

ship of the second letter: “I did write the ‘Lost Township’ letter [by

“Rebecca”] which appeared in the Journal of the 2d inst.”

Reading the Rebecca editorials today supports what Lincoln bi-

ographer Roy K. Basler suggests: “Lincoln took some interest in the

Latter-day Saints while they were in Illinois, but regarded them more

with humor than serious concern.”

5++

Lincoln’s political career from

1838 to 1860 was centered in Springfield, Illinois, about 120 miles

southeast of Nauvoo. As a lawyer, member of the Illinois State Legisla-

ture, and finally as the chief executive of the nation, Lincoln filled key

positions which inherently involved interaction with LDS Church

leaders. Lincoln’s attitude of restraint and even unconcern toward

the Mormons became important in the history of the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints during the Civil War when he was U.S.

president. Such an attitude may have been because of his associations

with Mormons during his early political career.

As Brigham Young was establishing communities in the West,

Lincoln made several executive decisions that affected Mormons’

lives and history. Lincoln is known for his ability to value people de-

spite individual differences, a characteristic that led to decisions that

were generous in his assessment of the Latter-day Saints. He could

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 97

American studies from Brigham Young University in April 2010. She enjoys

research and intends to pursue a master’s degree in library science.

John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (New

York: Century, Co., 1914), 204.

***

Albert J. Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln (New York: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1928), 338.

****

Ibid., 339–40.

Roy P. Basler, Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings (Cleveland,

Ohio: World Publishing, 1969), 186.

Roy P. Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 5 vols. (New Bruns-

wick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 1:291; Ralph Y. McGinnis and

Calvin N. Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories (Chicago: Nel-

son-Hall Publishers, 1994), 97.

have demanded that a moral high ground be maintained in his posi

tions; instead, he consistently took a stance of toleration.

RELUDE TO ASSOCIATION:BEFORE 1838

Lincoln had won an election in 1834 as a representative for

Sangamon County to the state legislature. As a member of the Sang-

amon delegation, Lincoln supported the relocation of the state capi-

tal from Vandalia in Fayette County to Springfield. On September 9,

1836, Abraham Lincoln received a license to practice law; and on

March 1, 1837, the clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court enrolled his

name as a lawyer.

6+++

Lincoln began to practice criminal, common law

and chancery divisions of law traveling the First Judicial Circuit with

hislawofficelocatedinSpringfield.WhenSangamonCountybe-

came part of a newly formed Eighth Judicial Circuit in 1839, Lincoln

began to ride that circuit, concentrating his legal practice in Sang-

amon, Tazewell, Logan, and McLean counties. A circuit consisted of

four to ten courts which met for two terms, three months in the spring

and three months in the fall. He would handle as many as sixty cases

in a single term, moving from one county to the next and dealing with

business that lasted from a few days to two weeks in each county.

7++++

From 1841 to 1847 the Eighth Judicial Circuit consisted of fifteen

counties in central Illinois.

This experience of riding the circuit as a lawyer, lasted from the

spring of 1837 to October of 1847 when Lincoln left for Washington

to serve a term in the United States House of Representatives; it gave

Lincoln extensive knowledge about central Illinois. In addition to his

personal experience, biographer Stephen B. Oates observed that Lin-

coln became “addicted to newspapers and read them more than any-

thing else.”

In 1839, as the Mormons began to stream across the Mis-

sissippi River into Illinois, Lincoln would have read about their flight

from Missouri. It was as an attorney that Lincoln and the Mormons

most often interacted until the Mormons left Illinois in 1846. The

Herndon and Lincoln law offices represented clients who were both

Mormons and non-Mormons, in actions in which Mormons were

98 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Stephen B. Oates, With Malice toward None: The Life of Abraham Lin-

coln (New York: Penguin Group, 1978), 34, 42.

++++

Malcolm G. McGregor, The Biographical Record of Jasper County, Mis-

souri (Chicago: Lewis Publishing, 1901), 38.

Oates, With Malice toward None, 37, 49–50.

both plaintiffs and defendants.

9**

DURING THE NAUVOO PERIOD

Beginning in the spring of 1838 when the Saints moved into

Hancock County, Illinois, it was overwhelmingly Democratic. Still,

both political parties welcomed them and energetically tried to se-

cure their support.

10***

InHancockCountywherethemajorityofthe

population was Mormon, the Illinois gubernatorial election of 1838

was a landslide, with the Democrat receiving 633 votes and the Whig

436. A 59 percent to 41 percent ratio for any office in antebellum Illi-

nois was significant.

11****

When Thomas Ford won the governorship in

1842 with 46,901 votes compared with his Whig opponent Joseph

Duncan who received 38, 584 votes, the Whigs (Lincoln’s party) com-

plained that their defeat was due to “Joe Smith’s power,”

12+

even

though according to Theodore Calvin Pease, professor of history at

the University of Illinois, the Whigs had generally courted the Mor-

mons even more assiduously than the Democrats.

13++

Although StephenA. Douglas was inhis twenties duringthe late

1830s and early 1840s he was seen as the foremost Democrat in the

area.

14+++

In December 1839, Lincoln and Douglas had first debated

each other and repeatedly faced one another across Illinois in the

spring and summer of 1840 as they campaigned for their party’s pres-

idential nominee: Lincoln for Whig William Henry Harrison and

Douglas for Democrat Martin Van Buren. Political historian and Lin-

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 99

William P. MacKinnon, “Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and

the Mormon Problem: The 1857 Debate,” Mormon History Association,

Springfield, Illinois, May 22, 2009; notes in our possession.

***

George R. Gayler, “The Mormons and Politics in Illinois: 1839–

1844,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 159 (Spring 1956): 48–49.

****

Theodore Pease, ed., Illinois Election Returns, 1818–1848, Illinois

Historical Collections, No. 18 (Springfield: Trustees of the Illinois State

Historical Library, 1923), 111.

Robert W. Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas (New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1973), 108–9.

Theodore Calvin Pease, The Frontier State, 1818–1848: The Sesqui-

centennial History of Illinois (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 344.

+++

Bruce A. Van Orden, “Stephen A. Douglas and the Mormons,” Re-

gional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: Illinois (Provo, Utah: BYU

Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1995), 361, 367.

coln scholar Blaine Brooks Gernon observed that Douglas made

friendswiththeLDSChurchleadersimmediatelywhentheMor-

mons emigrated from Missouri in 1838 as he rode the Fifth Judicial

Circuit which included Hancock County and Nauvoo and that he

lived in nearby Quincy.

15++++

In addition, from 1841 to 1843 Douglas

served as a judge on the Illinois Supreme Court.

In June 1841, Joseph was arrested as a fugitive from the state of

Missouri. He obtained a writ of habeas corpus, which enabled him to

appeal to Judge Douglas at the circuit court in Monmouth, seventy-

five miles from Nauvoo. The trial opened on June 9 in a packed court-

room. The defense arguments concerning the persecution of the

Saints in Missouri brought many to tears including Judge Douglas,

who dismissed the case the next day on procedural grounds. Doug-

las’s decision brought gratitude from Mormons and suspicions from

others that he had made a political agreement with Joseph Smith.

16*

According to Robert W. Johannsen, a Douglas biographer,

“Douglas also emphasized that the Mormons had their rights to wor-

ship as they pleased,” while Lincoln was seen as somewhat irreli-

gious.

17**

Lincoln once sarcastically said of himself: “No Christian

ought to go for me because I belonged to no church, was suspected of

being a Deist, and talked about fighting a duel.”

18***

Though the 1840s

saw the tail end of the Second Great Awakening, launched about fifty

years earlier, the general climate created social pressure to join a

church. Remaining religiously unattached created a disadvantage po-

litically for Lincoln, who distanced himself from organized religion

and generally refused to discuss his beliefs.

19****

According to Oates, Douglas had so rapidly identified himself

with the Mormons that his attitude “became a target for many of the

100 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Blaine Brooks Gernon, Lincoln in the Political Circus (Chicago: Black

Cat Press, 1936), 81–82.

Brigham H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints, Century I, 6 vols. (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young

University Press, 1965), 4:366.

Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, 108–9.

***

Clark Prescott Bissett, Abraham Lincoln: A Universal Man (San Fran-

cisco: John Howell, 1923), 98.

****

David Herbert Donald, Lincoln’s Herndon (Cambridge, Mass.: Da

Capo Press, 1989), 214.

opposition’s blasts.”

20+

He appointed “partisans of the Church to court

positions in Hancock County, thus helping arouse the intense

anti-Mormon opposition in Warsaw.” And Whig newspapers sharply

accused Douglas of openly courting the Mormon vote.

21++

It does not appear that Joseph Smith had any particular leanings

to either party. However, he went to Washington, D.C., in November

1839 and stayed in the East until February 1840, with the purpose of

seeking redress from U.S. President Martin Van Buren (in office March

4, 1837-March 4, 1841) for the Mormons’ losses of property in Mis-

souri. Dissatisfied with Van Buren’s response, Joseph Smith wrote the

Nauvoo High Council: “We do not say the Saints shall not vote for him

[Van Buren], but we do say boldly (though it need not be published in

the streets of Nauvoo, neither among the daughters of the Gentiles),

that we do not intend he shall have our votes.”

22+++

In the presidential

election in November 1840, Hancock County, a mostly Mormon con-

stituency, voted for William Henry Harrison, the Whig candidate, by

752 votes. But to recognize the Democrats, as a bloc two hundred Mor-

mons scratched the last name on the Whig electoral ticket and substi-

tuted that of a Democrat, James H. Ralston. The name they marked off

was that of Abraham Lincoln, who was then running for presidential

elector and lost.

23++++

Ironically, Lincoln was often accused of being over-

friendly to these same Mormons, so it seems that this direct snub did

not seem to have influenced Lincoln’s decisions regarding Mor-

mons.

24*

According to historian Daniel Walker Howe, Lincoln was still

one of the Illinois politicians most sympathetic to Mormons.

25**

In December 1840, John C. Bennett, seeking a charter for Nau-

voo led a Mormon delegation representing 15,000 votes to the state

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 101

Oates, With Malice toward None, 56; Van Orden, “Stephen A. Doug-

las and the Mormons,” 363.

Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, 106–7.

+++

Joseph Smith Jr and Elias Higbee, “History of Joseph Smith,” Mil-

lennial Star 17, no. 29 (July 21, 1855): 452–53.

++++

“Whig Veracity,” Illinois Register, Springfield, November 13, 1840.

William Alexander Linn, The Story of the Mormons: From the Date of

Their Origin to the Year 1901 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1902), 244;

and Gernon, Lincoln in the Political Circus, 81–82.

Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of

America, 1815–1848 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 724.

legislature.

26***

They succeeded in obtaining an expansive charter that

included provisions for a military unit, a city council, and a university.

Lincoln personally knew Bennett and actively campaigned in behalf

of the Nauvoo city charter in the state legislature where he had won

his seat previously in August of 1840.

27****

Bennett reported to the LDS

Times and Seasons:

Many members in this house, likewise, were warmly in our favor,

and with only one or two dissenting voices every representative ap-

peared inclined to extend to us all such power as they considered us

justly entitled to and voted for the law. [A]nd here I should not forget

to mention that Lincoln whose name we erased from the electoral

ticket in November, (not, however, on account of any dislike to him as

a man, but simply because his was the last name on the ticket, and we

desired to show our friendship to the Democratic party by substitut-

ing the name of Ralston for some one of the Whigs,) had the magna-

nimity to vote for our act, and came forward, after the final vote, to

the bar of the house, and cordially congratulated me on its passage.

28+

The Nauvoo City Charter, successfully steered through the state legis-

lature on December 16, 1840, was signed by every member of the leg-

islature, including Abraham Lincoln.

29++

On March 1, 1841, Lincoln

completed his term in the twelfth session of the Illinois legislature.

30+++

Though Lincoln had signed the Nauvoo Charter, it appears that

Church leaders preferred Douglas to Lincoln.

31++++

On New Year’s Day

in 1842, Joseph Smith himself expressed gratitude for Douglas in the

Times and Seasons:“DouglasisaMasterSpirit,andhisfriendsareour

friends—we are willing to cast our banners on the air, and fight by his

side in the cause of humanity and equal rights—the cause of liberty

and the law.”

32*

Lincoln reacted to this favoritism, as noted, by criticiz-

ing Douglas’s association with the Mormons under the pseudonym of

102 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Ibid.

****

Ibid.

JOAB, General in Israel [pseud. for John C. Bennett], [No head-

line], Times and Seasons 2, no. 5 (January 1, 1841): 267.

Gayler, “The Mormons and Politics in Illinois,” 52.

+++

Gernon, Lincoln in the Political Circus, 81–82.

++++

Ibid., 81.

Joseph Smith, “State Gubernatorial Convention,” Times and Sea-

sons, January 1, 1842, 651.

Rebecca, the feisty widow.

33**

The four letters, which appeared in the

Sangamo Journal between August 10, 1842, and September 16, 1842,

critiqued Democrats in general and State Auditor James Shields in

particular.ShieldswassoinsultedhechallengedLincolntoaduel.

Dueling had been illegal in Illinois since 1839, so the two oppo-

nents crossed into Missouri on September 22, 1842. When Lincoln

used his broad sword to cut off a willow branch with one quick stroke,

Shields backed down and the two made peace. Lincoln biographer

Douglas Wilson characterizes Lincoln as “deeply mortified by his en-

tanglement in this unfortunate episode and was averse to any refer-

ence to it in later life. To be dragged into a duel, which was illegal in Il-

linois,wasbadenough,butanimportantaspectofhisembarrass-

ment was surely the public exposure of this unf lattering, if disast-

rously effective, use of his literary talents.”

34***

Lincoln’s passing allu-

sion to the Mormons obviously benefited from his desire to put the

experience behind him.

A year after Lincoln’s “unfortunate episode” Douglas was elect-

ed to the House of Representatives in 1843, and then to the Senate in

1847.

35****

According to Edwin Erle Sparks, a scholar of the Lincoln-

Douglas debates, it was Joseph Smith who nicknamed Douglas the

“Little Giant.” Sparks does not provide a date except to say that it was

“during an exciting discussion in the Illinois Legislature upon the

Mormon difficulties, in which Douglas cut a conspicuous figure in

thedefenseoftheSaints....[T]heirgreatleader[JosephSmith],in

giving vent to his unbounded admiration for Douglas called him the

‘Little Giant.’”

36+

This somewhat unspecific anecdote suggests that

Smith and Douglas developed a mutual respect and close bond dur-

ing the early 1840s.

37++

However, balancing it is another statement by

Joseph Smith that could have been either a curse or warning. William

Clayton, the private secretary of Joseph Smith who was present at the

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 103

Roy P. Basler, “The Authorship of the ‘Rebecca’ Letters,” Abraham

Lincoln Quarterly 2 (June 1942): 80–90.

***

Douglas L. Wilson, Lincoln’s Sword: The Presidency and the Power of

Words (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 33.

****

Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, 122, 266.

Peoria Transcript, September 13, 1858, as quoted in Edwin Erle

Sparks, Lincoln Series: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 3 vols. (Springfield: Illi-

nois State Historical Library, 1908), 1:553.

Van Orden, “Stephen A. Douglas and the Mormons,” 373.

time, reported a conversation on May 18, 1843, when Stephen Doug-

las was dining with Joseph Smith at the Backenstos residence in Car-

thage. After the meal, Douglas asked the Prophet to describe the

Saints’ experiences in Missouri. For three hours, the Prophet gave a

history of the persecution the Saints had endured. He also shared his

experience with President Martin Van Buren. Judge Douglas listened

attentively and was empathetic. In conclusion, Joseph Smith with pro-

phetic solemnity stated: “Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of

the United States. And if you ever turn your hand against me or the

Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the Almighty upon you;

and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you;

for the conversation of this day will stick to you through life.”

38+++

This prophecy was first published in Utah in the Deseret News on

September 24, 1856, and then in England in the Millennial Star in Feb-

ruary 1859 in the “History of Joseph Smith.” The publication of this

prophecy added to the folk belief that would be with Latter-day Saints

for generations that Douglas and Smith had a close personal relation-

ship.

OSEPH SMITH AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Lincoln and Joseph Smith were in the Illinois State Capitol at

the same time twice—on November 4–8, 1839, and December 31,

1842–January 6, 1843.

39++++

Although there is no evidence that the two

menhadanypersonalcontact,theywereprobablyawareofeach

other’spresenceinthecityandhadtheopportunitytohavemetin

person if either desired to do so.

In the first instance, Joseph Smith passed through Springfield

on November 4–8, 1839, on his way to Washington, D.C., seeking re-

dress from the federal government for wrongs suffered in Missouri.

Bryan C. Andreasen research historian at the Abraham Lincoln Presi-

dential Library in Springfield, Illinois (2010) has found legal records

showing that Lincoln worked in his law office those same days.

104 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

William Clayton, Daily journal, as quoted in Brigham H. Roberts, A

Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Century

I, 6 vols. (1930; rpt., Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1965

printing), 5:393–94.

++++

Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-

ter-day Saints, Century I, 5:212–33; and Dean C. Jessee, ed., Personal Writings

of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002), 483–88.

Andreasen thinks it likely that Lincoln did “talk with the Mormon

prophet, as he was working to help his law partner and wife’s cousin

John T. Stuart solidify support from local Mormon voters.”

40*

In addi-

tion, Lincoln wrote a memo to Stuart, on March 1, 1840, comment-

ing: “Speed [Joshua Speed had sublet his apartment to Lincoln in

1837 in Springfield and the two became roommates and good

friends] says he wrote you what Jo. Smith said about you as he passed

here. We will procure the names of some of his [Mormon] people

hereandsendthemtoyoubeforelong.”

41**

The memo dealt with

party politics, and this sentence suggests that Lincoln wanted to gen-

erate a list of influential Mormons to whom he could send political in-

formation.

The second opportunity for a meeting between Joseph Smith

and Abraham Lincoln occurred when Joseph Smith and his party of

close associates including Orrin Porter Rockwell left Nauvoo on De-

cember 27, 1842 and arrived in Springfield on December 30, staying

at the home of Mormon Judge James Adams.

42***

Joseph Smith’s visit to

Springfield was to answer an attempt to extradite him as an accessory

in the attempted assassination of former Missouri Governor Lilburn

W. Boggs that had taken place on May 6, 1842. Harry E. Pratt, in his

day-to-day chronicle of Lincoln’s activities, noted on January 1, 1843:

“Joseph Smith, Mormon leader, arrived Saturday and is today’s sensa-

tion in Springfield. He has been arrested on a warrant issued by Gov-

ernor Thomas Ford and his hearing before Judge [Nathaniel] Pope in

United States District Court is set for tomorrow. Smith is present at a

ball held Saturday evening at American House in honor of the elec-

tion of Sidney Breese to the U.S. Senate.”

43****

Attorney Morris A. Thurs-

ton explains:

After avoiding Illinois law men for several months, Joseph decided to

travel to Springfield for a hearing on a habeas corpus motion. . . .

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 105

R. Scott Lloyd, “Springfield, Illinois, Had Early LDS Connections,”

quoting Bryon C. Andreasen, Church News, May 22, 2009, 3.

Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 206.

***

R. Scott Lloyd, “Law in Joseph Smith’s Day,” Church News, May 26,

2009, 3, quoting Morris A. Thurston, Mormon History Association Annual

Meeting, Springfield, Illinois, May 2009.

****

Harry Edward Pratt, Lincoln, 1840–1846: Being the Day-by-Day Activi-

ties of Abraham Lincoln, from January 1, 1840, to December 31, 1846 (Spring-

field, Ill.: Abraham Lincoln Association, 1939), 158.

Boggs had given an affidavit accusing Joseph Smith and Orrin Porter

Rockwell in the crime. Based on that affidavit Missouri Gov. Thomas

Reynolds requisitioned the extradition of the two to stand trial. Illi-

nois Gov. Thomas Carlin issued warrants for their arrest. When

served in Nauvoo, Joseph and Porter Rockwell immediately obtained

a writ of habeas corpus from the municipal government. ...Akey

question in the extradition case was whether Joseph could have fled

from Missouri justice, since that was a prerequisite for extradition, if

he had not been in the state at the time of the shooting.

44+

Mary Todd Lincoln, who had married Abraham Lincoln two months

earlier, attended one session of the hearing along with most of

Springfield’s society ladies. Justin Butterfield who represented Jo-

seph Smith, opened the hearing with an elaborate compliment: “May

it please the Court, I appear before you to-day under circumstances

most novel and peculiar. I am to address the ‘Pope’ (bowing to the

Judge) surrounded by angels, (bowing still lower to the ladies), in the

presence of the holy Apostles, in behalf of the Prophet of the Lord.”

45++

Butterfield then submitted affidavits from several individuals, in-

cluding Stephen A. Douglas, that Joseph had been in Nauvoo at the

time of the assassination attempt. Subsequently, Pope said in his opin-

ion that nothing in Boggs’s affidavit showed that Joseph had actually

fled from Missouri and he was released.

46+++

Although no documentation exists of a Lincoln-Smith meeting

on this occasion, Lincoln must have been aware that Smith was in

Springfield and would have been interested in the legal dimensions of

the hearing. After the hearing Lincoln and Smith both attended a New

Year’s Eve party hosted bynewly elected U.S. Senator Sidney Breese.

47++++

With the assassination of Joseph Smith in June 1844 at Carth-

age, Illinois, “Douglas and his fellow Democrats demanded that the

murderers be brought to justice, while the Whigs [Lincoln’s party]

slipped intoan increasinglyanti-Mormonstance,”summarized Bruce

Van Orden. The next fall saw a continued “deterioration of relation-

ships between the Mormons and their Illinois neighbors.” Governor

Thomas Ford commissioned four politicians, including Douglas, to

106 The Journal of Mormon History

Thurston, quoted in Lloyd, “Law in Joseph Smith’s Day.”

Henry Asbury, Reminiscences of Quincy, Illinois, Containing Historical

Events (Quincy, Ill.: D. Wilcox & Sons, 1882), 156.

+++

Thurston, quoted in Lloyd, “Law in Joseph Smith’s Day.”

++++

Lloyd, “Springfield, Illinois, Had Early LDS Connections,” 3–4.

raiseanarmedvolunteerforceto“negotiatetheremovaloftheMor-

mons from Illinois.”

48*

The commission convinced Brigham Young

and other Church leaders to leave the state by the next spring. During

the Mormons’ early years in the West, Douglas continued to serve as a

contact in Congress for the LDS Church.

49**

Lincoln served his only

term in Congress during the Mormon exodus (1847–49).

HE PRESIDENCY AND THE TERRITORY, 1848–60

During the 1840s, according to Douglas’s biographer, he want-

ed to be seen as the leader who would provide the “governmental or-

ganization in the West.”

50***

Lincoln aides and memoirists John Hay

and John G. Nicolay observed that, by 1852, “the control of legislation

for the territories was for the moment completely in the hands of

Douglas. He was himself chairman of the Committee of the Senate;

and his special personal friend and political lieutenant in his own

State, William A. Richardson, of Illinois, was chairman of the Territo-

rial Committee of the House.”

51****

During the stormy political campaign of 1850, Douglas and

other northern Democrats contended that slavery was subject to local

law and that residents of a territory, like those of a state, could estab-

lish or prohibit it.

52+

“After months of wrangling and compromising,”

writes Van Orden, “Congress barely succeeded in September 1850 in

passing several laws, including The Organic Act establishing Utah

Territory, which was part of the Compromise of 1850.”

53++

By these

provisions, California was admitted to the Union as a free state; Utah

and New Mexico territories were organized, later to be “received into

theUnion,withorwithoutslaveryastheirconstitutions...[might]

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 107

Van Orden, “Stephen A. Douglas and the Mormons,” 365.

Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, 161; Journal History of the Church

of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (chronological scrapbook of typed en-

tries and newspaper clippings, 1830–present), December 17, 1845, 1, and

February 3, 1847, 2, LDS Church History Library.

***

Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, 268.

****

John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (New

York: Century Co., 1914), 337.

Ibid., 343–44.

Van Orden, “Stephen A. Douglas and the Mormons,” 367.

prescribe at the time of admission.”

54+++

While Douglas was engineering the Compromise of 1850, Lin-

coln had no national presence but had resumed his law practice in Illi-

nois. Six years later, Lincoln became one of the founders of the Re-

publican Party which, at its first national convention in February 1856

in Philadelphia adopted a plank in its platform declaring that it was

Congress’s duty to “prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of bar-

barism, polygamy and slavery.”

55++++

StephenA.Douglas,runningastrongDemocraticcampaign,

committed a strategic error in making the Mormons and Utah a cam-

paign issue, according to Van Orden. “Early in the election year of

1856, esteem for Douglas was still high in Utah,” but Douglas “engi-

neered”the Kansas-Nebraska Act, maneuvering it “through Congress

to promote his ‘popular sovereignty’ doctrine.”

56*

Douglas’s oppo-

nents attacked his role in the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a way to “bring

Utah into the Union as a polygamous state.”

57**

The Republican Party

immediately hopped on the bandwagon, hoping to make political hay

out of Mormon polygamy. On June 12, 1857, with Lincoln present,

the grand jury of Springfield’s district court asked Douglas to “ex-

press his views on three of the most important topics ‘now agitating

the minds of the American people’—Kansas, the Dred Scott decision,

and the conditions in Utah territory.”

58***

Douglas tried to position

himself as a super-patriot by being extremely critical of the Mormons,

accusing them of being “‘bound by horrid oaths and terrible penal-

ties, to recognize and maintain the authority of Brigham Young.’

DouglassaidtheMormonswereresistingfederalauthorityandat-

tempting to subvert the United States.” Among his charges were: (1)

Nine-tenthsofUtah’scitizenswerealienswhorefusedtobecomenat-

uralized, (2) Brigham Young was guilty of inciting the Indians to rob

and murder American citizens, (3) The Mormons were a “loathsome,

disgusting ulcer,” (4) Utah’s territorial government and the Organic

108 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

J. G. Randall and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction

(Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1961), 88–89.

++++

Edward Stanwood, A History of the Presidency from 1788 to 1897,2

vols. (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1898), 1:272.

Van Orden, “Stephen A. Douglas and the Mormons,” 368.

Vern L. Bullough, “Polygamy: An Issue in the Election of 1860?”

Utah Historical Quarterly 29 (April 1961): 119–23.

***

Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, 545–67.

Act should be repealed, and (5) Brigham Young should be brought

back east to stand trial—he suggested in Missouri. The “Little Giant”

closed his speech by inviting anyone with a better proposition to

bring it forward.

59****

Lincoln who was present in the audience, prom-

ised a rebuttal in two weeks.

60+

Although Lincoln’s rebuttal, a half-hour speech for which Doug-

las was not present, concentrated on the ineffectiveness of popular

sovereignty, he also refuted Douglas’s plans for Utah.

61++

Civil War

scholar E. B. Long comments that Lincoln challenged Douglas’s pro-

posal to dismember Utah as contradicting “the Senator’s view of pop-

ular sovereignty,”

62+++

then continued:

If it proves to be true, as is probable, that the people of Utah are in

open rebellion to the United States, I say, too, if they are in rebellion,

they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; and I am not now

prepared to admit or deny that the Judge’s [Douglas] mode of coerc-

ing them is not as good as any.

But in all this, it is very plain the Judge evades the only question the

Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah.

That question the Judge well knew to be this: “If the people of Utah

shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating polygamy, will the

Democracy admit them into the Union?” There is nothing in the

United States constitution or Law against polygamy; and why is it not a

part of the Judge’s “sacred right of self-government” for the people to

have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose?

63++++

Lincoln did not take this stance because he supported polygamy

but because Douglas opposed it, even in a territory where the people

wanted it. Polygamy thus became evidence of the glaring inconsis-

tency of popular sovereignty. Lincoln saw the Mormons as a political

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 109

****

Stephen A. Douglas, “Speech of Senator Douglas,” Daily National

Intelligencer (Washington, D.C.) 45 (June 30, 1857): 14,013.

Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 2:398–99.

Johannsen, Stephen A. Douglas, 573–74.

+++

E. B. Long, The Saints and the Union: Utah Territory during the Civil

War (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1981), 9.

++++

Abraham Lincoln, “Speech of the Hon. Abraham Lincoln, in reply

to Judge Douglas, Delivered in Representatives’ Hall,” Springfield, Illinois,

June 26, 1857, 1, in Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 2:398; and Al-

bert J. Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,

1928), 7.

problem to be managed and used the issue to embarrass Douglas by

pushing his thinking to a logical conclusion. That polygamy is not for-

bidden by the Constitution was an argumentative point, not a defense

of the practice. For the most part, Mormons in Utah completely ig-

nored Lincoln’s rebuttal but were vehement about Douglas’s speech.

A Deseret News editorial provided a lengthy review of Douglas’s speech

condemning polygamy, followed by the account of the interview be-

tween Joseph Smith and Douglas as recorded in William Clayton’s

journal.

64*

Kelly Elizabeth Phipps, writing recently in the Virginia Law Re-

view, argues that, while the reasons for criticizing polygamy have

changed over time, Lincoln’s tough question remains the same: “How

do you draw the line between rescuing victims and oppressing com-

munities?” Before the Civil War, Northern politicians, including Lin-

coln, portrayed polygamy as another southern slave power waiting to

rebel. By the 1870s during Reconstruction, a growing desire to ex-

clude Chinese immigrants introduced an argument for condemning

polygamy. America was a Christian nation; Mormon polygamists and

Chinese immigrants were the “other”—sinister and un-American.

Chinese exclusion actually made federal anti–polygamy legislation

possible.

65**

In the mid-nineteenth century, opposition to polygamy was al-

ways linked to slavery. Lincoln Republicans portrayed Mormon plu-

ral wives as innocent victims held in subjugation akin to enslaved

blacks in the South. They wanted to purge the nation of licentious

power, including such tyrants as slave masters and polygamous hus-

bands.

66***

As a Republican, Lincoln was committed to ending slavery

in the territories and argued that the federal government, not popu-

lar sovereignty, should govern territories, including Utah. Utah be-

came vital to his vision of expanded power for the federal govern-

ment, and he continued to use Utah “to illustrate the flaw in Stephen

110 The Journal of Mormon History

“Comments upon the Remarks of Hon. Stephen Arnold Douglas,”

Deseret News, September 2, 1857, 4.

Kelly Elizabeth Phipps, “Marriage and Redemption: Mormon Po-

lygamy in the Congressional Imagination, 1862–1887,” 95 Virginia Law Re-

view 95, no. 2 (2009): 437, 441–43. She adds that the most recent (2008) cri-

tiques of fundamentalist polygamy are based on child marriage and child

endangerment.

***

Ibid., 440, 446–47.

A. Douglas’s ‘popular sovereignty’ argument.”

67****

Although Lincoln was willing to invoke polygamy to assert the

validation of federal power to govern the territories, he was not com-

mittedtoanyparticularplanforusingfederalpowertoeradicatethe

practice. This stance worked to the advantage of Mormons who were

committed to continuing plural marriage. By 1860, with Lincoln as

the leader of the Republican Party, the platform dropped all refer-

ences to polygamy; and in Lincoln’s presidential race, anti-polygamy

was simply seen as a derivative of the anti-slavery movement.

68+

In a speech given on April 10, 1860, at Bloomington, Illinois, six

weeks before he would accept the Republican nomination Lincoln re-

minded his listeners that the U.S. House of Representatives had passed

HR 7 that week, designed to punish the practice of polygamy. “While

the Senate would ultimately let the bill languish and die in committee,”

theissueofpolygamywasstillonLincoln’smind.

69++

A newspaper ac-

count of his speech summarized: “Mr. Lincoln said he supposed that

the friends of popular sovereignty would say—if they dared speak out—

that polygamy was wrong and slavery right; and therefore one might

thus be put down and the other not.”

70+++

Thus, prior to his presidency,

Lincoln did not seem concerned with polygamy except as an illustra-

tion of political principles. Lincoln’s attitude was instrumental in al-

lowing the Saints to establish themselves in the West. If he had been ad-

amant about eradicating polygamy during the 1860s, conditions would

have been much different for the LDS Church.

Many Mormons believed that, because Douglas turned against

the Mormons, he failed politically as Joseph Smith had prophesied

andthat,almostdespitehimself,Lincolnhadascendedtothepresi-

dency.

71++++

BruceVanOrdenevenhypothesizesthatLincolnmayhave

been grateful for Smith’s prophecy, for “according to Mormon tradi-

tion, Douglas had every reason to believe that he would win the presi-

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 111

****

McGinnis and Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories,

100; Gary C. Vitale, “Abraham Lincoln and the Mormons: Another Legacy

of Limited Freedom,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 101

(Fall-Winter 2008): 3–4.

Phipps, “Marriage and Redemption,” 447.

McGinnis and Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories,

100.

+++

Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 4:42.

++++

Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:184–89.

dency, but would lose according to Joseph Smith’s prophecy.”

72*

The people of Utah learned of Lincoln’s election in the weekly

Deseret News on November 14, 1860. On November 28, it editorial-

ized:

There will be jolly times at the seat of Government during the ses-

sion, and the members of Congress have enough business to attend

to, in all probability, in which they will be more particularly interested

and concerned than in the annihilation of the Saints; and may be ex-

pected to be otherwise in providing for the overthrow and destruc-

tion of those, who by the spirit of inspiration, have long been advised

of the calamities that were coming upon the nations, and upon the

United States in particular, in consequence of the iniquities and

abominations, of the people and their rejection of the gospel which

has been proclaimed unto them.

73**

Thesameeditorialpredictedthat“thedayisnotfardistant,

when the United States Government will cease to be, and that the Un-

ion, about which the politicians have harped and poets sung, will be

no more.” This editorial is only one of many forecasts of doom that

had been uttered since the days of Joseph Smith and would continue

to be repeated in the years to come. Nor were Mormons the only reli-

gion to make dire predictions. Although Mormons were glad that

Lincoln had triumphed over Douglas, they were still not in Lincoln’s

corner. On November 19, 1860, Brigham Young wrote Territorial

Delegate William H. Hooper that Mormons from outside the borders

of Utah were “very much chopfallen [sic] at Lincoln’s election.”

74***

When Douglas died of typhoid fever in June 1861, Brigham Young

told his office intimates that Douglas “should be president in the

lower world.”

75****

Two months later, however, Young remarked to the

same group that “Stephen A. Douglas was a far better man than Presi-

dent Abel [sic] Lincoln for he [Young] knew his [Lincoln’s] feelings

112 The Journal of Mormon History

Van Orden, “Stephen A. Douglas and the Mormons,” 374.

“Prospective Dissolution,” Deseret News, November 28, 1860, 4.

***

Brigham Young, Letter to William H. Hooper, November 19, 1860,

Brigham Young Letters, Bienecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale

University, New Haven, Connecticut (hereafter Bienecke Library).

****

Brigham Young, Office Journal, June 12 and March 2, 1861, as

quoted in Long, The Saints and the Union, 8.

were hostile to this people.”

76+

Previously, on December 20, 1860, Young had written to Hoop-

er: “By your letters and papers I perceive that the secession question

was being violently agitated, but without much definite action. Lat-

est accounts seem to indicate that the South will so far back down as

to give ‘Old Abe’ a trial as towhat course he will pursue. . . . But while

the waves of commotion are whelming nearly the whole country,

Utah in her rock fortresses is biding her time to step in and rescue

the constitution and aid all lovers of freedom in sustaining such laws

as will secure justice and rights to all irrespective of creed or par-

ty.”

77++

Although Young did not know it, South Carolina had seceded

on the same day, December 20; and the South, of course, did not

back down. On January 25, 1861, after receiving news by Pony Ex-

press, Young commented to his office circle: “If Abraham Lincoln

when inaugurated would coerce the South there would be a pretty

fight and if he did not he would be no President at all....[W]hen An-

archy and confusion reigned the Devil’s poor prospered.”

78+++

Prior to Lincoln’s presidency the Mormons had petitioned Con-

gress for statehood twice, in 1850 and 1856. Still hoping for state-

hood, Mormons were angered when Nevada Territory was created on

March 2, 1861, just two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, and was

assigned some of the land that had previously belonged to Utah Terri-

tory.

79++++

Brigham Young records provide a veritable litany of negativity

about the government in general and Abraham Lincoln in particular.

On March 15 in a conversation in his office, Young criticized: “Abe

Lincoln was no friend to Christ, particularly; he had never raised his

voiceinourfavorwhenhewasawarethatwewerebeingperse-

cuted.”

80*

At April conference, 1861, Young declared that Lincoln was

averyweakexecutive:“Likearopeofsand,orlikearopemadeofwa-

ter. He isas weak as water.”

By July 9, 1861, Young confided to those

in his office: “Old ‘Abe’ the President of the U. S. has it in his mind to

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 113

Young, Office Journal, August 5, 1861, in ibid., 9.

Brigham Young, Letter to William H. Hooper, December 20, 1860,

Brigham Young Letters, Beinecke Library.

+++

Young Office Journal, January 25, 1861, in Long, The Saints and the

Union, 24.

++++

Long, The Saints and the Union, 26.

Young Office Journal, March 2, 1861, in ibid., 26.

pitch into us when he had got through

withtheSouth....Pres.Young

wasofopinionthesympathyofthepeoplefortheSouthwasincase

they should be whipped, and the northern party remain in power, he

thoughttheywantedthewartogo[so]thatbothpartiesmightbeused

up.” Two days later on July 11, he suggested: “It would not do for the

northern and southern party to fight too much at once.” On July 24,

Young accused the government as having “in them a spirit to destroy

everything.”

82***

In the Bowery on July 28, Young declared:

President Lincoln called out soldiers for three months and was

going to wipe the blot of secession from the escutcheon of the Ameri-

can Republic. The three months are gone, and the labor is scarcely be-

gun. Now they are beginning to enlist men for three years; soon they

will want to enlist during the war; and then I was going to say that they

will want them to enlist during the duration of hell. Do they know

what they are doing? No; but they have begun to empty the earth, they

cleanse the land, and prepare the way for the return of the Latter-day

Saints to the centre Stake of Zion.

83****

ItwaswiththissuspiciousattitudethatYoungenteredintoaturbulent

relationship with the nation’schief executive as a “non-governor” and

Church leader.

RESIDENT LINCOLN AND THE MORMONS

Though Utah is seldom seen as being part of the Civil War, Long

argues that its role was “central to the American West during the Civil

War....UtahTerritorywouldhavebeenimportantbecauseofitsgeo-

graphical position astride transportation and communications arter-

ies even if it had not been an anomaly. And it was also unprecedented

in this country, being both a civil and a religious entity of considerable

size and influence.”

84+

During the war, many Americans found Utah’s support for the

114 The Journal of Mormon History

Brigham Young, April 6, 1851, Journal of Discourses (London and

Liverpool: LDS Booksellers Depot, 1855–86), 8:373–74.

***

Young Office Journal, March 15, July 9, and July 24, 1861, in Long,

The Saints and the Union, 36.

****

Brigham Young, July 24, 1861, Journal of Discourses 9:142.

Long, The Saints and the Union, xi.

Union inadequate. Although most Mormons were from the North

and Midwest and therefore favored the North, Church leadership

took a neutral position. On July 4, 1861, Apostle John Taylor an-

nounced: “We know no north, no south, no east, no west; we abide

strictly and positively by the Constitution, and cannot by the intrigues

or sophism of either party, be cajoled into any other attitude.”

85++

Rich-

ard Vetterli, BYU professor of political science, hypothesizes that, if

the “militarily powerful Mormon people in the territory of Utah” had

fought for the Confederacy, they “might well have opened the door of

victory.”

86+++

Brigham Young’s contemporary biographer, Edward Tul-

lidge, believed that, if the southern states had done precisely what

Utah did and had placed themselves on the defensive ground of their

rights and institutions and under the political leadership of Brigham

Young, they would have triumphed. Tullidge stated:

With the exception of the slavery question and the policy of succes-

sion, the South stood upon the same ground that Utah had stood

upon just previously. True, she had no intention to follow any exam-

ple set by Utah, for old and powerful States, which had ranked first in

the Union from the very foundation of the nation, would not have

taken Utah as their example. Yet, this very fact, coupled with the stu-

pendous view of North and South engaged in deadly conflict, shows

how fundamental was the cause which Utah maintained and how

pregnant were the times with a common national issue. . . . Brigham

Young stands not only justified, but his conduct claims extraordinary

admiration, for he led his people safely through that controversy with-

out succession.

87++++

On October 22, 1861, General James Arlington Bennet of New

York, who had left the Mormon Church in 1844, asked Lincoln if one

thousand to ten thousand Mormon volunteers could be accepted for

military service.

88*

There is no record of whether Bennet was sponta-

neously floating this possibility or if one of Brigham’s agents asked

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 115

John Taylor, ”Fourth of July Address,” in Roberts, A Comprehensive

History of the Church, 5:11.

+++

Richard Vetterli, Mormonism, Americanism, and Politics (Salt Lake

City: Ensign Publishing, 1961), 538.

++++

Edward S. Tullidge, Life of Brigham Young, or Utah and Her Founders

(New York: N.pub., 1876), 346.

Earl Schenck Miers, ed., Lincoln Day-by-Day: A Chronology, 3 vols.

him to do it. Lincoln could have drafted Mormons in the Union cause,

since they were citizens in a territory. For unknown reasons, Lincoln

denied the request, thus preserving Mormon isolation. Utah was the

only state or territory that opted out of the Civil War, a fray that

claimedmorecasualtiesthanallotherwarsinAmericanhistoryfrom

the Revolution to Vietnam combined.

89**

Lincoln appointed John Titus as chief justice of the Utah Terri-

torial Court on May 6, 1863, whose subsequent acquaintances showed

him to be in harmony with the policy of “let them alone.” Titus alleg-

edlyobservedthattheonlydesireofthe“Utahpopulace,”sincebeing

admitted as a territory, was: “To be left alone.”

90***

According to Lin-

coln historians Ralph McGinnis and Calvin Smith, “While Lincoln

would have been happy to ignore the Mormons during those turbu-

lent years of his presidency, he was unable to do so. The Utah Terri-

tory, in general, and Salt Lake City, in particular, comprised vital links

in the Union’s communication and transportation system with Ne-

vada and California; Lincoln’s appointees felt they had to keep a keen

eye on things.”

91****

As LDS historians Leonard Arrington and Davis

Bitton observed, “If the Union were to maintain the loyalty of Califor-

nia and other important western areas it was essential that Utah re-

main firmly in the north’s control.”

92+

Lincoln’s presidential involve-

ment with the territory of Utah and the Mormons during the Civil

116 The Journal of Mormon History

(Washington, D.C.: Lincoln Sesquicentennial Commission, 1960), 3:73.

“When Joseph asked him to be his vice presidential running mate, Bennet

declined. After the martyrdom of the Prophet in 1844, he left the Church. A

year later, however, he visited Nauvoo and declared his intentions to go west

with the Saints. He aspired to be leader of the Nauvoo Legion, but when

Brigham Young turned him down, Bennet disassociated himself from the

Saints and spent the rest of his life in the eastern United States.” Arnold K.

Garr, “Bennet, James Arlington,” in Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History,

edited by Arnold K. Garr, Donald Q. Cannon, and Richard O. Cowan (Salt

Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 86–87.

Burke Davis, The Civil War: Strange and Fascinating Facts (New York:

Fairfax Press, 1982).

***

Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, 5:25.

****

McGinnis and Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories,

103, 97.

Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A His-

tory of the Latter-day Saints (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 170.

War focused on three key issues: communication/transportation,

polygamy, and federal appointees.

Communication and Transportation

One of the acts of Lincoln’s presidency that directly impacted

Utah was shifting the stage lines north, away from Confederate

troops, with a new route passing directly through Salt Lake City. A key

segment of the transcontinental telegraph also ran through Utah. Ac-

cording to Edward Tullidge, Utah pioneers were among the “first

projectors and proposers to the Congress for a transcontinental rail-

road” and telegraph.

93++

On July 1, 1862, Lincoln signed an enabling

act that provided aid in constructing a railroad and telegraph line

from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean and provided the fed-

eral government with claims on both for postal, military, and other

purposes.

94+++

The telegraph was a tremendous improvement in com-

munication speed over the short-lived Pony Express.

95++++

The telegraph

also provided communicational support to the North.

Brigham Young sent his first telegram on October 18, 1861, to J.

H. Wade, president of the Pacific Telegraph Company, in Cleveland,

Ohio. It does not reflect his earlier negative comments about Lincoln

but instead affirms: “Utah has not seceded, but is firm for the Consti-

tution and laws of our once happy country.” President Lincoln sent a

return message two days later on October 20: “The completion of the

telegraph to Great Salt Lake City is auspicious of the stability and un-

ion of the Republic. The government reciprocates your congratula-

tions.”

96*

To deal with concerns that Indians might attempt to destroy or

disable the telegraph, Young wired Washington, D.C., on April 14,

1862, asserting that “the military of Utah are ready and able ...totake

care of all Indians within [Utah’s] borders.”

On April 26, 1862, Mil-

ton S. Latham, a U.S. Representative from California, sent a wire to

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 117

Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City: Star

Printing, 1886), 334.

+++

U.S. Statutes at Large 12:489, http://cprr.org/Museum/Pacific_

Railroad_Acts.html (accessed May 10, 2010).

++++

Andrew Jenson, Church Chronology: A Record of Important Events

(Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1899), 63.

“The Completion of the Telegraph,” Deseret News, October 23,

1861, 5.

Lincoln about the

“depredations which Indians were committing on

the line” of the Overland Mail and Telegraph near Independence

Rock and suggested that a troop of a hundred Mormons be raised and

equipped to protect the telegraph.

98***

Acting on this advice, Lincoln

bypassedfederalappointeesandauthorizedYoungto“raise,armand

equip one Company of Cavalry for ninety days service.” Upon receiv-

ing the president’s telegram, Young ordered Lieutenant General Dan-

iel H. Wells of the Nauvoo Legion, Utah Territory, to organize cavalry

to protect the mail and telegraph route against Indian attack. The In-

dians had destroyed several mail stations between Fort Bridger and

the North Platte, had burned coaches, stolen stock and had killed

stage drivers. By the end of the ninety days, the Nauvoo Legion had

chased a few Indians and had provided a presence on the overland

trailbutdidnorealfighting.

99****

Despite the quick Mormon response, Colonel P. Edward Con-

ner and a force of seven hundred California volunteers were ordered

into Salt Lake City, arriving on October 22, 1862, ostensibly “to pro-

tect the Union mail and telegraph lines. But the real reason was, no

doubt, to keep an eye on the Mormons and quell any ideas of resis-

tance they might have as far as the Union cause was concerned.”

100+

Not only were the citizens of Salt Lake City infuriated by the soldiers’

presence,

101++

but the Deseret News reprinted a letter from a soldier to a

San Francisco paper: “Why we were sent here is a mystery. It could not

be to keep Mormondom in order, for Brigham can thoroughly annihi-

late us with the 5,000 to 25,000 frontiersmen always at his com-

mand.”

102+++

Despite negative sentiment on both sides, the troops re-

mained in Utah. To add insult to injury, Conner built the camp on the

eastern bench overlooking the city and named it Fort Douglas, to

honor Stephen A. Douglas, who had turned against the Mormon peo-

118 The Journal of Mormon History

Brigham Young, Telegram, April 14, 1862, as quoted in Long, The

Saints and the Union, 83.

***

Paul M. Angle, ed., New Letters and Papers of Lincoln (New York:

Houghton Mifflin, 1930), 291–92.

****

Long, The Saints and the Union, 82–83; and Tullidge, History of Salt

Lake City, 256.

100

McGinnis and Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories,

105–6.

101

Ibid., 106.

+++

102

“California Volunteers,” Deseret News, October 15, 1862, 8.

ple.

103++++

Historically this situation is baffling and remains without

satisfactory explanation.

TheUnionPacificbrokegroundinOmahaonDecember2,

1863. On that day Young sent Lincoln a telegram which read: “Let the

hands of the honest be united to aid the great national improve-

ment.”

104*

Young lost no time in showing his own support and, on July

1, 1862, “subscribed for $5,000 worth of stock in the newly organized

Union Pacific Railroad Company, and became a director in 1865.”

105**

He contracted with both the Union Pacific and Central Pacific rail-

roads to furnish supplies and “grade all the transcontinental line in

Utah, thus bringing cash revenue to Mormons and inhibiting the in-

flux of non-Mormon laborers.”

106***

Union Pacific historian L. O.

Leonard asserts that “no statesman that ever lived had a keener inter-

est in the Union Pacific than Abraham Lincoln.”

107****

However, most

of the construction in or near Utah occurred after Lincoln’s assassina-

tion. The railroad itself was completed with a ceremonial uniting of

both railway lines on May 10, 1869, at Promontory Summit, Utah.

Polygamy

On November 18, 1861, Lincoln borrowed the following

books from the Library of Congress: The Works of Victor Hugo,John

Gunnison’s The Mormons or Latter Day Saints,JohnHyde’sMormon-

ism: Its Leaders and Designs, and the Book of Mormon, which he kept

for eight months. Four days later, the White House requested, among

other items, Mormonism in All Ages by Julian M. Sturtevant and Mem-

oirs of the Life and Death of Joseph Smith by Henry Maheur.

108+

The rea-

son Lincoln or his staff requested these items is not explained in the

documentary record.

However, in July 1862, the same month that Lincoln returned

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 119

++++

103

Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses (New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1985), 296.

104

Union Pacific Railroad Company, History of the Union Pacific Rail-

road (Ogden, Utah: Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1919), 11.

105

Arrington, Brigham Young, 348.

***

106

Ibid., 349.

****

107

John William Starr et al., Lincoln and the Railroads (New York: Ayer

Printing, 1981), 200.

108

DLC [Library of Congress]—Arch, Borrower’s Ledger 1861–1863,

114, as quoted in Miers, Lincoln Day-by-Day, 77–78.

the books, he signed into law the Morrill Anti-Polygamy Act, which

wasspecificallyaimedatpunishingUtah’spolygamybydeclaringbig-

amy a crime in U.S. territories. However, it seems unlikely that any-

one, including Lincoln, thought the bill would end polygamy.

109++

an attorney, Lincoln surely was aware of the bill’s flaws. First, the law

gave prosecutors an insurmountable burden in proving marriages.

Mormon plural marriages were performed in secret, and Church

officiators were not likely to turn evidence over to prosecutors.

Secondly, as Kelly Elizabeth Phipps and Steven E. Cresswell, pro-

fessor of history at West Virginia Wesleyan College, suggest in sepa-

rate legal articles, jury nullification could block prosecutions. Lincoln

appointed federal district court judges, but the all-Mormon territorial

legislature appointed probate judges, some of whom were Mormon

bishops or other Church leaders. During the 1850s, the Utah legisla-

ture required federal district courts to select jurors from lists pre-

pared by the probate judges; therefore, most juries were comprised of

Mormons who would nullify any polygamy prosecutions.

110+++

According to Phipps, Lincoln had apparently signed something

into law that he knew could not be enforced and, furthermore, “re-

fusedtotakeanystepswhatsoevertoenforcethelawinUtah.”Thus,

Phipps sees the Morrill Act as “primarily a symbolic assertion of fed-

eral power, not a realistic piece of anti-polygamy legislation.” It meant

that “the Republican Party entered the post-war era with a catchy

phrase about polygamy and a useless law on the books.”

111++++

This atti-

tude is very different from Lincoln’s perspective on the rule of law.

According to Matthew S. Holland, a BYU political science professor,

Lincoln “thought it was absolutely essential that the rule of law pre-

vail,eventothepointofdeclaringthatwemustobeybadlaws,orun-

just laws, because to just choose which laws we will live will exacerbate

tendencies to mob rule.”

112*

It is interesting to speculate on Lincoln’s motives for signing this

bill, whether he would have enforced it if he had lived into his second

120 The Journal of Mormon History

109

Phipps, “Marriage and Redemption,” 448; and Stephen E. Cress-

well, Mormons, Cowboys, Moonshiners & Klansman: Federal Law Enforcement in

the South and West (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1991), 81–82.

+++

110

Phipps, “Marriage and Redemption,” 448–49.

++++

111

Ibid., 445.

112

Matthew S. Holland, “With Charity for All,” Clark Memoran-

dum, Fall 2008, 21.

term, and whether, had he vetoed it, the progressively harsher legisla-

tion such as the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) would have passed un-

der his successors. We hypothesize that Lincoln signed the Morrill

Act to fulfill the anti-polygamy plank in his presidential platform, but

not because he had serious concerns about polygamy. When Brigham

Young sent one of his sons (unnamed in the article) to Washington as

a member of a delegation to lobby for the “political and polygmatic

interests of Utah,” Lincoln dismissed polygamy with a joke: “It was ab-

surd to talk about polygamy as he never yet heard of a man having a

wife who wanted two.”

113**

In early June of 1863 Brigham Young sent Mormon convert and

journalist Thomas B. H. Stenhouse to transact Church business in

Washington. D.C., and to ascertain what course Lincoln would pur-

sue in regards to the Mormons. At this time, Stenhouse was an assis-

tant editor of the Deseret News. He had a “wide reputation throughout

America and had journalistic contacts with hundreds of editors east

and west [with whom] he was personally acquainted.”

114***

According

to Stenhouse, when he asked Lincoln about his intentions, Lincoln re-

sponded: “Stenhouse, when I was a boy on the farm in Illinois there

was a great deal of timber on the farms which we had to clear away.

Occasionally we would come to a log which had fallen down. It was

toohardtosplit,toowettoburn,andtooheavytomove,soweplowed

around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back

and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him

alone.”

115****

For their part, Utahns likewise ignored the Morrill Act and, for a

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 121

113

[No author or headline], Liberty Weekly Tribune, October 3, 1862;

photocopy in my possession. This article does not identify which of Young’s

sons was involved or the date of the visit.

***

114

Edward S. Tullidge, Tullidge’s Histories: Containing the History of All

the Northern, Eastern and Western Counties of Utah . . . with a Biographical Ap-

pendix . . ., 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Press of the Juvenile Instructor, 1889),

2:167.

****

115

T. B. H. Stenhouse, Letter to Brigham Young, June 7, 1863, as

quoted in Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A

History of the Latter-day Saints (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 170; also

in Gustive O. Larson, The “Americanization” of Utah for Statehood (San Ma-

rino, Calif.: Huntington Library, 1971), 60 note 61. Preston Nibley, Brigham

Young: The Man and His Work (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,1936), 369, re-

decade and a half, declared that it was unconstitutional.

116+

Two days

after its passage, the territory celebrated 1862’s Independence Day in

grand style, with Salt Lake’s mayor proposing toasts to Lincoln’s

health and the Union’s success.

117++

The Saints also celebrated Lin-

coln’s Emancipation Proclamation and several Union victories.

118+++

Mormon support for Lincoln increased during his first term despite

his signing the Morrill Act.

119++++

Federal Appointees

On April 1, 1861, William H. Hooper, Utah’s delegate to Con-

gress, presented to the U.S. Senate a list of Utahns for territorial gov-

ernment offices, including Brigham Young for governor.

120*

On April

11, Young wrote to Hooper:

It was quite proper and correct to suggest to Mr. Lincoln that our ap-

pointments belong to us, by every just construction of the spirit of the

Constitution. But should he be unwilling or unable to make our ap-

122 The Journal of Mormon History

ported the incident as based on Orson F. Whitney, , 4 vols.

(Salt Lake City: G. Q. Cannon, 1904), 2:24–25, and verbal statements from

Whitney. Whitney repeated this story in his

(Salt

Lake City: Deseret News, 1916), 180. Brigham Young, Letter to George Q.

Cannon, June 25, 1863, credits Lincoln’s statement, “I will leave them

alone, if they will let me alone,” to Lincoln’s conversation with Stenhouse

on June 6. Journal History, June 25, 1863; and Roberts,

, 5:70. An Associated Press dispatch from Washington on

June 7 mentions the presence in the capital of “a prominent Mormon.”

, June 8, 1863, 5. In a sermon on June 4, 1864, Young told the

plowing anecdote as “what was told the President . . . said to a gentleman

who is a preacher and a member of Congress.”

, June 22, 1864,

303. At an anti-Cullom Bill meeting in Salt Lake City in 1870, Stenhouse,

who by then had left the Church, stated that he had heard Lincoln make the

“let them alone” statement.

, October 1880, 60.

116

Hubert Howe Bancroft, , 26 vols. (San

Francisco: History Company, 1889), 26:604.

117

“The Reunion at the City Hall,” , March 6, 1865,

not paginated.

118

“The Inaugural Celebration,” ,March6, 1865.

119

McGinnis and Smith, ,

109.

120

Long, , 28.

pointmentsfromnamesyoumaypresent...itwilldoubtlessstillbethe

best policy to patiently bide our time, for plausible pretext against us

would tend more than aught else to heal the present breach and unite

them in a crusade to Utah, like the Irishman and his wife, who both

pitched into the man who parted them when fighting.

121**

Brigham Young was not appointed governor. During the Civil

War, there continued in Utah a strange dichotomy which greatly af-

fected the territory’s relationship with the executive branch of the

federal government: an amazingly effective unofficial leadership by

Brigham Young and his theocracy paralleling a frustrating lack of

leadership by federal appointees.

On October 3, 1861, Lincoln made his first appointments for

Utah Territory: John W. Dawson as territorial governor, John F. Kin-

ney as chief justice, R. P. Flenniken and J. R. Crosby as associate

judges, Frank Fuller as secretary, and James Duane Doty as superin-

tendent of Indian Affairs.

122***

TheDawsonappointmentwasnotpop-

ular. According to Norman Furniss, historian of the Utah War, Mor-

mons knew Dawson as “a man of loose morals whom the Republican

chieftains of Fort Wayne had nominated in order to rid themselves of

an objectionable person.”

123****

He did not arrive in Utah until Decem-

ber 7, 1861.

On December 17 and 18, the territorial legislature passed a bill calling

for a convention of delegates to create a constitution and organize a

state government. Territorial secretary Frank Fuller who had served as

acting Governor while waiting for Dawson to arrive, had already given

his support for the measure. Dawson, however, vetoed it. He said the

proposed date of the convention (January 6, 1862) was too close to sub-

mit the bill to Congress or notify the people of the territory. He also

said the bill sought to fix the state’s boundaries, which Congress would

have to do. The rejection of the bill again did nothing to endear

Dawson to the population.

124+

Dawson also made improper advances toward his Mormon house-

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 123

121

Brigham Young, Letter to William H. Hooper, April 11, 1861,

Brigham Young Letters, Beinecke Library.

***

122

Bancroft, History of Utah, 26:604.

****

123

Furniss, The Mormon Conflict, 232.

124

http://downfalldictionary.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-w-daws-

on-shovel-ready-governor.html accessed on June 9, 2010.

keeper,

125++

resulting in such hostility that he “took his enforced f light

on December 31, 1861.”

126+++

Ironically, when Dawson arrived in Wash-

ington, D.C., he found that the Senate had refused to confirm his ap-

pointment and he would have had to leave Utah anyway.

127++++

Flenniken

andCrosbylefttheterritoryamonthlater,withnewsoftheirdepar-

ture being telegraphed to Lincoln.

128*

Fuller replaced Dawson until

Lincoln could appoint another governor.

129**

Lincoln’s next choice, Stephen S. Harding, along with Justices

Charles B. Waite and Thomas J. Drake, did not fare much better in

Utah than their predecessors. Harding had had “some previous pos-

itive associations with the Mormons” and therefore was expected to

be a popular choice.

130***

Harding had visited Palmyra, New York,

and had met Joseph Smith during the summer of 1829, an encoun-

ter about which he wrote in 1890.

131****

Harding told Utahns, after he

was appointed in March 1862, that he was “a messenger of peace and

good will” with “no religious prejudices to overcome.”

132+

However,

when Mormon leaders explained their view that the Morrill Act was

unconstitutional and their desire for a ruling by the U.S. Supreme

Court, Harding attacked this perspective as “dangerous and dis-

loyal.”

133++

Meanwhile, Harding, Drake, and Waite were writing letters to

Washington discrediting the Mormons and asking Lincoln to “put

124 The Journal of Mormon History

125

Norman F. Furniss, The Mormon Conflict: 1850–1859 (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1960), 232.

+++

126

McGinnis and Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories,

104.

++++

127

Ibid.

128

Ibid., 104–5.

129

Whitney, History of Utah, 2:38.

***

130

McGinnis and Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories,

105.

****

131

Stephen S. Harding as quoted in Thomas Gregg, The Prophet of Pal-

myra (New York City: J. B. Alden, 1890), 34–44.

132

“Speech of Governor Harding,” in Tullidge, History of Salt Lake

City, 269–70.

133

Robert N. Baskin, Reminiscences of Early Utah: With Reply to Certain

Statements by O. F. Whitney (1914; rpt., Salt Lake City: Signature Books,

2006), 8.

down Indian uprisings by using paroled [federal] troops.”

134+++

These let-

ters claimed that the people of Utah were trying to “stir up strife be-

tweenthepeopleoftheTerritoryofUtahandthetroopsinCamp

Douglas.”

135++++

In the spring of 1863, mass meetings were held in Salt

Lake, the outcome of which was a petition asking Lincoln to remove the

three from office.

136*

It referred to Harding as “an unsafe bridge over a

dangerous stream—jeopardizing the lives of all who pass over it—or as . . .

a pestiferous cesspool in our district breeding disease and death.”

137**

As soon as the action of the Mormon mass meeting became

knownatCampDouglas,allthecommissionedofficerssigneda

counter-petition to President Lincoln which stated that, “as an act of

duty we owe our government,” they felt compelled to state that the

Mormon petition was a “base and unqualified falsehood” and that

“there was no good reason for the three officers’ removal.”

138***

Waite

and Drake also assured Lincoln that a force of five thousand troops

would be required to allow federal courts in Utah to function effec-

tively.

139****

Waite resigned in 1864 after a complete court term in which

he suffered the mortification of not having a single case on the

docket. Drake remained, but simply went through a futile form of

holding court.

140+

Interestingly, instead of siding with Harding’s support of the

Morrill Act or the petition sent by the federal officers, Lincoln acted

on the Mormon petition. On June 11, 1863, he replaced Harding with

James Duane Doty, “a man of high capabilities,” who had served as Su-

perintendent of Indian Affairs.

141++

According to historian Hubert

Howe Bancroft, Lincoln himself made the appointment and “endeav-

ored to restore peace by making concessions on both sides.” As gover-

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 125

+++

134

Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 5:432.

++++

135

C. V. Waite, The Mormon Prophet and His Harem (Chicago: J. S.

Goodman and Company, 1868), 104.

136

McGinnis and Smith, Abraham Lincoln and the Western Territories,

107.

137

Bancroft, History of Utah, 26:620–21.

***

138

Quoted in Linn, The Story of the Mormons from the Date of Their Ori-

gin to the Year 1901, 548.

****

139

Ibid., 550.

140

Bancroft, History of Utah, 26:620–61.

141

News Department, “Journal of Indian Treaty Days,” Washington

Historical Quarterly 10 (1919): 75.

nor, Doty “arose above petty smallness” and “made many friends and

scarcely an enemy,” earning the respect of Utahns. This appointment

must have increased Lincoln’s popularity among the Mormons. After

Lincoln’s reelection in 1864, the citizens of Salt Lake celebrated with a

mile-long parade and patriotic speeches and toasts to the president’s

health. In mourning for his assassination on April 19, 1865, businesses

closed and flags were hung at half-mast.

142+++

The theater postponed its

Saturday performance, buildings were draped in crepe, and in a spe-

cial memorial service Apostles Wilford W. Woodruff, Franklin D.

Richards, and George Q. Cannon eulogized the fallen president.

143++++

CONCLUSION

Lincoln had ties to Mormons as soon as they came to Illinois,

and the two continued to interact until he died after being shot in

Ford’s Theatre on April 14, 1865. Not only did Lincoln inf luence the

historyoftheChurchofJesusChristofLatter-daySaints;but,asa

group, Church members also influenced Lincoln’s career by voting

against him and swaying elections while they lived in Illinois. Further-

more, Lincoln viewed the Mormons as the “pets” of his rivals, the

Democrats; and Mormons were also the clients, friends, and neigh-

bors of his associates. It will never be known if his relationships with

individual Mormons affected Lincoln personally or changed him or

his views over time. If the Church headquarters had remained in Illi-

nois, Lincoln’s political career, attitudes, and subsequent presidential

decisions might have taken a different turn; but this hypothesis re-

quires the double speculation that the Mormons themselves would

have altered their behavior and approach to local politics in such a

way that staying remained a possibility.

ThereislittleevidencethattheMormonswereevermorethana

political object for Lincoln. We are aware of no documentation that

Mormons,asindividualsorasagroup,affectedhispersonallife.It

seems likely that the explosive reaction to his “Rebecca” articles made

him cautious about constructing public statements. Hence, it is diffi-

cult, if not impossible, to speculate on his personal reaction to the

Church’s activities.

126 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

142

Bancroft, History of Utah, 26:625; and Long, The Saints and the Un-

ion, 259–30.

++++

143

Matthias Cowley, Wilford Woodruff (Salt Lake City: Deseret News,

1909), 441.

Mormons had a more direct influence on Stephen A. Douglas,

Lincoln’s chief opponent, although caution may be necessary in ascrib-

ing Douglas’s political defeat to Joseph Smith’s prophecy. More clearly

documented, however, is Douglas’s outspoken opposition to Mormon-

ism while, in contrast, Lincoln as president maintained a “hands off”

stance—not enforcing the Morrill Act or imposing the draft—that gave

the Church the time to establish strong communities in the Mountain

West. This policy may owe less to Lincoln’s views on Mormonism, how-

ever, than the constant attention demanded by the Civil War.

Lincoln did not grant Utah’s petition for statehood, but numer-

ous reasons seem more likely than dislike for Mormons. He did suc-

ceed in establishing a cooperative and respectful relationship be-

tween Utah and the federal government, an achievement such prede-

cessors as James Buchanan had signally failed to do. Although there is

no documentation on this point, Lincoln as an attorney may have

beenawarethatstatehoodmightmakeitdifficulttorepresspolyg-

amy, an action to which his party was politically committed.

For their part, Utahns during Lincoln’s presidency, except for

some markedly acerbic private comments by Brigham Young early on,

were appreciative and respectful. They recognized him as the na-

tion’s chief executive, affiliated with the Union which he represented

duringthecivilstrife,andweregratefulthathehaddefeatedDouglas.

Over the course of his presidency, their affection and admiration

grew steadily. They celebrated his second inauguration and mourned

his assassination.

Lincoln’s attitudes may have been formed by his dealings with

Latter-day Saints on a personal level, but he was generally tolerant of

all human beings. Matthew S. Holland observes:

All through his life Lincoln saw people as the same. He saw that

human nature was relatively consistent wherever you were. If you saw

significant differences in behavior, you should chalk things up pri-

marily to the environment people were in and thus be quite generous

in your assessments of others. All through his life he effectively said to

the North: “Don’t get on your moral high horse. If you lived in the

South, you would probably be proslavery too. There are such strong

incentives financially; there is such a strong culture and tradition of it;

be a little bit careful about being morally self-righteous.

144

In like manner, Lincoln may have felt that the LDS culture and

environment influenced them to live polygamy rather than some

moral degeneration in the LDS character. Lincoln’s ability and

WOODGER & WHITE /ABRAHAM LINCOLN 127

predisposition

to accept people, not as “others” but as the “same” was

extremely advantageous to the Mormon community. Lincoln seems

to have accepted Mormons as part of the American whole, and his tol-

eration had a distinctly positive influence on Mormon society during

the Civil War period.

Even though direct connections between Lincoln and Mormon-

ism remain frustratingly few and tantalizingly only “possible,” this ar-

ticle provides an overview that gives a deepened understanding of

Mormonism in the larger social context.

128 The Journal of Mormon History

144

Holland, “With Charity for All,” 24.

THE FORGOTTEN STORY OF NAUVOO

CELESTIAL MARRIAGE

George D. Smith

IN 1842, THE SANGAMO JOURNAL, published in Springfield, Illinois,

printed a series of letters about alleged Mormon plural marriages

occurring 125 miles away in Nauvoo. Abraham Lincoln was appar-

ently in Springfield at the time; but although Joseph Smith visited

the state capital that year, there is no record that the two men met.

Smith had for years supported Lincoln’s rival, Democrat Stephen

A. Douglas; but Lincoln, emerging as a leader of Springfield’s

Whigs,wouldhelpformthenewRepublicanParty,wintheU.S.

presidency in 1860, and steer a fractured nation through the Civil

War. By then, Joseph Smith had been dead for almost two decades.

The Sangamo Journal had already accused the Mormons of bloc vot-

ing for the Democrats, but these accounts of Smith’s secret mar-

riages amplified the political rhetoric.

Mormon polygamy began in the nineteenth-century climate of

the Second Great Awakening which led to a large-scale reexamination

of society, property, and marriage, all associated with an expectation

129

* GEORGE D. SMITH {georgedsmithjr.@gmail.com} is the author of

Nauvoo Polygamy: “ . . . but we called it celestial marriage” (Salt Lake City: Signa-

ture Books, 2008), which won the Best Book Award from the John Whitmer

Historical Association in 2009. He also edited An Intimate Chronicle: The

Journals of WilliamClayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991, 1995). He

delivered an earlier version of this article at the Mormon History Associa-

tion annual conference, May 22, 2009, at Springfield, Illinois.

of the “end-times.” In about 1817 in Maine, Jacob Cochran, one of the

nation’s many utopian idealists, advocated “spiritual matrimony”

wherein “any man or woman, already married or unmarried, might

enter into [a union] choosing at pleasure a spiritual wife or spiritual

husband.” Mormon missionary Orson Hyde, who proselytized in

Maine in 1832, described the Cochranites’ “wonderful lustful spirit”

as manifested in their belief “in a ‘plurality of wives’ which they call

spiritual wives, knowing them not after the f lesh but after the spirit.”

He added skeptically, “But by the appearance they know one another

after the flesh.”

1**

Nor were the Cochranites alone in their marital ex-

periments. Several hundred years of discussion and experimentation

with plural marriage preceded those in nineteenth-century America.

Utopian societies like the Oneida Perfectionists, a group separate

from the Cochranites, embraced “complex marriage” with the goal of

minimizing individual separation.

2***

Other American utopians included Harmonists, Inspirationists,

and Swedenborgians.

3****

By Joseph Smith’s time, both Emanuel Swed-

enborg and Thomas Dick referred to the possibility of celestial worlds

in an afterlife, suggesting that humans in some form might enjoy a con-

tinued life on these celestial spheres. The eighteenth-century theolo-

gian Swedenborg postulated a three-tiered heaven in which marriages

take place among celestial spouses. These marriages are eternal in na-

ture and the spouses are united by love.

Swedenborg conceived of

marriages as having a “spiritual origin,”

5++

as one might imagine with spir-

itual husbands and spiritual wives united eternally. Swedenborg also used

the terms “celestial” kingdom, “celestial” heaven (which he also calls Third

130 The Journal of Mormon History

Anonymous, “The Cochran Fantasy in York County [Maine],” Au-

gust 3, 1867, in Maine Historical Quarterly 20 (Summer 1980): 30; see also

Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signa-

ture Books, 1986), quoting Orson Hyde’s journal, October 11, 1832, 8.

***

Lawrence W. Foster, Religion and Sexuality (New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press, 1981), 72–122.

****

George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: “. . . but we called it celestial mar-

riage” (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2008) 11, 106–7, 521–33. See also

David S. Reynolds, Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson (New York:

HarperCollins Publishers, 2008), 123–74.

Emanuel Swedenborg, Heaven and Hell, trans. George F. Dole (West

Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation, 2002), 18–32, 210.

Ibid., 220.

Heaven, and “celestial love.”

6+++

The nineteenth-century writer Thomas Dick

reasonedthatsince“noparticleiseverlost[,]...whenthebodyisdissolved

in death, the soul takes its ethereal f light into a celestial region” and “puts

on immortality.” Dick hypothesized numerous “additional worlds [that]

couldbecomprisedwithin...thesolarsystem”andwhichcouldextend

out toward the “nearest stars.” Dick’s writings were cited in 1836 in the LDS

press at Kirtland, Ohio.

7++++

ThedebateonpluralmarriageinEuropehadintensifiedwiththe

“latter day” Anabaptists of 1530s Münster, Germany, and included Henry

VIII’s marital appeals and the Lutheran Beichtrat thatallowedPhilipof

Hesse a second wife. British poet John Milton’s seventeenth-century writ-

ings on polygamy belatedly crossed the ocean from England to 1820s

America about the time Joseph began dictating the Book of Mormon, pub-

lished in 1830, which introduced plural marriage to the Latter-day Saints as

part of the restoration of “all things,” but hedged about with a conditional

prohibition (Jacob 2:23–30). Amid ideas of utopian perfectionism and re-

finements in planetary astronomy, Joseph Smith in Nauvoo revealed “ce-

lestial marriage” to faithful followers who were to become “kings and

queens,” ruling in exaltation in celestial afterworlds.

Between 1841 in Nauvoo and his assassination in 1844, Joseph him-

self married nearly forty plural wives and, offering promises of a resplen-

dent afterlife, convinced more than thirty men of his inner circle to follow

him in adding wives to their own families. Before the Saints abandoned

Nauvoo in 1846, some two hundred Nauvoo men married more than

seven hundred women, a number that would increase to about 1,130 wives

for these initial two hundred when the Saints migrated to Utah after Jo-

seph’s death.

BEGINNINGS OF MORMON POLYGAMY

Despite the scale of this polygamous experiment, Joseph omitted

from his diaries any direct account of his success in persuading women

and men to embrace the “privilege” of celestial marriage. Thus, the sub-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 131

+++

Emanuel Swedenborg, Swedenborg Concordance, Part 2,editedbyJohn

Faulkner Potts (Whitefish, Mont.: Kessinger Publishing, 2003), 531–46.

++++

Thomas Dick, The Philosophy of a Future State, 2d American ed.

(Brookfield, Mass.: n.p., 1830); quoted in “The Saints and the World,” LDS

Messenger and Advocate 3 (December 1836): 423–25.

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, Table 4.7, “Nauvoo Plural Families,” 290;

Appendix B, 573–656.

ject is absent from the official History of the Church,whichwasbasedupon

those writings. However, such accounts were recordedin other journals,

9**

affidavits, and Church records, especially after the Saints left their public

denials behind in Nauvoo and announced their plural marriages openly

in Salt Lake City in 1852. Challenged particularly by Joseph and Emma

Smith’s sons after 1860, the Utah Saints for a brief period gathered evi-

dence of Joseph Smith’s marital innovation to demonstrate the reality of

his restoration of “all things.” Nevertheless, repeated “manifestos” (1890,

1904, 1911

10***

) withdrew official support for new plural marriages, bring-

ing statehood, accommodation to the larger American society, and six

generations of institutional forgetting. This aspect of Nauvoo life re-

mains officially unwritten and even today is conspicuously absent from

official LDS curriculum.

Even so basic a question as determining a beginning date for the

practice of polygamy has been fraught with questions. Joseph apparently

established intimacy with Fanny Alger, a worker in his household in

Kirtland, Ohio, which, if true, might provide a starting point for the intro-

duction of plural marriage among Mormons. This intimacy may have

dated from 1832, the year of Joseph III’s birth, or 1833–35, when distur-

bance over that relationship contributed to Oliver Cowdery’s subsequent

departure from the Church.

11****

Absent a recognizable ceremony, opinion

is divided about whether Joseph’s relationship to Fanny actually repre-

132 The Journal of Mormon History

Brigham Young’s Nauvoo diary used coded language to describe

these early concurrent unions. See, for example, Diary of Brigham Young,

October 10, 1844. Brigham Young’s coded references were deciphered in

1991 by Arturo de Hoyos. Timothy Rathbone, “Brigham Young’s Masonic

Connection and Nauvoo Plural Marriages,” 1996, LDS Church History Li-

brary.

***

Emiliano Zapata’s 1911 Manifesto brought revolution to Mexico

and caused the Mormons to leave, closing off a polygamy refuge across the

border. It served as a third “manifesto” to end Mormon polygamy, rein-

forced by Joseph F. Smith’s implementation of disfellowshipping and ex-

communication for new plural marriages.

****

Oliver Cowdery, Letter to Warren Cowdery, January 21, 1838, Oli-

ver Cowdery Letter Book 80–83, Huntington Library, San Marino, Califor-

nia; microfilm copy of Letter Book in the LDS Church History Library;

Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830–1844 (Salt Lake City: Deseret

Book, 1983), 162–63; Joseph Smith Jr. et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of

sented a marriage, even the first plural marriage.

12+

However, Brigham

Young, arguably Joseph’s closest confidant, addressing the Utah Legisla-

tiveAssociationin1865,confirmedthatJosephintroducedpolygamyin

Illinois, not in Ohio or Missouri during the 1830s. He asked, “Did we be-

lieve in polygamy when we were driven from Ohio, when we were driven

from Jackson County, when we [were] driven from Missouri? No, we

knew nothing about it, there was no such thing.”

13++

Furthermore, Brigham was clear about when Joseph claimed to

receive a “celestial marriage revelation.” This was not an early event be-

latedly written down in 1843, but an event specific to July 12, 1843, in

Nauvoo, Illinois. Speaking at a sacrament meeting in 1873, President

Young declared that it was “after this doctrine [of baptism for the dead]

was received, [that] Joseph received a revelation on celestial marriage.

You will recollect brethren and sisters that it was in July 1843 that he re-

ceived this revelation concerning celestial marriage.”

14+++

LOUISA BEAMAN:FIRST PLURAL WIFE

There is, however, no reasonable doubt about Joseph Smith’s first

plural marriage that included an actual ceremony and a firm date. This

sealing occurred on April 5, 1841, beside the Mississippi River in Nau-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 133

Latter-day Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts, 2d ed. rev. (6 vols., 1902–12, Vol. 7,

1932; rpt., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1963 printing), 3:16.

See Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy; Todd Compton, In Sacred

Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books,

1997); Brian C. Hales, “Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith’s Pre-Nauvoo Repu-

tation,” Journal of Mormon History 35 (Fall 2009): 112–90.

Richard S. Van Wagoner, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young,

January 23, 1865, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2010),

2,259. Young adds that polygamy in Nauvoo “was not publicly known of.”

Rumors were denied, and the reformist Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed in

June 1844.

+++

Van Wagoner, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, August 31,

1873, 2,993. William Clayton specifies that, on July 12, 1843, he wrote down

the “revelation on celestial marriage” as Joseph dictated it in his Red Brick

Store in Nauvoo. George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of

William Clayton, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books and Smith Re-

search Associates, 1995), 557. “Baptism for the dead” was preached and

practiced in January 1841 and September 1842 (D&C 124, 127, 128), the

doctrine just prior to “celestial marriage” in July 1843 (D&C 132).

voo, between Joseph Smith and Louisa Beaman. Officiating was Joseph

Bates Noble, Louisa’s brother-in-law, acting under Joseph’s direction.

Louisa was one of the four daughters of Alvah Beaman, a farmer in

Livonia, New York, and an old friend of the Smiths.

15++++

In 1827, he had

helped hide from curious neighbors what young Joseph described as an

ancient record written on gold plates that he had recovered from the Hill

Cumorah, located near his home in Palmyra, New York.

16*

Louisa would

have been twelve at the time. Apostle Parley P. Pratt reported that Smith

knew the Beamans “long before the first organization of the church” in

1830 and about fourteen years before the sealing. In 1834, when Joseph

was twenty-eight and Louisa was nineteen, he and several Church elders

resided briefly at the Beaman household in Avon, New York, where the

family had moved in 1829, about thirty miles southwest of Palmyra.

17**

Jo-

seph’s 1841 espousal to Louisa was the first documented “plural or celes-

tial” marriage in the restoredChurch of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints.

134 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Joseph B. Noble, Affidavit, June 26, 1869, in “40 Affidavits on Ce-

lestial Marriage,” 1869, a collection consisting of six folders compiled by Jo-

seph F. Smith, LDS Church History Library; Andrew Jenson, “Plural Mar-

riage,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 221.

Parley P. Pratt Jr., ed., Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt (1874; rpt., Salt

Lake City: DeseretBook, 1961 printing), 110; Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers

of Joseph Smith, 2 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 2:25. For recol-

lections of the Smith-Beaman treasure-seeking period, see Martin Harris,

interviewed by Joel Tiffany, Tiffany’s Monthly, August 1859, 164; Mary A.

Noble, Autobiography, in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols.

(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996), 3:308–10; Lavina Fielding Ander-

son, ed., Lucy’s Book: A Critical Edition of Lucy Mack Smith’s Family Memoir

(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2001), 800; Journal [Autobiography

1810–1834] of Joseph Bates Noble, LDS Church History Library; Dean C.

Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City:

Deseret Book, 2002), 3; Dean Jessee, “Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early

Mormon History,” BYU Studies 17 (1976) 33–34; James H. Crockwell, Pic-

tures and Biographies of Brigham Young and His Wives (Salt Lake City: Cannon

& Sons, 1877), 20–21. Alvah, like Joseph, was a practitioner of the divining

rod and had joined the Smiths in digging for treasure from 1822 to 1827. It

was in 1822 that Joseph discovered a “seer stone” in a neighbor’s well. See

Scott Faulring, ed., An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries of Joseph Smith

(Salt Lake City: Signature Books and Smith Research Associates, 1987), 24.

Joseph Smith, Journal, March 15, 1834, states that the Beaman resi-

dence was in “Lyvona [Livonia]”; Jessee, Personal Writings, 39 note 66; note

Joseph, thirty-five, had been married for fourteen years to thirty-

six-year-old Emma Hale Smith, and was the father of three sons—Jo-

seph III, eight; Frederick Granger Williams, four; and Alexander Hale,

two. They also had a ten-year-old adopted daughter, Julia Murdock.

Neither the Prophet’s wife nor his children attended his unannounced

marriage to the new twenty-six-year-old bride. The only observer was

Joseph Bates Noble, the husband of Louisa’s sister, Mary Adeline. He

says that he performed the ceremony by repeating the words that

Smith dictated to him and left a very important eyewitness account of

what Louisa and Smith said and did on that portentous spring after-

noon.

In 1869, Noble made one of some seventy-five notarized statements

collected by Joseph F. Smith in Salt Lake City beginning that year. He af-

firmed under oath: “On the fifth day of April A.D. 1841, at the City of

Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, he [Joseph Noble] married

or sealed Louisa Beaman to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Je-

sus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to the order of Celestial Mar-

riage revealed to the Said Joseph Smith.”

18***

Plans for the wedding had begun at least a year earlier—in the fall

of 1840, according to Noble’s testimony, also given under oath in

1892,

that Smith “taught it [plural marriage] in my house” in Mont-

rose, Iowa, “right across the river opposite Nauvoo,” introducing it “pri-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 135

67 corrects this location to “Avon, New York.” Compton, In Sacred Loneli-

ness, 56–57, 653, confirms the location as Avon, citing Louisa’s sister, Mary

Adeline Beaman [Snow]’s Autobiography, L. Tom Perry Special Collec-

tions and Manuscripts Division, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young

University, Provo, Utah (hereafter Perry Special Collections).

***

Noble, Affidavit, June 26, 1869, in “40 Affidavits on Celestial Mar-

riage,” 1869, a collection consisting of six folders compiled by Joseph F.

Smith, LDS Church History Library. Following the first forty affidavits in

“Book One,” are two more “books,” bringing the entire compilation to

about seventy-five affidavits. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, Table 8.2 “Affidavits

by Date and Provenance,” 474–78. Joseph Smith was resealed to Beaman

with Brigham Young as his proxy on September 19, 1844, and January 14,

1846. Sealing Book A, 503–4, in Lisle G Brown, comp., Nauvoo Sealings,

Adoptions, and Anointings: A Comprehensive Register of Persons Receiving LDS

Temple Ordinances, 1841–1846 (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation,

2006); Lyndon W. Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, Proxy Sealings, 1843–1846

(Provo, Utah: Grandin Book, 2004), 41.

vately” there to “individuals in the church.”

20****+

This testimony on polyg-

amy was taken at an awkward time: two years after the 1890 Manifesto

that withdrew official support for new plural marriages for the Utah-

based Latter-day Saints. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-

ter Day Saints (now Community of Christ), a party to a lawsuit with the

Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in Independence, had continually op-

posed the practice and denied that Joseph Smith had ever taught the

doctrine. Polygamy was relevant to the question of legitimacy among

successor LDS churches because, if the litigants could prove that the

“Utah church” (not Joseph Smith) had innovated polygamy, then it

might be dismissed as an illegitimate offshoot of Joseph’s “monoga-

mous” church. Joseph had, in fact, publicly denied polygamy in a state-

ment “on marriage” in the Times and Seasons on October 1, 1842, reiter-

ating a similar denial in section 101 of the 1835 Doctrine and Cove-

nants. Although the LDS Church was not a party to the suit, the RLDS

Church under the leadership of Joseph Smith III hoped that a court rul-

ing of legitimate successorship would provide not only a moral victory

but also yield ownership of the temple lot itself.

21++

(The ruling con-

firmed the Church of Christ’s ownership.)

B. H. Roberts, assistant LDS Church historian, had joined the

Church after it was established in Utah and therefore had no firsthand

136 The Journal of Mormon History

****

These 1892 depositions were part of a lawsuit to determine the

ownership of the Mormon temple lot in Independence, Missouri, pur-

chased by Bishop Edward Partridge on behalf of the Church in 1832. In ad-

dition to querying Mormons who had been in Missouri in 1832 and later,

the questioning rapidly diverged into the origins of polygamy. Although os-

tensibly about the ownership of real estate, at issue was which church was

the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith’s church.

Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Church of

Christ of Independence, Missouri, et al. 60 F. 937 (W.D. Mo. 1894), deposition

testimony (questions 38, 51, 448–49), electronic copy prepared by Rich-

ard D. Ouellette.

David L. Clark, Joseph Bates Noble: Polygamy and the Temple Lot Case

(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2009), 1–7, 73–86. The Church of

Christ (Temple Lot), supported by the Utah Saints in this case, might be de-

clared illegitimate as well because it had declared Smith “a fallen prophet.”

However, Noble’s reaffirmation that he had married Smith to Louisa

Beaman, his first plural wife, would support the Utah church’s position that

Joseph Smith had originated the doctrine.

knowledge of events in Nauvoo. However, he stated that “it was in the fall

of 1840” that Joseph Smith himself took “steps” to introduce “plural mar-

riages as a practice in the church.”

22+++

The year 1840 was an uncertain time

in Smith’s life. In April 1839, he and some fellow prisoners had been al-

lowedto escape from a Missouri jail, concluding yearsof open conflict be-

tween Mormon settlers and early Missouri inhabitants amid mutual

threats of “extermination.” The Saints had found a new home along the

Mississippi River, about twenty miles north from Carthage, Illinois. Nam-

ing the new city “Nauvoo,” a word that Joseph said meant, in Hebrew,

“beautiful place,” he and his adherents had achieved relative independ-

ence and a thriving economy. One of the converts drawn to the new city

was promoter and organizer John C. Bennett, who converted to Mor-

monism soon after his arrival in September 1840. Rapidly influential, he

enhanced the community’s independence by building the Nauvoo Le-

gion into a large militia and helped secure from the Illinois legislature a

city charter with powers so expansive that Joseph later was able to resist

state attempts to arrest him on both old and new charges, some of them

originating in Missouri.

23++++

Joseph’s father died on September 14, 1840. Whatever influence

his presence might have exercised on Joseph Jr.’s plans to enact plural

marriage had he lived, in fact young Joseph never had to consider the pos-

sibility of a plural stepmother. Beyond his own unannounced wives, plu-

ral marriage did not enter Joseph’s own nuclear family. There is no re-

cord that his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, opposed—or was even aware

of—this aspect of Joseph’s “restoration of all things.”

24*

Emma also seem-

ed unaware of most of her husband’s other marriages, except for four

cases where she was briefly permissive but then resistant. She was espe-

cially offended by Joseph’s “revelation” that threatened her with “de-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 137

+++

B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints, 1930), 2:101.

++++

Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 342–72; Stephen C. LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon

War in Missouri (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1987); Andrew F.

Smith, The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of John Cook Bennett (Urbana:

University of Illinois Press).

Anderson, Lucy’s Book, 12, 31–34, 125, 784–85. In all cases where

Lucy’s attitude toward Joseph’s activities is known, it was uniformly sup-

portive.

str[uction]” if she did not accept his wives. After Joseph’s death when Jo-

seph Noble and others were swearing their affidavits, Emma eventually

denied that plural marriage had ever occurred at all.

25**

Perhaps contributing to Joseph’s sense of freedom to begin acquir-

ing plural wives, a majority of his twelve apostles had left for missions in

Great Britain by 1840. Whatever leadership or power vacuum Joseph and

town residents experienced in Nauvoo that fall, John C. Bennett’s arrival

seemed to fill it. He lived with the Smith family from fall 1840 to summer

1841. As a convert of no more than four weeks, Bennett addressed the

Church’s October 1840 general conference. In February 1841, nomi-

nated by Smith, he ran unopposed for the office of town mayor; was com-

missioned to train the Nauvoo Legion with the rank of major general;

helped establish Nauvoo’s Masonic Lodge, of which he became secre-

tary; and on May 6, 1841, was appointed master in chancery for Hancock

County, which included the duties of an Illinois superior court judge. On

April 8, 1841, Smith named Bennett “Assistant President of the Church.”

Augmenting these positions of responsibility, in January 1841 Smith ex-

pressed his personal approval of the new leader and pronounced a revela-

tioninwhichtheLordstatedthat“myservantJohnC.Bennett...shallbe

great”and“I...willcrownhimwithblessingsandgreatglory”(D&C

124:17).

26***

It seems likely that, given Bennett’s proximity to decision-mak-

ing authority in Nauvoo, he would have joined Smith in implementing

the “patriarchal order of marriage,” even though his contributions and

record of participation may have been censored after quarreling with

Smith and separating from the Church in the spring of 1842.

27****

Joseph’s wedding to Louisa Beaman by the Mississippi launched an

138 The Journal of Mormon History

Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma:

Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady,” Polygamy’s Foe, 1804–1879

(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), chaps. 8, 10, 12; Smith, Nauvoo Polyg-

amy, Appendix A: The 1843 Revelation (excerpts), from Deseret News Extra,

September 14, 1852, 26–28. The revelation was canonized as Section 132 in

LDS editions of the Doctrine and Covenants from 1876 to the present.

***

This revelation was first published in “Extracts from a Revelation

Given to Joseph Smith, Jr., January 19th 1841,” Times and Seasons, June 1,

1841, 424.

****

Bennett left Nauvoo July 1, 1842. History of the Church, 5:11–13;

Timesand Seasons, July 1, 1842, 3:839–43; Gary J. Bergera, “John C. Bennett,

Joseph Smith, and the Beginnings of Mormon Plural Marriage in Nauvoo,”

John Whitmer Historical Journal 23 (2003): 59–90.

innovative marital structure on that spring afternoon in 1841. The young

woman, in one account disguised in a man’s hat and coat, joined Joseph

and her brother-in-law at a secluded riverbank location where the Mor-

mon prophet initiated the restoration of “celestial marriage.” This prac-

tice linked participating Mormons solidly to the triumvirate of Hebrew

patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their multiple spouses. Like

Adam and like Noah, the Latter-day Saints were called to“multiply and re-

plenish” the earth.

28+

By revelation, Joseph received the reaffirmation of

Abraham’s promise: that his “seed” would be as “innumerable as the

stars;or,ifyeweretocountthesandupontheseashore,yecouldnotnum-

ber them.”

29++

Whether this momentous step was both a religious calling and a ro-

mance between Louisa and Joseph remains unspecified. Although Jo-

seph reportedly had shown an interest in one Eliza Winters in 1828 in

Emma’s hometown of Harmony, Pennsylvania,

30+++

then in Fanny Alger

from 1832 or 1833 in Kirtland, Ohio, neither of these relationships car-

ries adequate documentation of a recognizable marriage.

31++++

Ten individuals, including two reports by Joseph Bates Noble who

performed the marriage, learned about this event from the three partici-

pants, thus supporting the record of Smith’s marriage to Beaman:

1. John C. Bennett, in the summer of 1842, now thoroughly alien-

ated from Joseph Smith, became the first person to announce the

Prophet’s private marriage to Louisa Beaman. Both in a letter to the

Sangamo Journal of July 15, 1842, a newspaper published in Springfield,

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 139

The scriptural command to “multiply and replenish” appears in

only three passages: in Genesis 1:28 to Adam and Eve, in Genesis 9:1 to the

post-Flood survivors of Noah’s family, and in D&C 132:63 to nineteenth-

century Mormons.

Joseph Smith’s “celestial marriage” revelation, recordedby William

Clayton on July 12, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois, published in the Deseret News

Extra, September 14, 1852, 26–28; see also D&C 132:30.

+++

Brian C. Hales, Mormon Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The

Generations after the Manifesto (Salt LakeCity: Kofford Books, 2006), chap. 2,

provides a thorough exploration of the documents linking Winters to

Smith and concludes that there is no foundation to the rumor.

++++

“Mormonism,” Susquehanna Register 9 (May 1, 1834):1, in Vogel,

Early Mormon Documents, 4:296–97, 346; William E. McLellin, Letter to Jo-

seph Smith III, July 1872, Community of Christ Archives, Independence,

Missouri.

Illinois, and in his exposé, History of the Saints, that drew on and ex-

panded his newspaper letters, Bennett reported that Joseph secretly

“married a Miss L***** B*****,” providing an accurate number of as-

terisks to represent the letters in Louisa’s name. He also correctly identi-

fied “Elder Joseph Bates Noble” as the officiator.

32*

Bennett had been

living with the Smiths during the time Joseph was courting Louisa, so

he was well positioned to witness these events. He even spoke of what

appears to be an intimate visit when Joseph “went off to see Miss Bea-

man, at the house of Mrs. [Delcena] Sherman, and remained with her

about two hours.”

33**

Bennett’s continued respected position in Nauvoo

is confirmed up to June 1841 by firm support for him recorded in the

Times and Seasons.

34***

2. Joseph Bates Noble, as already noted, made a sworn affidavit in

1869 that he had “married or sealed Louisa Beaman, to Joseph

Smith.”

35****

3. LDS Assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson, who affiliated

with the LDS Church after it had relocated in Utah, stated on June 11,

1883, that Smith “taught [Joseph Noble] the principle of plural mar-

riage [and] the girl [Louisa Beaman], after being convinced that the

principle was true, consented to become the prophet’s wife, and on 5

April 1841, she was married to him, Elder Noble officiating.” Jenson

added that Louisa’s marriage was “the first plural marriage consum-

mated.”

36+

4. Apostle Wilford Woodruff attended a dinner hosted by Jane

Blackhurst on January 22, 1869, in Salt Lake City at which the fifty-

eight-year-old Noble, another guest, described this “first Marriage Cere-

mony according to the Patriarchal order of Marriage ever performed in

this dispensation By sealing Eliza [Louisa] Be[a]man to Joseph Smith on

140 The Journal of Mormon History

John C. Bennett, Sangamo Journal, July 15, 1842; Bennett, History of

the Saints (1842; rpt., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 256.

Bennett, History of the Saints, 229.

***

The Nauvoo newspaper continued to endorse Bennett “as a gentle-

man, an officer, a scholar, and physician [who] stands too high to need de-

fending...heisintheconfidence of the executive [i.e., Joseph Smith] ...he

has, likewise been favorably known for upwards of eight years by some of

the authorities of the church.” “The Warsaw Signal,” Times and Seasons,

June 1, 1841, 431–32.

****

Affidavit, June 26, 1869; see also Cook, Nauvoo Marriages, 41.

Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” 232–33, 239.

the 6 [5] day of May [April] 1841.”

37++

5. Apostle Franklin D. Richards, another guest at the Blackhurst

dinner, recorded Noble’s remarks as: “He perform[ed] the first sealing

ceremony in this dispensation in which he united sister Louisa Beaman to

the prophet Joseph.” This took place, he said, “during the evening under

an Elm tree in Nauvoo. The Bride disguised in a [man’s] coat and hat.”

38+++

6. On October 9, 1869, LDS Apostle and Church Historian George

A. Smith, who was Joseph Smith’s cousin and had been present from

Kirtland on, wrote to his own first cousin once removed, Joseph Smith III

(the oldest son of Joseph and Emma Smith, then president of the RLDS

Church): “On the 5th day of April, 1841, Louisa Beman was married to

your father, Joseph Smith, for time and all eternity, by Joseph B. Nobles, a

HighPriestofthechurch.Sheremainedtrueandfaithfultohimuntilthe

day of her death.”

39++++

7. William Clayton, Joseph Smith’s personal secretary in Nauvoo,

swore an affidavit on February 16, 1874, that in February 1843 Smith

“gavemetounderstandthatElizaR.Snow,LouisaBeman,S[ylvia]P.Ses-

sions, and Desdemona C. Fullmer, and others were his lawful wives in the

sight of Heaven.”

40*

8. Ann Eliza Webb Young, formerly a plural wife of Brigham Young,

reported that Noble had been “among the earliest converts to the doc-

trine of plural wives,” and added that “together the two men, with their

chosen celestial brides, repaired one night to the banks of the Mississippi

River, where Joseph sealed Noble to his first plural wife, and in return No-

bleperformedthesameofficeforTheProphetand[Noble’s]sister[-

in-law].”

41**

Noble’s marriage actually happened a year after the Beaman-

Smith sealing.

9. Apostle Erastus Snow, an early Mormon convert from Vermont,

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 141

Scott Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols. (Midvale, Utah:

Signature Books, 1983), 6:452.

+++

Franklin D. Richards, Journal, January 22, 1869, LDS Church His-

tory Library.

++++

George A. Smith, Letter to Joseph Smith III, October 9, 1869, Jo-

seph Smith III Papers, Library-Archives, Community of Christ, Independ-

ence.

William Clayton, Affidavit, February 16, 1874, Salt Lake City, in

“Affidavits [on Celestial Marriage], 1869–1915.”

Ann Eliza Young, Wife Number Nineteen, or the Story of a Life in Bond-

age (Hartford, Conn.: Dustin, Gilman & Co., 1875), 72. Louisa died in 1850,

married Louisa’s sister, Artemisia, on December 13, 1838, in Missouri.

HetoldacongregationinSt.GeorgethatLouisawas“thefirstWoman

that entered Plural Marriage in this last dispensation [with] Br Nobles of-

ficiating in a grove Near Main Street in the City of Nauvoo[,] The Prophet

Joseph di[c]tating the ceremony and Br. Nobles repeating it after him.”

42***

10. Almera Johnson, who became a plural wife of Joseph, in 1843,

noted: “I had many conversations with Eliza [Louisa] Beaman who was

also a wife of Joseph Smith, and who was present when I was sealed to

him, on the subject of plurality of wives, both before and after the perfor-

mance of that ceremony.”

43****

11. In the Temple Lot hearings of 1892, Joseph Noble repeated his

testimony that he had “performed the marriage ceremony giving him my

wife’s sister,” or “Louisa Beeman, to the prophet,” at a rented house in

Nauvoo. Asked whether there was a honeymoon, he said, “I know it, for I

sawhim in bed with her,” adding that “right straight across the river [from

Iowa] at my house they slept together.” Noble gave the prophet some

“counsel” to “blow out the lights and get into bed,” advising him, “You will

be safer there.” Smith “took myadvice,” he continued. Then Noble laugh-

ed “heartily,” according to the court reporter. Noble said the newlyweds

“got into bed” soon after the ceremony, between about six and eight p.m.

asNobleleftthehouse.Noblerecalledheknewtheyspentthenightbe-

causeJosephlater“toldmehedid.”

44+

These eleven reports of Louisa’s marriage to Joseph are thus based

on two legal statements of one eyewitness participant and nine second-

hand reports, but all of them were personally known to Joseph except for

Andrew Jenson and Ann Eliza Webb Young. Both of these individuals,

however, would have had access to either Noble, the second-hand report-

ers, or both. Their descriptions form a consistent picture: the ceremony

142 The Journal of Mormon History

eighteen years before Ann Eliza at age twenty-three married Brigham, mak-

ing it unlikely that Louisa could have been Ann Eliza’s direct source.

***

Erastus Snow, quoted on June 17, 1883, in A. Karl Larson and Kath-

arine Miles Larson, eds., Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, 2 vols. (Logan: Utah

State University Press, 1980), 2:610. In this published version, an error in

the transcription described Louisa as the “first Mormon” instead of the

“first Woman.” Snow’s information was likely Louisa’s sister, Artemisia.

****

Almira [Almera] W. Johnson Smith Barton, Affidavit, August 1,

1883, in Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Mar-

riage: A Discussion (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1905), 70–71.

Reorganized Church v. Church of Christ, questions 688-90, 698, 702.

took place in the evening (Noble, Richards, Young); four specify Nauvoo

(Noble, Richards, Snow, Young); Noble says it took place in a rented

house “straight across the river” from Iowa; Snow says it was near Main

Street “in a grove” that extended to the Mississippi; Richards says under

an elm tree—perhaps corresponding with the grove; Ann Eliza Young

places it “one night” along the “banks of the Mississippi River.” Correlat-

ing these accounts, one could say the Smith-Beaman ceremony took place

in Nauvoo on a late Monday afternoon, April 5, 1841, in a grove or under

a tree that was on or near the bank of the Mississippi River or close to No-

ble’s house, which was near the river. As Richards stated it, Louisa wore a

man’s coat and hat, and Joseph dictated the words for Noble to say. There

is some question about whether Noble actually saw Joseph and Louisa in

bed together since he modified his initial assertion, indicating that Jos-

eph afterward told him as much.

ROFILE OF JOSEPH’S PLURAL WIVES

Why Joseph Smith selected Louisa as his first plural wife is not clear.

In the context of various demographic features, Louisa does not stand

out. Like thirty-one other wives of Joseph Smith, she maintained a resi-

dence outside the Smith home, but six wives were hired girls who lived

with the Smith family: Emily and Eliza Partridge, Maria and Sarah Law-

rence, Elvira Cowles, and Eliza R. Snow, a special case since she taught

Smith’s children, rather than doing housework. Like ten of the others,

Louisa was in her twenties when she married Joseph. He had known

Louisa, like most of his wives, for well over a decade. She was one of the

eighteen single women he courted in Nauvoo. But six of those in their

teens or twenties were orphaned or separated from their parents. Four-

teen of the women were already married and typically had children. Ap-

parently at least three of those husbands consented to their wives’ mar-

riages to Joseph.

45++

In twenty-seven cases, Joseph had known the women he would later

marry as early as the Ohio period (1831–37). For example, one might hy-

pothesize that a warm and even affectionate relationship had existed

since their first meeting in 1827 when Louisa was an impressionable age

twelve and Joseph, handsome and mature, was twenty-one. A few years

later in 1834, their mutual impressions would have been reinforced when

Joseph stayed briefly with the Beaman family in Avon, New York.

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 143

Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 4–7, 15–23; Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy,

Table 3.1 “Joseph Smith’s Wives,” 73–118, 157, 223–24.

Such familial settings occurred frequently during the Kirtland pe-

riod when Joseph—and most members of the Church—were in frequent

motion. Joseph often lodged with families other than his own, would have

met the daughters of the house as a matter of course, and would have re-

newed their acquaintance with the greater complexities of maturity in

Nauvoo where Joseph’s centrality to the movement was even greater be-

cause he was more frequently present. I argue that the families who

moved with Joseph through the Kirtland and Missouri periods formed a

pool of close acquaintances in Nauvoo, even as the tide of converts con-

tinued to swell, and that the daughters of these families became objects of

greater attention to Joseph as he reflected on what he considered his

divine mandate to institute plural marriage.

In 1831 N. K. Whitney was the first man Joseph Smith greeted,

identifying himself as “the Mormon prophet” when he reached Kirtland.

The Whitneys took him in with Emma, who was pregnant with twins. Sa-

rah Ann Whitney, age five and a future wife, must have watched their

glamorous visitor with interest. While staying with the Whitneys, Joseph

also met John Rollins’s twelve-year-old daughter, Mary Elizabeth, also to

become a Nau- voo plural wife. Fifteen-year-old Marinda Johnson met Jo-

seph when he resided with her family in Hiram, Ohio. She recalled that

when Joseph looked into her eyes, she felt “ashamed.”

46+++

Since she does

not describe any fault she had committed except skepticism when she

first heard about the “Mormonites,” I read this feeling as her being dis-

concerted before this charismatic ten-year-older man. She married

OrsonHyde,afutureapostle,in1834;butinNauvoo,Marindabecame

Joseph’s plural wife.

Another unanswered question is whether Joseph took special

pains to cultivate the affections of these prospective wives even before

beginning the practice of plural marriage. One suggestion that this

mayhavebeenthecaseistheexampleofZinaHuntington,who,asafif-

teen- year-old, came to Kirtland in 1836 with her newly converted fam-

ily. She described the impression he made on her at that first meeting:

“IsawtheProphet’sfaceforthefirsttime[.]hewas6feet[,]light

aubern hair and a heavy nose[,] blue eyes[,] the [eye]ball[s] ful &

round[,] rather long forehead[,][and] when he was filled with the spirit

of revilation or inspiration—to talk to the saints[—] his countenance

144 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde, Affidavit, May 1, 1869, “40 Affida-

vits on Celestial Marriage.”

would look clear & bright.”

47++++

Three years later in Nauvoo, Zina’s mother died on July 8, 1839, and

her father struggled with financial problems. Joseph and Emma invited

eighteen-year-old Zina, her brother William, and her twelve-year-old bro-

ther John, tostay withthemthroughthe month of August, until herolder

brother, Dimick, built a house for them by the Mississippi. According to

Zina’s later reminiscences, which exist in several forms, the Prophet

courted her soon afterward in 1840. Somewhat unsettled by this uncon-

ventional proposal, she turned to a more eligible suitor, the single twenty-

three-year-old Henry Jacobs, whom she married on March 7, 1841. Jo-

seph persisted, however, and on October 27, 1841, when Zina was six

months pregnant with Henry’s child, this young, expectant mother was

also sealed to Joseph.

48*

On December 11, Joseph then wed Zina’s sister,

Presendia, who was also married. None of Joseph’s three plural mar-

riages in 1841 were announced to the public, although relationship with

the two Huntington sisters’ husbands became increasingly strained.

Joseph married thirteen additional wives in 1842 and twenty-one in

1843. Choosing plural wives with living husbands perhaps forestalled em-

barrassment if he fathered children with them. Furthermore, Emily Par-

tridge recorded how children of plural marriages were not generally ac-

knowledged before their exodus to Utah: “While in Nauvoo I kept my child

secreted, and but few knew I had one.” She observed that “spiritual wives,

as we were then termed, were not very numerous in those days and a spiri-

tual baby was a rarity indeed—but few children had been born in the celes-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 145

++++

Martha Sonntag Bradley and Mary Brown Firmage Woodward,

Four Zinas: A Story of Mothers and Daughters on the Mormon Frontier (Salt Lake

City: Signature Books and Smith Research Associates, 2000), 74 note 19, cit-

ing Zina Young, Autobiography, 1 [date of event: November 10, 1836], Zina

D. H. Young Collection, LDS Church History Library; Compton, In Sacred

Loneliness, 657, also citing Zina Young, Autobiography, 1, Zina Card Brown

Collection, LDS Church History Library. Thereare several drafts of Zina D.

H. Young’s autobiography, as well as a variant typescript. Compare cita-

tions of Zina’s autobiography as they appear in Bradley and Compton.

Oa Jacobs Cannon, “History of Henry Bailey Jacobs,” 5, LDS

Church History Library; Bradley and Woodward, Four Zinas, 107–15;

Zina D. H. Young, Autobiography, 2, 4, Zina D. H. Young Collection, LDS

Church History Library; see also Zina Card Brown Collection, LDS Church

History Library.

146 The Journal of Mormon History

TABLE 1

NNER CIRCLE OF NAUVOO POLYGAMISTS

(omitting Joseph Smith

First Polygamous Marriage Husbands # Celestial Wives Eventually

by June 27, 1844

1842 June 14 Brigham Young 5 55

1842 Heber Kimball 2 44

1842 Vinson Knight 2 2

1842 Reynolds Cahoon 2 3

1843 January 18 Willard Richards 4 11

1843 February 5 William Huntington 2 3

1843 February/March Orson Hyde 3 9

1843 March 9 Lorenzo Young 2 8

1843 March 23 Thomas Bateman 2 2

1843 April 5 Joseph Noble 3 11

1843 April 27 William Clayton 2 10

1843 May 17 Benjamin Johnson 2 7

1843 July 11 James Adams 2 2

1843 July 20 George Miller 2 4

1843 July 24 Parley Pratt 2 11

1843 July 28 William Felshaw 2 3

1843 August 11 Hyrum Smith 5 5

1843 August 13 John Smith 3 8

1843 Fall William Smith 2 15

1843 November Ebenezer Richardson 2 4

1843 December 12 John Taylor 6 18

1843 December 19 Isaac Morley 3 10

1843 December 28 Edwin Woolley 3 6

1843 December William Sagers 2 10

1844 Early Howard Egan 2 4

1844 March 6 Theodore Turley 4 5

1844 April 2 Erastus Snow 2 14

1844 April 27 Ezra Benson 2 8

1844 Spring Joseph Kelting 3 3

1844 < June 27 Lyman Wight 4 4

1844 < June 27 Joseph Coolidge 2 5

1844 < June 27 John Page 2

Total Wives 86 308

Average Wives per Man 2.7 9.6

tial order of marriage.”

49**

After restoring “all things” as he acquired his

own wives beginning in 1841, Joseph invited his associates to accept the

“privilege” of added celestial companions; and in 1842 four elders joined

him, starting with Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Vinson Knight, and

Reynolds Cahoon, who each married one new wife apiece. In 1843, Jo-

seph’s scribe, Willard Richards, was the first of twenty men who became

new polygamists that year. Joseph’s brother, Hyrum, then married four,

and Brigham Young married two more.

50***

By Joseph’s death in June 1844,

33 Nauvoo men had married a total of 124 wives, an average of 3.8 wives

perman,24ofwhomaswidowswouldremarryJoseph’sassoci-

ates.

51****

Tracking these men’s marriages over their lifetimes shows devotion

to the principle: a total of 346, an average of 10.5 wives per man. Subtract-

ing Joseph’s 38 wives, his inner circle of followers had married a total of 86

women, 2.7 wives per man.

52+

These early adherents to the practice of celes-

tial marriage eventually married 308 women, or 9.6 wives per man.

In 1844, the year of Joseph’s and Hyrum’s assassinations, twenty-

one more men took plural wives, eight before June 27, and thirteen after.

In 1845, thirty-six more men joined the expanding inner circle, followed

by 114 in 1846, just before the first wagons crossed the Mississippi on the

trek across Iowa to the west. At that point, the 196 men who had become

polygamists in Nauvoo married a total of 717 wives—196 initial spouses

and 521 plural wives.

53++

Tracking their marriages to their deaths yields a

total of 1,134 marriages, an average of nearly six wives per man.

54+++

thesenumbersclearlyshow,thepracticeofpolygamysteadilyincreased

from (1) the Joseph Smith period in Nauvoo, (2) the Brigham Young pe-

riod in Nauvoo, and (3) the four decades of official practice in Utah. Al-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 147

Emily Dow Partridge Young, “Diary and Reminiscences, 1874–

1899,” January 7, 1877, July 24, 1883, Perry Special Collections.

***

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 311–20, Table 4.8, “Nauvoo Plural Fami-

lies by Year of Inception.”

****

Ibid., 283, Table 4.1, “The widows who married LDS leaders.”

Ibid., 286, Table 4.3. “Joseph’s Nauvoo Polygamy 1841–44, Families

Ranked by Number of Wives.” See also Gary James Bergera, “Identifying

the Earliest Mormon Polygamists, 1841–44,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon

Thought, Fall 2005, 1–71.

Ibid., 311–22

+++

These are gross numbers, before adjustment for deaths, divorces,

and widows’ remarriages. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, “Nauvoo Plural Mar-

riages,” 288.

though the statistics do not tell the human story, the increase in the num-

ber of wives conveys the sense of a changing social pattern in the LDS

community.

INCIDENCE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE

By June 1844, Joseph Smith had acquired the most wives of any man

in Nauvoo. Although scholars have come up with different figures, I find

reason to accept thirty-eight by this count. In terms of family size, next

came John Taylor (six); Hyrum Smith and Brigham Young (five); Willard

Richards, Theodore Turley, and Lyman Wight (four); Orson Hyde, Jo-

seph Kelting, Isaac Morley, Joseph Noble, John Smith, and Edwin Wool-

ley (three); and twenty other men who had two apiece,

55++++

producing a sta-

tistical average of 2.7 wives apiece.

56*

SpanningtheentireNauvooperiodfrominceptiontodeparture

into Iowa (1841-46) and excluding Joseph Smith, Brigham Young had the

most wives (forty), followed by Heber C. Kimball (thirty-seven), John Tay-

lor (thirteen), William Smith (twelve), John D. Lee (eleven), Samuel Bent

(ten), and Willard Richards (nine). The only members of Joseph’s imme-

diate family to practice polygamy were his brothers Hyrum and William.

In the extended family his first cousin, George A. Smith, and his Uncle

John Smith also married plural wives.

Among Joseph’s eight siblings who survived to adulthood, only

Hyrum’s children practiced polygamy in the West. Alvin had died be-

fore the Church was organized, Don Carlos and Samuel died as mo-

nogamists in the Nauvoo period, William was excommunicated in

1845, and their three sisters, Sophronia, Katharine, and Lucy, all re-

mained in the East. Don Carlos’s widow, Agnes Coolbrith, was sealed

successively to Joseph, then to GeorgeA. Forunknown reasons, she did

notgowestwiththeMormons,butmarriedSt.LouisprinterWilliam

Pickett. They went to California where Agnes’s poet-daughter stopped

using her christened name, “Josephine Smith,” and adopted the name

148 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

James Adams, Thomas Bateman, Ezra Benson, Reynolds Cahoon,

William Clayton, Joseph Coolidge, Howard Egan, William Felshaw, Wil-

liam Huntington, Benjamin Johnson, Heber Kimball, Vinson Knight,

George Miller, John Page, Parley Pratt, Ebenezer Richardson, William

Sagers, William Smith, Erastus Snow, and Lorenzo Young.

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, Table 4.8, “Nauvoo Plural Families by Year

of Inception,” 311–22; Tables 4.4-4.5, ranking Nauvoo families by number

of wives, 286–88.

of “Ina Coolbrith.”

57**

SamuelH.Smith’sson,SamuelH.B.Smith,went

westbutdidnotbecomeapolygamist.

58***

Brigham Young had a total of fifty-five wives but, because of deaths

and divorces, no more than thirty-eight at one time, fifteen of whom bore

him a total of fifty-five children.

59****

Heber Kimball had a total of forty-

four wives, followed by John D. Lee (nineteen), John Taylor (eighteen),

William Smith (fifteen), Erastus Snow (fourteen); Aaron Johnson and

Franklin D. Richards (twelve), six men had eleven,

60+

and 181 had be-

tween two and ten.

61++

Viewed another way, these numbers demonstrate a

rising incidence of wives in the Nauvoo polygamous community after go-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 149

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 90, 91.

***

Samuel Harrison Smith and Mary Bailey Smith had four children.

Their son, Samuel Bailey Harrison Smith, had a daughter, Levira A. Clark

Smith, who married her first cousin once removed, Joseph F. Smith (Hyrum

Smith’s son) in 1859 in Salt Lake City. Levira divorced Joseph F. for adultery

in 1866 when he began marrying plural wives. Anderson, Lucy’s Book,

872–73. Joseph F. Smith strenuously denied this motivation. His son Joseph

Fielding Smith attributes Levira’s “separation” (neither he nor his father

used the term “divorce”) to “interference on the part of relatives, and because

of the continued absence of her husband” in mission fields and in ecclesiasti-

cal duties. Joseph Fielding then quotes his father’s denial that Levira left him

because of plural marriage, claiming that Levira “freely gave her consent” to

his marriage to Julina Lambson in 1866, was a witness to the marriage, and

had“pleasantandharmonious”relationswithJulinabuthadcontinual“ill

health” which she hoped would improve in California and “procured a sepa-

ration” before her departure. Joseph Fielding Smith, Life of Joseph F. Smith:

Sixth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1938; rpt., Salt

Lake City: Deseret Book, n.d.), 280–81.

****

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 291–92. They are: Emmeline Free (10),

Emily Dow Partridge Smith (7), Mary Ann Angell (6), Lucy Ann Decker

Seely (7), Clarissa Decker(5), Louisa Beaman Smith (5), Clarissa Chase Ross

(4), Lucy Bigelow (3), Margaret Alley (2), and six wives who had a single

child: Harriet Cook, Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith, Margaret Peirce

Whitesides, Martha Bowker, Harriet Barney Sagers, and Mary Van Cott

Cobb. Brigham Young also had children by his first (monogamous) mar-

riage.

James Brown, Joseph Noble, Parley P. Pratt, Willard Richards,

George A. Smith, and Daniel Wood.

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 288–89.

ing west.

62+++

(See Table 2.)

Polygamistswithtwowivesdroppedfrom100inNauvoototwenty-

eight in the West. Men with four or five wives nearly doubled. And almost

nine times as many Nauvoo polygamists in the West had six and seven

wives.

Excluding Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball,

who had an extraordinary number of wives, 193 men who became polyg-

amists in Nauvoo married a total of 997 women over their lifetimes, 5.2

wives per man. Although this rate is somewhat swollen by those church-

men with ten to nearly twenty wives, this expanding rate of polygamy set a

blueprint for Mormon marriages over the next forty years.

JOSEPH’S APPROACH TO MEN

Crucial in understanding Joseph Smith’s theology of marriage is

his assumption that Christ’s second coming was imminent. The same sit-

uation had prevailed in Christianity’s first generation; but the Apostle

Paul had advised against marriage as self-indulgent and meaningless,

given the endoftime:“The timeis short: it remaineth, that both theythat

150 The Journal of Mormon History

TABLE 2

ISING INCIDENCE OF WIVES

Wives in a Family Number of Such Families

1841–1846 > 1846

8511

7312

6123

51120

42135

34740

2 100 28

Source: George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, Table 4.6, “Rising Incidence of

Wives,” 290.

+++

Ibid., Table 4.6, “Rising Incidence of Wives,” 290.

have wives be as though they had none” (1 Cor. 7:29).

63++++

In contrast, Jo-

seph Smith sought to enhance marriage even though he stated, in Febru-

ary 1835, that “fifty-six years should wind up the scene and the Savior

should come to his people.”

64*

Rather than deemphasizing marriage, Jo-

seph wanted marriage on a grand scale, proclaiming the need to raise

righteous “seed” in the last days. A few anecdotes have survived, suggest-

ing how Joseph approached the task of persuading believers to adopt this

Old Testament form of marriage.

Joseph’s “private clerk,” William Clayton, had been a bookkeeper

in an English textile factory when twenty-three Mormon missionaries ar-

rived in 1837 and Heber C. Kimball baptized him. After serving a mis-

sion in Manchester, Clayton brought his family to the United States in

1840 and became Joseph’s secretary in 1842. In journals spanning 1840–

53, Clayton provides a convert’s record, not only of Mormonism, but also

of polygamy. While serving his Manchester mission about fifty miles

fromhome, Clayton recorded how local member “Sarah Crooks bath[ed]

my forehead with rum and gave me some mint drops.” On another occa-

sion,becausehisfeetwere“verysore....Sarahwashedthemandgaveme

apintofwarmPorter....Wesattogethertil2o’clock[

A.M.].” Thinking of

his wife, Ruth, and their two children, who were living with her parents

duringthismission,Claytonadmittedthathewas“much...temptedon

her [Sarah’s] account and felt to pray that the Lord would preserve me

from impure affections.” At the same time, he acknowledged “I certainly

feelmylovetowardsher...increase.”

65**

In February 1843, after Clayton had been Joseph Smith’s clerk for

about a year, Joseph dropped by the Clayton home for supper. Before sit-

ting down to eat, Joseph invited William to walk with him despite what

must have been inhospitable weather. During this stroll, the Prophet in-

vited Clayton to accept the “favor” of plural marriage to Sarah Crooks, to

whom Clayton was admittedly still “very much attached.” When William

demurred, the Prophet insisted, “It is your privilege to have all the wives

youwant.”Withoutmoreado,ClaytontheninvitedCrookstoAmerica

(presumably accepting Joseph’s offer to finance her travel) and proposed

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 151

++++

James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Eu-

rope (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 2, 5, 57–61, 74.

Joseph Smith quoted by Reuben McBride in Larson and Larson, Di-

ary of Charles Lowell Walker, 2:522.

Smith, Intimate Chronicle, 29, 32, 41, 52. Clayton was unaware at the

time of Smith’s plural marriages.

marriage. Crooks sailed to America, but refused to marry Clayton. How-

ever, he followed his leader’s example by eventually marrying ten women

(nine plural wives) and fathering a total of forty-seven children.

66***

In a similar pattern, Joseph approached his land agent, Benjamin F.

Johnson, on a Sunday morning in April 1843 and invited: “Come brother

Bennie, let us have a walk.” They set off, arm in arm, and Joseph “led the

way into a by-place in the edge of the woods surrounded by tall brush and

trees.” They sat down on a log, and Joseph told Benjamin that “the Lord

had revealed to him that plural or patriarchal marriage was according to

His law,” and that “he wanted my Sister Alm[e]ra for one of [his wives],

andwishedmetoseeandtalktoheruponthesubject.”

67****

Johnson warn-

ed Smith not to “insult or prostitute my sister” on pain of death; but “with

a smile,” Smith replied, “Benjamin, you will never see that day.”

68+

Ben-

jamin’s persuasions on behalf of the prophet were successful, and Al-

mera became Joseph’s plural wife.

In July 1843, Johnson remembered, Joseph issued a revelation on

plural marriage that alluded to the biblical parable of the ten talents

(Matt. 25:14–30). Similarly, if a man had “ten virgins given unto him by

this law,” the revelation read, “he cannot commit adultery, for they be-

long to him” (D&C 132:62). Johnson recognized the allusion because Jo-

seph had explained celestial marriage to him employing as his “Text”

“our use of the ‘one

,Five,&Tentalents.’” Writing in 1903 when he was

eighty-five, Johnson explained how he interpreted the message: “As God

had now commanded Plural marriage, and as exaltation & dominion of

the Saints depended upon the number of the[ir] Righteous posterity—

From him who was found but with the one Talent It would be taken &

given to him that had Ten

.”

69++

Johnsonthusconcludedthat,inheaven,

themanwhohadonlyonewifemightlosehertothemanwithten.

A third anecdote of persuasion involves Lorenzo and Eliza Snow,

152 The Journal of Mormon History

***

William Clayton, Affidavit, February 16, 1874, in Jenson, “Plural

Marriage,” 224–26; Smith, Intimate Chronicle, 94, 99, 107, 555–56.

****

Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review (1947; Mesa, Ariz.: 21st Cen-

tury Printing, 1992), 94–95.

Benjamin F. Johnson, “Book No. 2,” Affidavits on Celestial Mar-

riage, 3–9, LDS Church History Library.

Benjamin F. Johnson, Letter to George F. Gibbs, April-October

1903, LDS Church History Library; published in Dean R. Zimmerman, ed.,

I Knew the Prophets: An Analysis of the Letter of Benjamin F. Johnson to George F.

Gibbs (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1976), 30.

two of the seven children of Oliver Snow and Rosetta Pettibone Snow,

who farmed in Mantua, Ohio, thirty miles from Kirtland. As Campbellite

Baptists, they also anticipated Christ’s reign on earth within their life-

time.Eliza,bornin1804,wastenyearsolderthanLorenzo.

70+++

Oliver,

Rosetta, and three children had joined the Church by 1836. In Nauvoo,

Oliver developed doubts and moved away to Walnut Grove, Illinois, fol-

lowed by his wife and four of the children. Three, however, Eliza, Leo-

nora, and Lorenzo, remained with the Saints.

Eliza, who taught the Smiths’ children, became Emma’s friend, ac-

cepted the position of secretary in the Nauvoo Relief Society in March

1842, and married Joseph on June 29, 1842. Only two months earlier,

the Relief Society had investigated rumors that Joseph had been “im-

moral” with his widowed sister-in-law, Agnes Coolbrith Smith, to whom,

bythen, he had been sealed. The case was closed and Emma scolded the

women for rumor-mongering when the accuser admitted, “I never have

at any time or place, seen or heard any thing improper or unvirtuous in

the conduct or conversation of either President Smith or Mrs. Agnes

Smith.”

71++++

Eliza began keeping her journal on her wedding day but did not dis-

cuss her sealing. Instead, she wrote cryptically: “This is a day of much in-

terest to my feelings.” Twenty-seven years later, Eliza swore an affidavit to

the sealing that included the date and identified Brigham Young as the

officiator. The History of the Church for that day mentions only that Joseph

went out for a ride with Brigham.

72*

Forty years after the sealing, Eliza

went into more detail in her autobiography: “In Nauvoo I first under-

stood that the practice of plurality was to be introduced into the church,”

knowledge that she greeted with initial “repugnance.” However, “I was

sealed to the Prophet, Joseph Smith, for time and eternity, in accordance

with the Celestial Law of marriage,” and testified “that Plural Celestial

marriage is a pure and holy principle.”

On August 18, 1842, six weeks after her marriage to Joseph, Eliza

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 153

+++

Ohio convert Sidney Rigdon was a Campbellite Baptist, as were

Orson and Parley Pratt, Orson Hyde, Edward Partridge, and John C.

Bennett.

++++

“A Record of the Organization, and Proceedings of the Female Re-

lief Society of Nauvoo,” 12, 17–18, 21, 89, typescript; LDS Church History

Library.

Eliza R. Snow Smith, Affidavit, June 7, 1869, “40 Affidavits on Ce-

lestial Marriage,” 1869; History of the Church, 5:49.

moved into the Smith

household for about six months.

74***

Lorenzo was

on a mission to England when Eliza was sealed to Joseph. After Lorenzo

returned in April 1843, Eliza’s uneasiness increased. “Not knowing how

my brother would receive it, I did not feel at liberty, and did not wish to as-

sume the responsibility of instructing him in the principle of plural mar-

riage, and either maintained silence, or, to his indirect questioning, gave

evasive answers, until I was forced by his cool and distant manner to feel

that he was growing jealous of my sisterly confidence—that I could not

confide in his brotherly integrity.” When she “could not endure this” any

longer, Eliza asked Joseph “to open the subject to my brother. A favorable

opportunity soon presented, and seated together on the lone bank of the

Mississippi River, they had a most interesting conversation. The Prophet

afterwards told me that he found that my brother’s mind had been previ-

ously enlightened on the subject in question, and was ready to receive

whatever the spirit of revelation from God should impart.”

75****

This setting parallels the private walks Joseph took with William

Clayton and Benjamin Johnson, and so did his instructions. According to

Eliza, “Joseph unbosomed his heart,” confessing that he had “hesitat[ed]”

until “an angel” approached him with a “drawn sword” and threatened

him “unless he moved forward and established plural marriage.”

76+

Jo-

seph had also described the angel with a drawn sword to Mary Elizabeth

Rollins Lightner and Benjamin F. Johnson.

77++

Lorenzo left his own record of this conversation:

[Joseph] wished to have some private talk with me and requested

me to walk out with him. It was toward evening. We walked a little

distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the

river. He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of

wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and com-

manded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw

the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the

154 The Journal of Mormon History

Eliza Roxcy Snow, “Sketch of My Life,” April 13, 1885, 13, 17, holo-

graph, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, California.

***

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 128–34, 253–39.

****

Eliza R. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow

(Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884), 68–70.

Ibid., 69–70.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Statement, February 8, 1902, MS

752, fd. 3, LDS Church History Library; Johnson to Gibbs, April–October

1903, 41–42.

commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before

him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless

he went forward and obeyed the commandment.

78+++

Joseph also informed Lorenzo that “my sister Eliza R. Snow had been

sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity” and that Lorenzo himself

“should have women sealed to me as wives,” and thus “obey the law of Ce-

lestial Marriage.”

79++++

Their older sister, Leonora, became the plural wife of Isaac Morley.

Eliza, though sealed to Brigham Young after Joseph’s death, during the

six years following Emma’s death signed her name “Eliza R. Snow Smith.”

She had no children by either husband. Lorenzo had forty-two children

byhisninewivesandpromisedhisdescendants:“Godwill...makeyou

kingsandqueensinthe[afterlife]...torule...throughthecountless

ages of eternities.”

80*

Ordained an apostle in 1849, Lorenzo became the

fifth LDS Church president (1898–1901) but, ironically, took a firmer

stand than either his predecessor, Wilford Woodruff, or his successor, Jo-

seph F. Smith, that new plural marriages must stop.

81**

From these three examples in which Joseph communicated the new

doctrine of plural marriage and persuaded a disciple to become a practi-

tioner, the setting was an invitation to take a private walk, then hold a con-

versation in the woods or by the stream. Presumably, Joseph used the same

approach with other Latter-day Saints who accepted this doctrine. A signif-

icant aspect of these three conversations was the necessity of secrecy. Po-

lygamy would not only violate Illinois laws against bigamy but, perhaps

even more importantly, it countered the social mores of these Mormons,

many of whom came from New England Puritan backgrounds.

JOSEPH’S APPROACH TO WOMEN

Several accounts have survived of how Joseph broached this sensi-

tive topic to women as potential wives. As one example, even though both

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 155

+++

Lorenzo Snow, Affidavit, in Joseph Fielding Smith, Blood Atone-

ment, 67–68; also in Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” 222.

++++

Eliza R. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow,

67–68, 70.

Ibid., 484–87.

D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Mar-

riages, 1890–1904,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 18 (Spring

1985): 9–105, esp. 66–73.

Emily and Eliza Partridge

***

were members of the Smith household when

they were sealed to Joseph, he approached them one at a time, careful to

ensure that he was not overheard. Joseph had baptized their father in

Ohio in 1831 as the “first Mormon bishop” when Emily was seven and

Eliza ten. After their father, Edward Partridge, died in Nauvoo in May

1840,theirmother,Lydia,marriedWilliamHuntington,awidowerand

father of Zina and Presendia, another pair of sisters who became Joseph’s

plural wives. The blended family struggled financially; and at Joseph’s in-

vitation, the two Partridge sisters, then in “very poor circumstances,”

“went to live in the family of the prophet Joseph Smith. We lived there

about three years.”

83****

The girls tended the Smith children and helped

with the housework. Emily’s particular duty was tending baby Don Car-

los, born June 13, 1840 (died 1841). The girls were not paid wages but

“lived as one of the family.”

84+

Emily recalled that she was given the “privi-

lege of going to school” and that “as a general thing I was very happy go-

ing to parties and singing schools, and riding horseback.”

85++

According to Emily’s recollection, when she was about eighteen, Jo-

seph found her alone in a room one day—she could not remember when

and“askedmeifIcouldkeepasecret.”

86+++

“Joseph said to me, ‘Emily, if

you will not betray me, I will tell you something for your benefit.’ Of

course I would keep his secret, but no opportunity offered for some time,

to say anything to me.” He seized another moment when she passed

through a room in which he was sitting alone and said he would write her

a letter if she promised to burn it. “As I felt very anxious to know what he

hadtotellme,Ipromisedtodoashewished,andlefttheroom.Ibeganto

thinkthatwasnottheproperthingformetodo...Iwentbackand

watched my opportunity to say I could not take a private letter from him.

156 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Val D. Rust, Radical Origins: Early Mormon Converts and Their Colo-

nial Ancestors (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004); George D. Smith,

Review of Radical Origins, Val D. Rust, Journal of Mormon History 35 (Sum-

mer 2009): 269–72.

****

Lyman, “Autobiography and Diary,” 7, microfilm of holograph,

LDS Church History Library.

Reorganized Church v. Church of Christ, questions 126–27.

Emily Dow [Partridge Smith] Young, “Incidents in the Life of a Mor-

mon Girl,” 178, MS 5220, fds. 1–2; microfilm of holograph, LDS Church

History Library; Emily Dow Partridge Young, “What I Remember,” April 7,

1884, 28, LDS Church History Library.

+++

Reorganized Church v. Church of Christ, questions 21–22, 129–46.

He asked me if I wished the matter ended. I said I did, and it rested for

some time.”

87++++

In retrospect, Emily realized that “Joseph had tried to

make these things known to me—I think, in the spring or summer of ’42,

but I had shut him up so quick that he said no more to me until the 28th of

Feb, 1843, (my nineteenth birth day).”

88*

This third conversation was successful, and only a few days later

on March 4, Heber C. Kimball performed the sealing during a brief en-

counter at his home.

89**

To maintain appearances, “Joseph went home

his way, and I [went] my way alone,” admittedly “a strange way of getting

married, wasn’t it?” Emily noted that Joseph “taught me this principle

of plural marriage that is called polygamy now, but we called it celestial

marriage.” Emily emphasized that Joseph “taught it to me with his own

lips.”

90***

As a second example, Lucy Walker was fifteen when Joseph pro-

posed to her and had become a member of the Smith household after her

mother died in January 1842. Again, finding an opportunity for a private

conversation, Joseph announced, “I have a message for you. I have been

commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” He

held out the promise that this marriage would “form a chain that could

never be broken, worlds without end,” then added: “I will give you until

tomorrowtodecide....[I]fyourejectthismessage,thegatewillbeclosed

forever against you.”

91****

Lucy, without parental guidance, hesitated, sought a revelation for

guidance, and said she received it. The wedding took place about a year

later on May 1, 1843, the day after Lucy’s seventeenth birthday. Emma was

shopping in St. Louis and returned the day after the ceremony. Joseph was

at the dock to greet Emma as she disembarked from the Maid of Iowa.

92+

Joseph was sealed to three additional plural wives that same month

of May 1843: fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball and sisters Sarah and

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 157

++++

Emily Young, “Diary and Reminiscences,” 1.

Emily Young, “Incidents in the Life of a Mormon Girl,” 185.

Emily Young, “Diary and Reminiscences,” 1.

***

Reorganized Church v. Church of Christ, questions 18, 23.

****

Lucy Walker Kimball, quoted in Lyman O. Littlefield, Reminiscences of

Latter-day Saints (Logan: Utah Journal Co., 1888), 46–48, quoting Lucy Walker

(“L W”) Kimball, Statement, n.d., typescript, LDS Church History Library.

Littlefield, Reminiscences of Latter-day Saints, 46-48; Smith, Nauvoo

Polygamy, 192–93.

Maria Lawrence.

93++

Presumably many of the elements were the same in

their cases: a private conversation, invocation of God’s authority, and the

need for secrecy. Also in May, Joseph had the opportunity to spend conju-

gal time with Benjamin Johnson’s sister, Almera. In April, Johnson had re-

corded in a later reminiscence, “the Prophet again Came [to Macedonia]

and at my house occupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the

month previous [March] he had occupied with the Daughter of the Late

Bishop Partridge as his wife.”

94+++

According to William Clayton’s record, Jo-

seph spent two daysand nights (May 16–18, 1843) at the Johnson home.

95++++

RESISTANCE TO PLURAL MARRIAGE

Not everyone accepted Joseph’s restoration of “all things.” Some

women would reject his (or anyone’s) arguments. Some men disagreed

with Joseph’s administration of the “principle” or argued that secret plu-

ral wives were irredeemably at odds with the behavior appropriate to a

Christiancommunity.In1838OliverCowderybrokewithJosephin

Kirtland and Missouri, at least partly because of revulsion at Joseph’s inti-

macy with Fanny Alger.

96*

Cordelia C. Morley reported that “in the spring of ’44, Plural mar-

riage was introduced to me by my pearents” after “Joseph Smith ask[ed]

theirconsent”and“requestedmetobehiswife...I[k]newnothingofsuch

religion and could not [ac]cept it[,] neither did I.” She was, however, sealed

158 The Journal of Mormon History

He also, that month, underwent a second ceremony with the Par-

tridge sisters. After complicated negotiations and resistance, Emma had

agreed that he could marry two plural wives but she would choose them.

She selected the Partridge sisters, apparently not knowing that he had al-

ready married them. The sisters loyally kept Joseph’s double secret. Emily

Young, “Diary and Reminiscences,” 2, 6, and her “Incidents in the Life of a

Mormon Girl,” 183–86.

+++

Benjamin F. Johnson, in Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 43–44.

++++

Smith, Intimate Chronicle, 101–4.

Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey, eds., The William E. McLellin Papers:

1854–1880 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2007), 483–95; Van Wagoner,

Mormon Polygamy, 5–12, 225 note 7; Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 25–42. Dur-

ing Smith’s lifetime, nine of the original twelve apostles had left the fold,

mostly in 1838 and 1839 and mostly over financial and Church governance is-

sues, partly over rumors about Joseph’s housegirl; threecame back. D. Michael

Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books

in association with Smith Research Associates, 1994), 465–66.

to him after his death, with her husband, Walter Cox, acting as proxy.

97**

In a similar vein, Rachel Ridgeway Ivins Grant evaded Joseph’s antici-

pated proposal. Her son, Heber J. Grant (LDS Church president, 1918–

45), who has earned the reputation of a forthright commentator, describ-

ed how his mother, Rachel Ridgeway Ivins Grant, in about 1842 deflected

Joseph’s anticipated proposal of plural marriage by simply avoiding him.

Sheexplainedtohersonthatshehadfeltshewould“soonergotohellasa

virtuous woman than to heaven as a whore.” Her unambiguous assessment

of Joseph’s principle of “celestial marriage” is found in a 1936 letter that

President Grant wrote to a national Boy Scout leader. However, like Cord-

elia, Rachel consented to be sealed to Joseph after his death.

98***

Sarah Melissa Granger Kimball, whose husband, Hiram, was not a

Mormon, rejected Joseph’s effort in early 1842 to teach her about plural

marriage. This prominent Nauvoo (and later Salt Lake) Relief Society sis-

ter plainly advised Joseph to “teach it to someone else.”

99****

More serious was Nancy Rigdon’s rejection of the Prophet’s pro-

posal because she made her rejection public. John C. Bennett, who by

then had split with Smith, published a letter in the Sangamo Journal July 8,

1842, reporting that Joseph had “attempted to seduce Miss Nancy Rig-

don” to become “one of his clandestine wives” while claiming authority

“in the name of the Lord.”

100+

This first of eight such letters could not

have been more damaging. On July 15, Bennett also sent to the Sangamo

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 159

Cordelia Morley Cox, Autobiographical Statement, March 17,

1909, Perry Special Collections.

***

Heber J. Grant, Letter to Ray O. Wyland, December 12, 1936, LDS

Church History Library. According to Grant, Brigham Young did not allow

Heber’s biological father, Jedediah, to be sealed to Heber’s mother, Rachel,

“for eternity, because [Brigham Young] had instructions from the Prophet

that if anything happened to him [Smith] before he was married to Rachel

Ivins she must be sealed to him for eternity,” that she “belonged” to him.

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 233.

****

Sarah Melissa Granger Kimball maintained her marriage to Hiram.

Joseph Smith later accused Hiram of “insinuating evil against the prophet”

and pronounced: Hiram “shall be accursed.” Quoted in Van Wagoner, Mor-

mon Polygamy, 43–44. See also Sarah M. Kimball’s testimony in Jenson, “Plu-

ral Marriage,” 232; History of the Church, 5:12–13.

100

John C. Bennett, “Astounding Disclosures! Letters from Gen.

Bennett, ” June 27, 1842, to Sangamo Journal, July 8, 1842. Smith, Nauvoo Po-

lygamy, 122.

Journal Martha Brotherton’s affidavit of Joseph’s unsuccessful effort to

persuade her to marry Brigham Young.

101++

Such adverse publicity went

beyond a woman’s resistance to Joseph’s proposals. Bennett’s publica-

tions represented an internal revolt that would ignite and, within two

years, engulf Nauvoo in tragedy.

ENIAL, REVOLT, TRAGEDY

There is a reason we know as little as we do about Nauvoo celestial

marriage: It was never discussed openly among the insiders and was al-

ways denied to outsiders. The official 1835 “statement on marriage” set

the tone of a “one-wife” policy in a collection of doctrinal statements to

accompany Joseph’s revelations. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants pub-

lished in Ohio reads: “As this church [has] been reproached with fornica-

tion and polygamy; we declare that one man should have one wife: and

one woman but one husband” (D&C 101) and was repeated in the Times

and Seasons,October1,1842.InFebruary1843,Josephbegantoresume

contracting plural marriages after a six-month hiatus caused by the Ben-

nett furor. Simultaneously, he outfaced the Relief Society, among whom

were several of his plural wives:

There is a great noise in the city, and many are saying there cannot

be so much smoke without some fire. Well, be it so. If the stories

about Joe Smith are true, then the stories of John C. Bennett are

true about the ladies of Nauvoo; and he says that the Ladies’ Relief

Society are all organized of those who are to be the wives of Joe

Smith. Ladies, you know whether this is true or not. It is no use liv-

ing among hogs without a snout. This biting and devouring each

other....ForGod’ssake,stopit.

102+++

In May 1844, only a month before his death, Joseph responded to a chal-

lenge from his own community by continuing his policy of public denial:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and hav-

160 The Journal of Mormon History

101

John C. Bennett, “MISS BROTHERTON’S STATEMENT, St. Lou-

is, July 13, 1842,” Sangamo Journal, July 22, 1842; Bennett, “5th LETTER

FROM GEN. BENNETT, STEAMER IMPORTER, July 23, A. D. 1842,”

Sangamo Journal, August 19, 1842. Bennett also in this August 19 letter iden-

tified another of Joseph’s plural wives, Louisa Beaman by initials and aster-

isks but identified her by name in his book, History of the Saints, published

that fall. For Brotherton, see also Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 264–72.

+++

102

History of the Church, 5:286.

ing sevenwives,when I can find only one,” he scoffed from the pulpit.

103++++

Joseph Smith uniformly avoided any mention of plural marriages in

his diaries, either his own or those of the thirty or so men with whom he

shared the “privilege.” However, one reference has survived, thanks to

scribe Thomas Bullock, who added a list of eight marriages to Joseph’s

1843 journal, beginning with: “Apr 42 Marinda Johnson to Joseph

Smith.”

104*

Since concurrent marriages were contrary to Illinois law and

public reports would have undoubtedly been embarrassing for a religious

figure, participants vigorously denied rumors on the subject. Zina Hun-

tingtonJacobsacknowledgedin1898,“Ineverbreatheditforyears....

[W]e hardly dared speak of it. The very walls had ears. We spoke of it only

in whispers.”

105**

The History of the Church, compiled in part from Joseph’s

diaries, therefore also excluded polygamy from its pages.

However, the picture of plural marriage reconstructed from later

sources, when matched against contemporary records, corroborates this

elaborate picture of unannounced complex families. For example, on

September 20, 1843, Joseph’s scribe, Willard Richards, records only that

Joseph “rode out to his farm” with Hyrum. The History of the Church reads

“visited my farm, accompanied by my Brother Hyrum.”

106***

Unrecorded is

the fact that Hyrum sealed Joseph that day to the farmer’s daughter, Me-

lissa Lott, by my count Joseph’s thirty-third plural wife. When Brigham

performed Joseph’s sealing on June 29, 1842, to Eliza R. Snow, the His-

tory of the Church reports that Joseph “rode out in the City on business,

with Brigham Young.”

107****

A more authoritative version of the History of

the Church will include Joseph’s celestial marriages.

Thegapbetweenthepublicfaceofmonogamyandtheprivateface

of secret plural marriages continued to widen. On July 12, 1843, Joseph

dictated the revelation now canonized as LDS Doctrine and Covenants

132 authorizing plural marriage. While some of Joseph’s inner circle, in-

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 161

++++

103

Ibid., 6:408–11, May 26, 1844.

104

Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 396; in Smith, Nauvoo Polyg-

amy, Appendix B, 573–656, an asterisk marks the male polygamist’s name

of those in Joseph Smith’s “inner circle.”

105

John W. Wight, “Evidence from Zina D. Huntington Young,”

Saints Herald (January 11, 1905), 28–30, quoted in Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy,

78 note 58.

***

106

Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 415; History of the Church,

6:35, September 20, 1843.

****

107

Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 2:395; History of the Church, 5:49.

cluding Hyrum, felt that written sanction for the secret marriages would

quiet dissent, others saw it as a confession of culpability.

William Law was among the latter. He and his brother, Wilson, suc-

cessful merchants, had financed many of Nauvoo’s real estate purchases

and other commercial projects. Having been called into Joseph’s First

Presidency in January 1841 (D&C 124:91), William defended Joseph

against Bennett’s attack in 1842. But when Joseph’s announcement of a

revelation in 1843 effectively admitted what he had been denying, Law

felt disillusioned. He obtained a copy of the revelation from Hyrum, then

asked Joseph for confirmation. According to Law’s later reminiscence,

Josepharguedthatmonogamy“wasgivenwhenthechurchwasinitsin-

fancy, [and] then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is

necessary to give them strong meat.”

108+

Law found this argument unper-

suasive, but his own efforts to dissuade Joseph from continuing the prac-

tice of plural marriage were unsuccessful. On May 23, 1844, Law charged

SmithinHancockCountyCircuitCourtwith“livinginanopenstateof

adultery” with Maria Lawrence from October 12, 1843, to May 23, 1844.

She, and her sister, Sarah, were, in fact, plural wives. Joseph was their own

choice as guardian and was court-appointed co-executor of their father’s

estate. Hyrum and Law had co-signed bonds as Joseph’s surety for proper

fulfillment of his fiduciary responsibilities.

109++

Law hired Sylvester Emmons, a respected non-Mormon member of

theNauvooCityCouncil,toeditanewnewspaper,theNauvoo Expositor.

Although Joseph questioned the sincerity of the dissenters’ moral objec-

tionsandtheirstandinginthecommunity,atleastsomeofthemwereun-

questionably prominent in Church and civic affairs.

110+++

Thefirstissueap-

peared on June 7 containing evidence about Smith’s secret marriages. Jo-

sephreactedquickly.Asmayor,heurgedthecitycounciltodeclarethe

Expositor a “nuisance,” then had the city marshal “abate” it. It was an error

in judgment since, almost uniformly, the act was seen as an attack on free-

162 The Journal of Mormon History

108

Lyndon W. Cook, William Law: Biographical Essay, Nauvoo Diary, Cor-

respondence, and Interview (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1994), 119, 127–29.

109

Gordon A. Madsen, “Joseph Smith as Guardian: The Lawrence Es-

tate Case,” Journal of Mormon History 35, no. 3 (Summer 2010): 172–211, us-

ing the case files preserved in Adams County, Illinois, demonstrates that

Smith fulfilled this responsibility carefully and generously, not even taking

the expenses to which he was entitled.

+++

110

Joseph Smith, Letter to Thomas Ford, June 14, 1844, in History of

the Church, 6:466–67; Jessee, Personal Writings, 602.

dom of the press. Illinois authorities arrested Joseph on charges of “riot”

(destroying the paper without notifying its owners of the accusations and

hearing their defense) and “treason” (marshalling the Nauvoo Legion be-

fore he submitted to arrest).

111++++

He and Hyrum were jailed and shot by a

mob that broke into their cell. Two years later, the Mormons (other than Jo-

seph’s family) were expelled from Illinois.

NSTITUTIONAL FORGETTING

Although completing the temple and expanding polygamy served

to establish Brigham Young as a successful leader, and even though pro-

tected by the remote location of Utah, it was not until 1852 that the

Church openly acknowledged the practice of plural marriage; still, it

made no effort to write the silent history of Mormon polygamy in Nau-

voo. It was not until Joseph and Emma’s sons flatly denied the Nauvoo or-

igins of polygamy that a more thorough response was seen as necessary.

Starting in 1869, Apostle Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum’s son and the future

sixth LDS Church president, collectedseventy-five affidavits from dozens

of women who were plural wives to Joseph and other men in Nauvoo. Jo-

seph III, leader of the RLDS Church, remained unconvinced, especially

since his mother, close to the end of her life, carefully explained that she

had been Joseph’s only wife, a statement that was, in the legal sense, pre-

cisely true. In an 1879 interview by her son, Joseph III, she stated that “no

such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or pri-

vately, before my husband’s death, that I have now, or ever had any knowl-

edgeof....Iknowthathehadnootherwifeorwivesthanmyself,inany

sense, either spiritual or otherwise.”

112*

However, the connection between Nauvoo celestial marriage and

Joseph Smith’s death remained absent from the Church’s official history

of Nauvoo. The Nauvoo phase, with its difficult pattern of deception, de-

nial, and secrecy, was institutionally forgotten; and the official story con-

centratedonpolygamyasalimitedpracticeintheWest.Whenasked

about Mormon polygamy on national television in 1998, the fifteenth

Church president, Gordon B. Hinckley, dismissed Nauvoo’s historical im-

portance: “When our people came west, they permitted [polygamy] on a

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 163

++++

111

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 432–37.

112

Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 301–2, quoting “The Memoirs

of President Joseph Smith [III], 1832–1914,” Saints’ Herald, April 2, 1935,

432; Joseph Smith III, “The Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald,

October1, 1879, 289–90; also in the Saints’ Advocate, October 1879, 49–52.

restricted scale.” He did not acknowledge how important the “law of ce-

lestial marriage” had been for the Church’s founder and his inner circle

of followers, both in Nauvoo and later in nineteenth-century Utah.

113**

Bracketed with slavery as “twin relics of barbarism” by the 1856 Re-

publican platform, polygamy was always offensive to the Reorganized

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Community of Christ) and,

after about 1904, an embarrassment to Utah Mormons struggling to fit

into the national mainstream. Neighbors of the Latter-day Saints found

this deviation from Christian monogamy to be alien and repellent. Saints

not part of the inner circle who had to deal with rumors and public deni-

als faced difficult situations when polygamy was concerned. Although

American girls not infrequently married in their early teens, the age dif-

ference between such young women and their older Nauvoo husbands

was problematic for some. Joseph, for example, was age thirty-five to

thirty-seven when he married his plural wives. Another difficulty was Jo-

seph’s marriage to already-married women.

114

164 The Journal of Mormon History

Right, Joseph Smith as Lieutenant-General of

the Nauvoo Legion. Painting by John Hafen,

one of the LDS Church’s “art missionaries”

who studied at the Academie Julian in Paris

in the 1890s.

Left, Emma Hale

Smith, the long-

suffering first wife

of Joseph Smith.

113

Gordon B. Hinckley, interviewed on Larry King Live, CNN broad-

cast, September 8, 1998, quoted in “On the Record: ‘We Stand for Some-

thing,’” Sunstone, December 1998, 70–72; “Hinckley Attacks Polygamy on

National TV,” Salt Lake Tribune, September 9, 1998, A1.

These issues did not disappear in the broader spectrum of Nauvoo

polygamy. About a third of Nauvoo’s plural wives (including Joseph’s)

were in their teens,

***

one-fifth of them under age eighteen. Thirty were fif-

teen, twenty-one were fourteen (including one and perhaps two of Jo-

seph’s wives), and four were thirteen (wives of James Allred, Peregrine

Sessions, Daniel Spencer, and Thomas Woolsey). According to Juanita

Brooks, John D. Lee married a twelve-year-old, Mary Ann Williams. In

fact, because the date of her sealing is not known, she may have been

eleven.

115****

Lee recalls Brigham Young saying that he and Isaac Haight

needed “some young women to renew our vitality, so he gave us both a

dashing young bride.”

116+

These nineteenth-century events have no official existence. The

LDS curriculum for Relief Society and Melchizedek Priesthood manuals,

Teachings of Presidents of the Church, a series that began in 1997, have dealt

with six Church presidents, four of whom were polygamists: Brigham

Young, Joseph Smith, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff. The text, how-

ever, was edited to eliminate any direct references to “wives.” The intro-

duction to the Joseph Smith manual explains that it has been configured

to deal with Joseph Smith’s teachings “that have application to our day”

and hence does not discuss “the law of consecration” or “plural mar-

riage.”

117++

Regardless, Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo polygamy became the foun-

dation for Mormonism’s most distinctive practice.

GEORGE D. SMITH/STORY OF NAUVOO MARRIAGE 165

***

114

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, xvi, 51.

****

115

Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, Appendix B, 604, 646 note 213.

116

John D. Lee, Mormonism Unveiled: Or the Life and Confessions of the

Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee (St. Louis: Bryan, Brand & Co., 1877), 289.

117

This explanation continues by dating “the doctrines and principles

relating to plural marriage” to “as early as 1831,” then states carefully: “The

Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such mar-

riages were performed during his lifetime.” This sentence stops short of ac-

knowledging that Joseph himself was the most enthusiastic practitioner of

plural marriage in Nauvoo. The same caution aboutdescribing Church presi-

dents as personally involved in the practice continues: “Over the next several

decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Jo-

seph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural

marriage” until the 1890 Manifesto of Wilford Woodruff “discontinued plu-

ralmarriage....TheChurch...nolongerpracticespluralmarriage.”

“Introduction,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake

City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), xii.

FROM FINLAND TO ZION:

MMIGRATION TO UTAH

IN THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

Kim B. Östman

And from year to year we see these free men and women of almost

all nations leaving their native countries, their relatives and

friends, and with songs of joy embarking on their journey to the

inner part of the American continent, to the Rocky Mountains in

the West. —Nordstjernan [North Star], January 3, 1877

How many noble seeds of Christianity has not the awful Mor-

monism suffocated, while robbing the deceived of native country,

family happiness and other precious gifts! —Finland, November

19, 1886

“W

E MAY SOON EXPECT TO SEE flocking to this place, people from ev-

ery land and from every nation,” announced an 1840 proclamation

by the Mormon First Presidency in Nauvoo, Illinois. The document

166

* KIM B. ÖSTMAN {[email protected]i} is a doctoral student of com-

parative religion at Åbo Akademi University, Finland, finalizing his disser-

tation The Introduction of Mormonism to Finnish Society, 1840–1903, a senior

advisor at the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council, and one of the

founders of the European Mormon Studies Association (EMSA). He would

appreciate any contact from descendants of Finnish Mormon immigrants

to Utah or others with further information on the topic. An earlier version

of this article was published as “Suomesta Siioniin: Mormonisiirtolaisuus

Utahiin 1800-luvulla,” Siirtolaisuus—Migration 34, no. 4 (2007): 12–19.

continued by providing some examples of these people: “The pol-

ished European, the degraded Hottentot, and the shivering Lap-

lander; persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every

color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in His holy tem-

ple and offer up their orisons in His sanctuary.”

1**

These words by

Joseph Smith and his associates clearly articulate that Mormon-

ism’s future was not to be an insular matter. To the contrary, the

scope of their vision was worldwide.

Furthermore, this statement is notable in that, unlike other reli-

gious expansion plans, the Mormons did not explicitly focus on hav-

ing their missionaries plant churches in various parts of the world.

While such international influence was a natural product of the nec-

essary proselytizing and resulting conversions, Mormonism focused

on encouraging the new converts to physically move to the Church

headquarters in and around Nauvoo. This immigration to a desig-

nated centerplace was based on the doctrine of “the gathering” of

God’s chosen people to Zion, a holy city. For believers obeying this

doctrine, moving away from home signified an end to personal dias-

pora and a reunification with one’s real kinfolk. This departure from

exile in “the world” (or Babylon) and movement to an idealized home

in which they could fully realize their religious views is a notable ex-

ample of what was later termed “utopian migration.” In a sense, the

success of early Mormon proselytizing was measured, not in setting

up branches abroad, but in removing the converts from their native

lands.

2***

Mormon emigration from Europe began in 1840 from the Brit-

ish Isles with the destination of Nauvoo.

3****

Joseph Smith’s violent

death in 1844 and the forced Mormon exodus of the largest group,

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 167

Joseph Smith et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts, 7 vols., 2d ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret

Book, 1980 printing), 4:213.

***

David M. Morris, “The Rhetoric of the Gathering and Zion: Consis-

tency through Change, 1831–1920,” International Journal of Mormon Studies

1, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 157.

****

For a general view of the maritime nature of this immigration, see

Conway B. Sonne, Saints on the Seas: A Maritime History of Mormon Migration

(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1983). “Immigration” refers to en-

tering a country with the intent of taking up permanent residence; “emigra-

tion” refers to leaving one’s country (or home city) to takeup residence else-

led by Brigham Young to the American West, impeded the leader-

ship’s hopes of globalism for a while. However, increased proselytiz-

ing in European nations soon brought thousands of converts to the

new Zion—Salt Lake City and its environs. Such converts were an im-

portant part of the life-blood of Mormonism during the second half

of the nineteenth century, decades during which the Mormons also

coped with internal schism, apostasy, and federal pressures to stop

plural marriage, and the struggles attendant upon establishing self-

sustaining colonies throughout their culture region. An estimated

85,000 or more Latter-day Saints worldwide emigrated to America in

the nineteenth century.

The momentous import of this dynamic for

Mormonism’s future and its thoughtworld becomes clear in light of

the fact that total Church membership in 1900 was only about

284,000.

5++

The Nordic countries were one of the most important sources

of Mormon immigrants. Numerically superseded only by the Brit-

ish Isles, William Mulder estimates that nearly 23,000 Latter-day

Saints left Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland between 1850

and 1905.

6+++

Indeed, reflecting on Mormon proselytizing success in

the Nordic countries, one Finnish newspaper in 1879 reported that

the Nordic countries “enjoy[ed] the questionable honor of being the

Mormon peddlers’ best fishery.”

7++++

According to Mulder, 56 percent

of the Nordic Mormon immigrants were Danish, with Sweden and

Norway contributing 32 and 11 percent, respectively. Icelanders

were “a fraction.”

Considering that 46,497 persons converted in

Scandinavia during those years and even factoring in a significant

disaffiliation rate, it becomes clear that immigration was an im-

168 The Journal of Mormon History

where.

Ibid., xi, 137.

RodneyStark, The Rise of Mormonism, edited by Reid L. Neilson (New

York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 144. The membership total in-

cludes many of the American-born descendants of the earlier immigrants,

further increasing the impact of the immigrants.

+++

William Mulder, Homeward to Zion: The Mormon Migration from Scan-

dinavia (1957; rpt., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 107.

++++

“Mormonerna i Skandinawien,” Helsingfors, November 1, 1879, 3.

All translations of non-English sources in this article are mine.

Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 107. In contrast, Leonard J. Arrington

and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints,2d

mensely important feature of Mormonism in nineteenth-century

Scandinavia.

Not much has been said concerning the place of Finland in Mor-

mon immigration. Of the studies concerning early Mormonism in

Finland, only those of Anna-Liisa Rinne and Zachary R. Jones explic-

itly discuss such emigration.

9**

Mulder, in his classic study on Scandi-

navian Mormon emigration, does not mention Finland. Whether this

is because Mulder considered Finland to be outside Scandinavia or

due to a lack of research is not clear.

However, some nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint converts,

motivated by their newfound faith, emigrated from Finland to the

Mormon Zion in Utah. For the purposes of this article, I include both

those who were converted to Mormonism in Finland and left for Utah

and those who were already Mormons when they moved to Finland,

lived there for a considerable time, and then immigrated to Utah.

Thus, they may or may not be Finnish natives. Their number is small—

only fourteen—making the group minuscule in comparison with the

other three Scandinavian countries’ contribution to Mormon migra-

tion.

10***

However,whilethenumberisverylow,theexistenceoftheim-

migration phenomenon confirms that the Mormon doctrine of “the

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 169

ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 136, estimate that more

than 30,000 Mormons emigrated from Scandinavia during the nineteenth

century. Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 102, estimates more than 30,000 by

1905, including the children of immigrant Mormons. Iceland also played a

small role in this immigration. Fred E. Woods, Fire on Ice: The Story of Icelan-

dic Latter-day Saints at Home and Abroad (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies

Center, 2005).

Anna-Liisa Rinne, Kristuksen kirkko Suomessa: Kertomus Myöhempien

Aikojen Pyhien Jeesuksen Kristuksen Kirkon juurtumisesta tähän maahan [The

Church of Christ in Finland: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-

ter-day Saints Taking Root in this Country] (Turku: n.p., 1986), 10; and

Zachary R. Jones, “Conversion amid Conflict: Mormon Proselytizing in

Russian Finland, 1861–1914,” Journal of Mormon History 35, no. 3 (Summer

2009): 35–36; and his “Conflict amid Conversion: Mormon Proselytizing in

Russian Finland, 1860–1914” (M.A. thesis, College of William and Mary,

2008), 47.

***

Jones, “Conversion amid Conflict,” 36, identifies the Blom family,

discussed below, as being “one family of twelve” that emigrated from a spe-

cific branch; this was actually the only family to emigrate. Apart from those

gathering” was taught and to some extent practiced evenin Finland.

In this article, I analyze Mormon emigration from Finland as

one response to the introduction of Mormonism to nineteenth-cen-

tury Finnish society. First, I discuss the ideological foundation and

context of the phenomenon, addressing questions such as why Mor-

mon emigration occurred and how it functioned in practice. Second,

I chart related conditions in Finland during the second half of the

nineteenth century, including the general practice of immigration to

North America. This is followed by a presentation and analysis of the

Mormon emigrants from Finland, along with an account of their var-

ied journeys and circumstances. Finally, I explore images of and soci-

etal attitudes toward Mormon immigration, also contrasting them

with attitudes about emigration from Finland in general.

EASONS FOR AND CONSEQUENCES OF MORMON IMMIGRATION

Why did the Mormons have to gather to a centerplace? Was it

not sufficient to accept the gospel and continue living in their native

land while building up a local community of Saints? The mission

newspaper, Nordstjernan (North Star) replied: “The answer to this

query is unequivocally no. The purposes of the Almighty cannot be

fulfilled in any other way than through a real gathering of his peo-

ple.”

11****

Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton suggest in their history

of Mormonism three reasons for such a stance in the nineteenth cen-

tury.First,therewassimplystrengthinnumbers.Second,individual

Latter-day Saints living in their native communities could easily be-

come targets of persecution and the temptations present in a fallen

and perverted society. Joining with other Saints in building a utopian

Zion society, they could be spared from such difficulties and be

strengthened in the faith.

12+

Such reasons focused on the conse-

quences of gathering (or not gathering) from a religious frame of

reference.

170 The Journal of Mormon History

individuals discussed in this article, some Finns that converted outside Fin-

land emigrated directly from their country of residence. Interestingly, a sig-

nificantly higher number of Finnish Latter-day Saints immigrated to North

America after World War II, when the doctrine of the gathering was no lon-

ger actively taught and when LDS Church leaders openly discouraged immi-

gration. Rinne, Kristuksen kirkko Suomessa, 171–74.

****

“Insamlingen,” Nordstjernan 9, no. 3 (February 1, 1885): 38.

Arrington and Bitton, The Mormon Experience, 128.

Perhaps most significantly, however, gathering was also defined

as the religious duty of the truly converted. An 1831 revelation to Jo-

seph Smith declared that God mandated such a practice:

Go ye out from among the nations, even from Babylon, from the midst

ofwickedness,whichisspiritualBabylon....Sendforththeeldersof

my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the

sea;sendforthuntoforeignlands;calluponallnations....Goyeforth

intothelandofZion...beholdandlo,theBridegroomcometh;goye

outtomeethim....Watch,therefore,foryeknowneitherthedaynor

the hour. Let them, therefore, who are among the Gentiles flee unto

Zion (D&C 133:8–12, 14; order of verses altered).

This revelation was received before the Mormons proselytized

outside North America. However, it later provided impetus to take

the new movement to the British Isles in 1837 and subsequently to

other parts of Europe and the world. The revelation communicates a

millenarian perspective and bifurcates the world into Saints (the Mor-

mons) in Zion and Gentiles (everyone else) in Babylon. Mormon mis-

sionaries were to go out and convert “the elect” in all nations, who

were to leave their homes in Babylon and gather to Zion, away from

the scattering or diaspora. Only there could they properly prepare to

meet Jesus Christ when He made His imminent return. Immigration

and settlement in Zion were thus seen as the pinnacle of the conver-

sion experience and as a gateway into more committed Sainthood. In

this, Mormons appear to have recognized the later theoretical insight

of sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann about the rela-

tive insignificance of mere conversion.

13++

Soon after baptism, every

true Saint would be “influenced by the inner wish to gather home to

Zion,” and to pursue this course with all legal means should be “one

of his life’s most important objects and tasks, until it is achieved.”

14+++

Once in Utah, the immigrants became part of the local commu-

nity and congregation, full participants in building a temporal and

spiritual Zion society through their own daily work and religious con-

victions. Arrival in Utah also meant that the converts were usually

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 171

Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of

Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966; rpt., Harmondsworth,

England: Pelican Books, 1987), 177.

+++

“Öfverensstämmelse i Guds verks angelägenheter,” Nordstjernan 5,

no. 10 (May 15, 1881): 152.

rebaptized and reconfirmed, as if to wash the filth of Babylon off for

good. As with the converts’ original baptisms, the purpose of rebapt-

ism was to cleanse the person from his or her sins. Mormon apostle

Orson Pratt explained in 1875 that “every member of the Church

from distant parts” was to be rebaptized “on arriving here” and, once

rebaptized, “set out anew by renewing their covenants.” The policy

was reaffirmed in 1888.

15++++

On the individual level, immigration was a mixed experience.

Some felt that they had indeed found the promised Zion in Utah, a

place where they could sit at the feet of God’s prophets and live their

religion to the fullest. They enjoyed their Mormon community and

the opportunities it gave to them. For these people, immigration be-

came the life-changing climax of their conversion and confirmed that

they were participating in millennial preparations and the building of

the true kingdom of God on earth. It was through these people that

Mormon society in Utah was able to grow and become solidified.

From Utah, they often wrote back to friends and family in their native

lands, describing their journeys, explaining the warm welcome that

awaited converts in Zion, and urging others to follow them. C. F.

Olsen,forexample,whohadservedamissiontoScandinavia,wrote

in July 1886 from his “beloved mountain home” in Hyrum, Utah, after

completing his mission. He described how he was warmly welcomed

back by “family and friends and the village’s music corps, who all

sought to make my return as comfortable as possible.”

16*

Thetoneof

these letters from America may have been positive because of the

tight link between faith and immigration. The immigrants did not

want to mention the negative aspects of their new lives and surround-

ings or suggest that they may have made a mistake in immigrating,

since such a change would reflect on the strength of their faith. Such

missionaries also had superior status as “elders from Zion” when they

served missions in their native lands; native Church members re-

garded them as more experienced in the ways of Mormonism.

172 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols.

(London and Liverpool: LDS Booksellers Depot, 1854–86), 2:8–9; Orson

Pratt, July 18, 1875, ibid., 18:160; Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright,

“‘They Shall Be Made Whole’: A History of Baptism for Health,” Journal of

Mormon History 34, no. 4 (Fall 2008): 96.

C. F. Olsen, letter to N. C. Flygare, July 20, 1886, Nordstjernan 10,

no. 16 (August 15, 1886): 250–52.

However, some immigrants became disillusioned in Utah.

Their letters home concerned dictatorial religious leaders and decep-

tive promises made by the missionaries who had converted them.

Some of these individuals abandoned their faith and moved away

from Utah to other places in the United States. Some even made the

arduous return journey to their lands of origin. John Ahmanson, for

example, was a young enthusiastic convert from Denmark who first

proselytized for his new faith in Scandinavia and immigrated to Utah

in 1856. As if the perilous sea journey had not been enough, Ahman-

son was in the Willie handcart company that encountered winter

snows, actual starvation, and a serious death rate en route. Such trials

further solidified the faith of some. Ahmanson, however, eventually

felt repelled by polygamy and by practices spearheaded by Brigham

Young that he saw as a despotic plot to bring in money to the top lead-

ership. Disappointed and disillusioned, Ahmanson and his wife left

Utah and “ended up in Omaha, where they spent their life’s evening

in peace and calm.”

17**

Some of the disillusioned felt unable to leave Utah, either be-

cause of family pressures or because of a lack of means. Norwegian

Lutheran pastor Andreas Mortensen painted a grim view based on

his dealings with such people while he visited Utah: “Many wept as

they reported how they had been deceived. The land ‘with milk and

honey’ became for them a place of suffering and need. Not a few

came to me and said: ‘Help us to get home again! Yes, at least help us

to the States!’”

18***

Although the feelingsofthese peopleare usuallyde-

picted in works critical of the Mormons, such as Mortensen’s, and

maybeone-sidedandexaggerated(justassomereportsbythefaith-

ful may be), they saw Zion as a nightmare, exceeding in depravity and

exploitation even what their trusted missionary mentors had termed

“Babylon.”

Expectations of Zion were created in letters, sermons, and Mor-

mon publications, especially periodicals and tracts. These texts were

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 173

Henrik Cavling, Amerika (Stockholm: Wilh. Silén, 1898), 461–67.

Ahmanson also wrote an exposé of Mormonism, Vor tids Muhamed [The

Mohammed of Our Time] (Omaha, Neb.: n. pub., 1876).

***

Andreas Mortensen, Mormonernas hemligheter: Werklighetsbilder från

Utah efter egen iakttagelse [The Mormons’ Secrets: Real Depictions of Utah

Based on Personal Observation] (Stockholm: C.A.V. Lundholms förlag,

1887), 210.

used both before and after conversion as tools to familiarize prospec-

tive converts and new Church members with Mormon doctrines. One

example of literature focusing exclusively on the topic of gathering

was Om Israels insamling och Zions förlossning [On the Gathering of Is-

rael and the Redemption of Zion] by Joseph W. Young, one of Brig-

ham Young’s sons. Used also in Finland, this treatise discussed both

doctrinal matters related to gathering and the world’s deplorable

present and future states. It was Young’s conviction that “God has

stretched his hand to gather the remnant of Israel on the American

continent, and that the time has come for the establishment and re-

demption of Zion.”

19****

Such juxtapositions of Zion and Babylon made

it clear that Zion was the place to be.

ThegatheringwasanimportantthemeinMormonperiodicals.

For the Finns, the Nordstjernan was the most prominent; and a staple

in its pages was instructions about emigration, notices of planned

dates of departure, and price lists of goods for the trip.

20+

It also in-

cluded reports of the departure of immigrant groups. In the summer

of 1878, for example, the Nordstjernan published this description of

emigrants leaving Copenhagen: “It was a beautiful sight to see the

proud ships gliding over the calm water in the strait, while the tones of

the Saints’ happy songs of departure were still heard.” The writer en-

couraged those staying behind to live their religion so that they,

sooner or later, would have the same opportunity to journey to Utah.

Stirring imagery and exhortations such as these contributed to the

expectations of the special and happy state that awaited believers in

Zion.

21++

Similarly, the prospective immigrants were assured of God’s

protection during the journey there. Because of the righteous nature

of their endeavor, then logically God would not let harm befall them.

In late 1889, the Nordstjernan headlinedanarticle:“TheLordProtects

His Saints.” After recounting an accident and the related rescue of

174 The Journal of Mormon History

****

Joseph W. Young, Om Israels insamling och Zions förlossning [On the

Gathering of Israel and the Redemption of Zion], 8th ed. (Köpenhamn:

N.C. Flygare, 1873), 16.

See, e.g., “Emigration,” Nordstjernan 2, no. 5 (March 1, 1878): 73;

“Emigrationen,” Nordstjernan 3, no. 9 (May 1, 1879): 136–37; and “Emigrat-

ionen,” Nordstjernan 4, no. 7 (April 1, 1880): 104–6.

“Emigranternas afgång,” Nordstjernan 2, no. 13 (July 1, 1878):

201–2.

Mormon immigrants in the American state of Virginia, the writer

summarized: “In connection herewith we wish to encourage the

SaintstopreparewithasacredmotivetogathertoZion....Over

those that travel there to serve their Creator the Father will keep his

protecting hand, and on the sea’s restless waves, they can without fear

trust the fragile planks of the ships that transport their valuable cargo

of human lives over the depths of the sea. They can then feel safe on

land and on sea, knowing that a loving Father’s eye watches over them

and that his angels lead them, and that he, as in this particular case,

can rescue them from the jaws of death itself.”

22+++

Central religious ideas are not only expressed in formal writing,

however. In addition to literature, they become pervasive in a culture

through other means such as music, stories, and poetry. So it was also

with immigration and the Mormon concept of Zion. One Finnish

newspaper reported, “One of the most beautiful thoughts in Mor-

monismisthethoughtofabeautifulplaceonearthwhere‘theSaints’

long to be. This longing is construed poignantly in the Mormons’

songs.”

23++++

On August 1, 1880, for example, the LDS congregation in

Larsmo sang: “Now thousands so desire to go to the land of promise;

God’sZionwillbebuiltthereandreachfromcoasttocoast.”Afew

months later, the congregation in neighboring Pietarsaari sang: “You

have longed to see Zion’s homeland.” The glory of Zion could also be

emphasized and brought into relief by imagery that celebrated the

freedom it brought from the evils of the world. Mormons in

Pietarsaari sang, from the Swedish hymnal: “Many are now released

out of prison, the battle is soon fought; Freed children of Israel jour-

ney to a gathering place in the West.”

24*

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 175

+++

“Herren beskyddar sina helige,” [The Lord Protects His Saints]

Nordstjernan 13, no. 20 (October 15, 1889): 312–13.

++++

“Bilder frång Amerika,” Vestra Nyland, February 5, 1889, 3. For an

example of immigration-related Mormon poetry, see “Betraktelser vid

emigranternas afresa,” Nordstjernan 6, no. 12 (June 15, 1882): 191–92.

See hymns 23, 150, and 139 in Jonas Engberg, Andeliga Sånger til

bruk för Jesu Christi Kyrkas Sista Dagars Helliga [Spiritual Songs to Be Used in

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], 3rd ed. (Köpenhamn: R. Pe-

terson, 1873). The meeting minutes of August 1, 1880, November 21, 1880,

and May 28, 1882, appear in Finland Branch Record, 1876–97, LDS Church

History Library, Salt Lake City.

THE CASE OF FINLAND

Large-scale general immigration from Finland to the United

States began in the 1870s—relatively late compared to immigration

from other Scandinavian nations. The literature describing motives

for such immigration frequently includes improved financial pros-

pects and hopes of better employment. By contrast, however, religion

has not been a very popular reason to immigrate.

25**

Analytically speaking, reasons for immigration can be divided

into factors that push people out of their native country and factors that

pullthemintothenewcountry.Onthe“push”sideoflatenine-

teenth-century Finland, the rapid numerical increase of the population

as a result of industrialization, improvements in medicine, and higher

levels of production in farming had created a human surplus that was

confronted with poor wages and lack of work. As a small country, Fin-

land also had little land left for those wishing to become farmers. Rea-

sons such as these made the option of seeking an improved life in na-

tions with available land and a need for workers attractive.

On the “pull” side, by the late 1800s it had become relatively easy

to immigrate to America due to improved methods of transporta-

tion, such as trains and steamships. The immigrant no longer had to

spend months on sailing ships and in wagons drawn by horses or

oxen. Promised prosperity in the United States along with enthusias-

tic letters by earlier immigrants created an “America fever” and gen-

erated powerful expectations of a better life to be had there.

26***

In-

deed, some felt that the excitement went too far. People were warned

against believing in depictions of America as “a land in which milk

andhoneyflowandwherefriedsparrowsflyintoaperson’smouthif

he only bothers to open it.” They were reminded that, in America too,

one would have to persevere in honest work to find prosperity.

27****

the nineteenth century progressed, a continuously increasing amount

of information about America was also available in Finland through

176 The Journal of Mormon History

But see Teuvo Peltoniemi, Kohti parempaa maailmaa: Suomalaisten

ihannesiirtokunnat 1700–luvulta nykypäivään [Toward a Better World: Finn-

ish Utopian Colonies from the 1700s to Today] (Helsinki: Otava, 1985),

14–21, 122–141, 195–203.

***

Reino Kero, Suureen länteen: Siirtolaisuus Suomesta Pohjois-Amer-

ikkaan [To the Great West: Migration from Finland to North America]

(Turku: Siirtolaisinstituutti, 1996), 41–42, 49.

****

“‘Till Amerika,’” Åbo Underrättelser, November 23, 1881, 2.

newspapers. This may have further reduced the obstacles against the

“pull” forces.

28+

It is safe to assume that the Mormons who emigrated from Fin-

land felt similar pushes and pulls. Apart from their religion, they

were like other individuals who had to deal with problems of earning

a living, working out relationships, and finding meaning in their

lives. But in their case, additional push and pull factors may be

added, chief among them religious impulses. One factor important

in pushing some Mormons out of Finland may have been its highly

regulated religious field. Finland was inhospitable to various foreign,

non-Lutheran or non-Orthodox religious movements before the Dis-

senter Act of 1889 and, to a diminished degree, before the Religious

Freedom Act of 1923. When converts found it was difficult to openly

practice their new religion, leaving became an attractive option, es-

pecially considering the pull of the new American Zion, God’s cho-

sen place of gathering. Combined with the generally rosy view about

opportunities in the United States, it is natural that some Mormons

felt disposed to emigrate.

It has also been suggested that the bipartite push/pull scheme

could be supplemented by “religious vision” in the case of the Mor-

mons. This paradigm is tied to the notion that the Mormon worldview

collapsed the distance between the sacred and the mundane, thus mak-

ing the two inseparable in the Mormon mind. As Polly Aird put it, for

the Mormons, “The world and the Bible were one. They were replicat-

ing the ancient stories, living in sacred time, partaking in God’s re-

stored church.” This religious vision became central in the decision to

emigrate, and all other reasons were religiously inflected.

29++

However,

it would seem that the reasons for emigration embraced by this reli-

gious vision paradigm may be similarly broken down into the tradi-

tional push and pull categories. Thus, despite the importance of reli-

gious influences, it is not fundamentally necessary to bring an addi-

tional new interpretive scheme into play for Mormon immigrants.

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 177

Keijo Virtanen, Atlantin yhteys: Tutkimus amerikkalaisesta kulttuur-

ista, sen suhteesta ja välittymisestä Eurooppaan vuosina 1776–1917 [The Atlan-

tic Connection: A Study of American Culture, Its Relationship and Media-

tion to Europe in the Years 1776–1917] (Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen

Seura, 1988), 131, 227–32.

Polly Aird, “Why Did the Scots Convert?,” Journal of Mormon History

26, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 122.

The period of most interest for this article is the 1880s, a decade

when the fourteen Mormons who are the focus of this article emi-

grated along with an estimated 35,000 Finns bound for America.

30+++

Most Finnish immigrants to the United States at this time traveled by

steamer from Hanko in southern Finland to Stockholm, Sweden.

From there the immigrants were divided into various routes, depend-

ing on the company from which they had purchased their tickets. For

the “English” route, immigrants continued their journey by rail or

ship to Gothenburg, Sweden, then by ship to Hull, England, by rail to

Liverpool, and over the Atlantic by steamship. Agents for German

companies routed the immigrants from Stockholm through Lübeck,

Germany, to Bremerhaven, where the transatlantic journey began.

The most common ports of arrival in the new world were New York,

Boston, and Quebec. From there immigrants reached their various

destinations, often by train, either alone or in a group with other trav-

elers.

31++++

Immigrating Mormons followeda similar route. Those traveling

from Sweden and Denmark would usually assemble at Copenhagen,

the Scandinavian Mission headquarters. From there they would travel

together as a company by steamer to Hull (the Norwegians traveled

thereintheirowngroupdirectlyfromNorway)andbyrailtoLiver-

pool, which was then headquarters for the European Mission and also

the most important transatlantic port.

32*

In Liverpool, Latter-day

Saints joined emigrant companies numbering hundreds of individu-

als, then boarded a steamer for New York.

33**

After the transcontinen-

tal railroad reached Utah in 1869, the final arduous leg of the journey

was comparatively quick and comfortable.

Compared to ordinary Finnish emigrants, however, the Mor-

mon experience was highly organized and programmed. Church

agents in various key cities were responsible for planning every step of

the journey and shepherding incoming immigrants to the next

178 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Kero, Suureen länteen, 54–55.

++++

Ibid., 86.

On the role of Hull, see Fred E. Woods and Nicholas J. Evans, “Lat-

ter-day Saint Scandinavian Migration through Hull, England, 1852–1894,”

BYU Studies 41, no. 4 (2002): 75–102.

As evidence of the size of these groups, “Metropolitan Mormons,”

New York Times, November 10, 1869, 1, reported that the Church was plan-

ning to erect a building in New York to receive European immigrants.

waypoint. The Mormons travelled together in large companies often

led by missionaries returning to Utah. The size of these organized im-

migrant companies gave the Church’s agents significant bargaining

power for rates when dealing with steamship companies.

34***

Church

agents established favorable long-term relationships with some com-

panies. For example, the transatlantic Guion Line agent’s mere word

was considered good enough: The Church’s close cooperation with

the company lasted for decades without a written contract.

35****

The in-

dividual immigrants were also protected from enterprising profiteers

who preyed on gullible foreigners with few language skills. Aboard

the transatlantic ships, Mormons held devotionals, singing hymns

and listening to sermons, while also becoming further socialized into

the ways of their new faith.

Mormon emigrants from Finland thus tapped into a system that

had been in place in various forms since 1840. While the journey was

still perilous to an extent, the high degree of organization meant that

they ran fewer risks than their compatriots who left privately. The

Church could also sometimes provide the immigrants with monetary

aid for their journey through its revolving Perpetual Emigrating

Fund. More significant for the Scandinavian Mormons, however,

were private funds and donations by earlier immigrants already estab-

lished in Utah.

36+

Mormon emigration from Finland coincided with concentrated

action by the U.S. government against the “Mormon problem.”

Utah’s theocratic, polygamy-espousing state-within-a-state was seen as

being in conflict with deeply held moral and political values of the

rest of America. In regards to immigration, the most notable develop-

ment transpired in 1879, when William Evarts, U.S. Secretary of

State, issued a note to his consuls, directing them to ask for coopera-

tion in their respective countries to stop emigrating Mormons, whom

he defined as potential new lawbreakers, from leaving their home-

lands to come to Utah. The request went largely unheeded and was

even ridiculed in some nations. In the Nordic countries, Sweden dis-

seminated information concerning the American stance toward Mor-

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 179

***

Richard L. Jensen, “Steaming Through: Arrangements for Mor-

mon Emigration from Europe, 1869–1887,” Journal of Mormon History 9

(1982): 5.

****

Ibid., 6–7.

Ibid., 16–17.

mons but stopped short of directly interfering with their emigra-

tion.

37++

It is not known what action Finland’s officials would have

taken, especially since no such emigration had yet taken place.

38+++

group of Mormon elders led by Nils Flygare, the returning mission

president who had originally sent the first missionaries to Finland in

1875, opined after the group’s arrival in New York in September 1879

that many people abroad could not believe “that anything so absurd”

as Evarts’s instructions could be seriously produced by the American

government.

39++++

labeled the matter “another crusade against the

Saints.” Interestingly, however, the Evarts note was less lamented than

pointed to as proof of Mormonism’s power. If the American govern-

ment had to appeal for foreign help in stopping the Mormons, it was

“but another testimony to [the Saints] of their growing reputation.”

40*

The U.S. government continued its legal action related to polygamy

during the 1880s, but it did not stop the flow of immigrants from for-

eign nations. As a result, the groups of Mormons of interest in this ar-

ticlewereabletoimmigratetotheirZion.

To bring their immigration into even deeper context, it should

also be mentioned that not all who immigrated from Finland to Utah

were Mormons. The mines around Scofield and Bingham Canyon,

Utah, for example, provided many opportunities for employment;

and many Finns immigrated there, though mostly in the early

1900s.

41**

Writing about his contemporary Finns residing in the

United States, Akseli Järnefelt commented that there are also “some

180 The Journal of Mormon History

Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 290–92. On Sweden’s reaction, see

“Åtgärder mot mormonismen,” Åbo Underrättelser, February 17, 1880, 3;

and “Mot mormonismen,” Åbo Underrättelser, March 10, 1880, 3.

+++

On contemporary publicity in Finland regarding the Evarts note,

see, for example, “Mormonutwandringen till Amerika,” Helsingfors, August

23, 1879, 3.

++++

“The Mormons Still Coming,” New York Times, September 17, 1879,

“Ett annat korståg mot de helige,” Nordstjernan 3, no. 17 (Septem-

ber 1, 1879): 264–67. See also “Förenta staternas regering och ‘mormonut-

vandringen,’” Nordstjernan, 3, no. 19 (October 1, 1879): 293–95, 300–301;

and “Spörsmålet om ’mormonernas’ invandring,” Nordstjernan 3, no. 21

(November 1, 1879): 328–31.

K-G Olin, Klippiga bergen [The Rocky Mountains] (Jakobstad, Fin-

ofourcitizensin...ParkCity,Provo,etc.”The“Mormonstate”was

thus not at all unknown to regular Finns.

42***

Naturally, religion was

the main factor separating Mormon immigration to Utah from more

general immigration from Finland.

HE EMIGRANTS

This article’s main source for identifying the Mormon emi-

grants from Finland has been the Church’s own membership record,

kept by the missionaries who served in Finland. I have augmented in-

formation from that record with such primary sources as local parish

and passport records, contemporary newspapers, U.S. census re-

cords, Utah death certificates, and the International Genealogical In-

dex (IGI), an LDS record of membership activities and temple

ordinances.

Moreover, I have consulted Mormon immigration compilations

such as the Scandinavian Mission Index and the Mormon Immigra-

tion Index. Despite these compilations’ value, however, in Finland’s

case it is essential to begin with the original membership record. The

compilations, based on contemporary passenger and immigration

records, often list the origin of Finnish immigrants as Sweden (dis-

guising their nationality) or as the Scandinavian mission’s “Stock-

holm Conference” (today’s equivalent of a mission district), the orga-

nizational unit to which all Mormons in Finland belonged. However,

it is also possible that the Finnish membership record is incomplete

for this period, either in its listed individuals or its emigration nota-

tions.

43****

Despite this potential shortcoming, the membership record

is the most important primary source.

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 181

land: Olimex, 1998), 148–74.

***

Akseli Järnefelt, Suomalaiset Amerikassa [Finns in America] (Hel-

sinki: Otava, 1899), 241. This book has a map (unpaginated) indicating the

location of Finns in the United States. On Finns in America more generally

at this time, see also A. William Hoglund, Finnish Immigrants in America,

1880–1920 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1960).

****

A handful of persons may, for example, be missing because of scri-

bal negligence. Jones, “Conversion amid Conf lict,” 3, identifies five

branches, but names six localities with congregations (19) in nineteenth-

century Finland. A membership record survives from only one—the Finland

Branch Record, 1876–97, LDS Church History Library. However, the bap-

tisms listed in that record were performed in various parts of the country

Following are brief biographical sketches of the fourteen

known Mormon emigrants from Finland, presented in alphabetical

order.

The Blom Family

Johan and Anna Margareta Blom were Swedes who converted to

Mormonism in Östhammar, Sweden, in 1878. When given the possibil-

ity of immigrating to Utah in 1880, they chose instead to follow the

Stockholm Conference president’s suggestion of moving to Finland

wherehesaidmissionaryworkwasdifficult.Apparently,hethought

that the family could help. Johan became a gardener at the Brödtorp

estate in Pohja, southern Finland. He did not hide his Mormonism and

consequently eventually served time in the Helsinki crown prison in

early 1886.

44+

In May 1886 the Blom family with their four living children (ages

one to eleven) left Finland and immigrated to Utah with other Lat-

ter-day Saints from Sweden. They traveled the usual route: Copenha-

gen, Hull, and Liverpool. The Bloms made the transatlantic journey

with 420 other Mormons on the Guion Line’s steamer Nevada and ar-

rived in New York City on July 7. Their company continued by train

from Jersey City via Chicago and Omaha, arriving in Ogden, Utah,

three days later. Those whose final destination was southern Utah ar-

rived in Salt Lake City later the same night. The Blom family may have

stopped in Ogden, as they later farmed in northern Utah’s Box Elder

182 The Journal of Mormon History

that Jones sees as being part of other branches. I would therefore argue that

the entire country was seen as a single branch. Records of the Stockholm

Conference, to which Finland belonged, support this conclusion. Probably

the surviving membership record is the only one that existed. See Stock-

holm Conference Historical Record, Book B, 1867–83, 203, 207, 209, 211,

221, 231, 233, 235, 248, 254, 255, 257, 266, 270; and Scandinavian Mission

Statistics, 1850–1930, fd. 20, both in LDS Church History Library.

Record of Members, Uppsala Branch, 1865–84, Family History Li-

brary, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City (hereafter

LDS Family History Library); John Bloom, Letter to Church Historian’s Of-

fice, April 29, 1925, Manuscript History of the Finnish Mission, LDS

Church History Library. For the Mormon revival in Pohja, see my “Mor-

moniherätys Pohjan pitäjässä 1880- ja 1890-luvulla,” Historiallinen Aika-

kauskirja [Finnish Journal of History] 107, no. 4 (2009): 414–30.

County. Johan americanized his name to John Bloom.

45++

Anna Margareta died in December 1887. In early 1890, John

married a Swedish immigrant, Anna Sophie Anderson, in the Logan

Temple. An indication of continued adherence to Mormon teachings

is his temple sealing to his parents in 1916 and his sending his per-

sonal history to the Church historian in 1925. That same year his sec-

ond wife died, and he moved to Redlands, California. John passed

away three years later, survived by at least two of his children.

46+++

Eva Wilhelmina Degerlund

The first Finnish Mormon to immigrate to Utah, Eva Wilhel-

mina Degerlund was born December 22, 1855, in Bromarv, southern

Finland, was baptized Mormon by Swedish missionary David Eken-

berg on March 22, 1881, in Turku, and about six months later on Sep-

tember 3, obtained a passport to travel abroad. The passport classi-

fied her as an unmarried young woman of the working class.

47++++

Eva emigrated from Sweden with others from the Stockholm

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 183

Emigration records, Scandinavian Mission 1852–1920, Record G,

1881–86, 135 (hereafter cited as Record G), LDS Family History Library.

For the ages, see Communion Books, Pohja Parish, 1877–86, 82, National

Archives, Helsinki, Finland (hereafter Finnish National Archives). Andrew

Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission (Salt Lake City: Deseret News

Press, 1927), 296–98; “Departure,” Millennial Star 48, no. 26 (June 28,

1886): 412. For details on the journey, see also the following letters: C. F.

Olsen, L. John Nuttall Jun., and Reub. Collett, Letter to D. H. Wells, June

27, 1886, Millennial Star 48, no. 27 (July 5, 1886): 426; C. F. Olsen, L. John

Nuttall Jun., and Reub. Collett, Letter to D. H. Wells, July 7, 1886, Millennial

Star 48, no. 30 (July 26, 1886): 475–76; C. F. Olsen, Letter to D. H. Wells, July

20, 1886, Millennial Star 48, no. 33 (August 16, 1886): 523–24. See also 1900

U.S. Census, Manila, Box Elder County, Utah, District 206; Colleen M.

Hansen, Wilma E. Fridal, and Wilma K. Anderson, Elwood: A History of Early

Elwood (n.p., n.d.), 30.

+++

International Genealogical Index, s.v. Anna Margreta Lindblad

and s.v. John Bloom; death certificate of Anna Bloom, Death Certificate,

Utah Death Certificate Index, 1904–56 (hereafter cited as Utah Death Cer-

tificate), http://www.archives.state.ut.us (accessed February 27, 2009).

“Deaths,” Redlands Daily, January 26, 1928, 3, included in Carl F. Carlson,

journal, LDS Church History Library; “Intermountain Obituaries,” Salt

Lake Tribune, August 29, 1955, 23.

++++

Record of Births and Christenings, Bromarv Parish, 98; Finland

Conference in late August 1882 to Copenhagen. Then followed a

“stormy and unpleasant” voyage on the sailing ship Argo to Hull, and

onward to Liverpool. There, in a group of more than 650 Latter-day

Saints, she traveled on the steamer Wyoming of the Guion line, arriv-

ing in New York City on September 12. The journey continued by

train and concluded with their arrival in Salt Lake City nine days

later.

48*

The same year she married a Swede, Charles Berg, but wheth-

er the marriage preceded or followed her immigration is not clear.

Passenger records give Eva’s surname as Degerlund, which implies

that the marriage took place after arrival in Utah.

Census records show that Eva settled in Murray, Utah, just south

of Salt Lake City. By 1900, she was known as Eva Wilhelmina Berg,

wife of Charles and mother of six Utah-born children. She passed

away in Murray on September 19, 1907, survived byher husband.

49**

Hedvig Johansdotter

HedvigwasoneofthreeFinnishMormons(seeEmelieLind-

ström and Alexander Winqvist below) who immigrated at the same

time in late 1888. She was born on April 25, 1839, in the southern-Fin-

land town of Porvoo and was baptized a Mormon there on October

25, 1884, by Swedish missionary Alexander Hedberg. Her older

brother, Gustaf Johansson, had already been baptized in Sipoo in

1878, and Hedvig probably learned of Mormonism through him. Re-

cords further indicate that, at the time of her immigration four years

later,shewaslivinginPorvoointhehomeofherotherbrother,Carl

Johansson. Gustaf and a fourth sibling, Johanna, were also sharing

Carl’s home. Hedvig was then a forty-nine-year-old weaver.

50***

Hedvig obtained a passport from the Uusimaa authorities on

September 4, 1888, and left for Stockholm on the steamer Finland two

184 The Journal of Mormon History

Branch Record, 1876–97, LDS Church History Library; Passport Records,

1881, Archive of the Administrative Department of Turku and Pori Provin-

cial Government, Provincial Archives of Turku, Finland (hereafter cited as

Turku Provincial Archives).

Record G; “The Fourth Company,” Millennial Star 44, no. 36 (Sep-

tember 4, 1882): 571; Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 265–66.

1900 U.S. Census, Murray, Salt Lake County, Utah, District 63; Eva

Wilhelmina Berg, Death Certificate, Utah Death Certificate.

***

Record of Births and Christenings, Porvoo rural parish, 1833–40,

1:449, and 1880–89, 1:48, Finnish National Archives; Finland Branch Re-

weeks later. According to a newspaper report, two persons had visited

her prior to her departure in an attempt to convince her to abandon

her Mormon faith and to forget about immigrating. When confront-

ed with polygamy and negative portrayals of Mormon doctrines, she

was undaunted, citing the example of the biblical patriarchs to defend

polygamy. But the journalist also captures a note of wry humor: “Any-

way,shethoughtshewastoooldtobeeligibleformarriageinSalt

Lake City.”

51****

Another newspaper reported that she had sold her possessions

to raise travel funds, as had one of her co-travelers. The fundamental

reason for these three Finns’ emigration, at least as reported by the

press, was Finnish society’s inhospitality toward new religious ideas:

“Upon being asked what made them undertake the long journey they

are supposed to have openly answered that they have to travel, be-

cause they would be persecuted here and not allowed to live accord-

ing to the prescriptions of their doctrine. They said that more of their

‘religious kindred’ would follow them.”

52+

Hedvig and the other two Finns likely traveled with Swedish Lat-

ter-day Saints to Liverpool through the ordinary wayposts of Copen-

hagenandHull.AboardtheWyoming, the threesome reached New

York City on October 16 with the rest of their company. The journey

continued on another ship to Norfolk, Virginia, from which the party

entrained to Salt Lake City, arriving on October 23. Hedvig settled in

the Salt Lake Thirteenth Ward and was rebaptized and reconfirmed

on November 1, 1888.

53++

Hedvig received her endowment on November 11, 1891, in the

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 185

cord 1876–97, LDS Church History Library; “Landsorten,” Hufvudstads-

bladet, September 28, 1888, 2.

****

Passport Records, Uusimaa, 1887–88, Archive of the Administra-

tive Department of Uusimaa Provincial Government, Finnish National Ar-

chives; “Landsorten,” Hufvudstadsbladet, September 28, 1888, 2.

“Mormoner i Helsingfors,” Finland, September 20, 1888, 3; empha-

sis in original.

Passageer-liste for udvandrerskibene fra København til Hull, 1872–

1894, LDS Family History Library; “A Company,” Millennial Star 50, no. 42

(October 15, 1888): 667; N. P. Lindeloff and Per Christensen, Letter to

George Teasdale, October 16, 1888, in “Correspondence,” Millennial Star

50, no. 45 (November 5, 1888): 715; Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mis-

sion, 306; Record of Members, Salt Lake City 13th Ward, early to 1900,

Logan Temple, a strong indication of her adherence to Mormonism

at least to that date. The newspaper Finland, published in Helsinki,

reported that she would be married to her co-traveler Alexander

Winqvist when they reached Utah; but it is unclear whether they car-

ried out this plan.

54+++

Alexandra Karolina Lindroth

Born on May 17, 1865, in Pohja, Alexandra was the second-

oldest child born to her working-class parents. At age sixteen, she

began working as a maid in Johan Blom’s household where she be-

came interested in Mormonism. Her mother, Wilhelmina Lind-

roth, also attended at least one meeting at Blom’s residence, but her

father was apparently not interested in to Mormonism. Alexandra

was baptized by visiting missionary Lars Swalberg on August 12,

1883; and about two weeks later, a newspaper reported that she, “to

herfather’sgreatsorrow,[would]betakenovertoAmerica,”de-

ceived “by these wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

55++++

As a recent proselyte,

Alexandra testified at Blom’s trial in October 1883 concerning her

ownintroductiontotheMormonmessageandaboutheremploy-

er’s behavior.

Alexandra appears to have lived a comparatively mobile pre-

emigration life. After working a year for Blom, she moved brief ly to

Turku in early 1884, then moved to Sipoo where she worked as a

maid for fellow Mormon Anna Carolina Ruth. (See below.) Late in

1885, she again moved to Turku from Pohja. In January 1886, she ac-

companied her former employer, Johan Blom, to Helsinki as he was

to enter the crown prison, and in September of that year she ob-

tained a passport to travel abroad.

186 The Journal of Mormon History

109–10, LDS Family History Library.

+++

“Mormoner i Helsingfors,” Finland, September 20, 1888, 3. Interna-

tional Genealogical Index, s.v. Hedvig Johanson.

++++

Alexandra’s employment in the Blom household began on Novem-

ber 1, 1881. Record of Births and Christenings, Pohja Parish, 1839–65, n.p.,

Communion Books, Pohja Parish, 1877–86, 85, both in Finnish National

Archives. Statement of Johan Blom, October 29, 1883, and statement of

Maria Kristina Thauvon, October 30, 1883, AD 380/1884, Archive of the

Senate Judicial Department, Finnish National Archives;Finland Branch Re-

cord, 1876–97, LDS Church History Library. “Om mormonerna i Pojo,”

Morgonbladet, August 24, 1883, 3.

However, she had not reached the United States as of August

1890, the date

when she received money from Hedvig Johansdotter

in Salt Lake City to aid her immigration. The record states that the

money was for “Alexandra Lindroth Stockholm,” which hints that she

mayhavebeenlivinginSweden.Theindexoftheearlymembership

record confirms that she was in Stockholm at some point. Thus, she

likelyemigratedfromthatcityafterastayofunknownduration.

OncearrivedinUtah,shewasrebaptizedandreconfirmedonNo-

vember 5 and 6, 1890, respectively, in Salt Lake Thirteenth Ward, in

which her benefactor, Hedvig Johansdotter, resided.

57**

Alexandra later married a Swede, Eric Alfred Lundell, in Ben-

jamin, Utah, a village in Utah County, south of Salt Lake City. She was

sealed to Eric in the Manti Temple on April 20, 1892. A few days prior

to this temple visit, she had been rebaptized and reconfirmed for a sec-

ond time. Eric died in 1920; Alexandra passed away in Benjamin on

August 1, 1931, a sixty-six-year-old, self-employed domestic worker.

58***

Emelie Lundström

Emelie Lundström was a tailor’s daughter, born September 21,

1847, in the southern Finland town of Sipoo. She was baptized a Mor-

mon by Swedish missionary Leonard Nyberg on February 15, 1888, in

Helsinki. About seven months later in September, she emigrated with

Hedvig Johansdotter (see above) and Alexander Winqvist (see be-

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 187

Record of move-ins and move-outs, Pohja Parish, 1873–1905, 60

(February 4, 1884) and 68 (November 20, 1885), Finnish National Archives;

Finland Branch Record, 1876–97, LDS Church History Library; John

Bloom, Letter to Church Historian’s Office, April 29, 1925, in Manuscript

History of the Finland Mission, LDS Church History Library; Passport re-

cords, 1886, Archive of the Administrative Department of Turku and Pori

Provincial Government, Turku Provincial Archives.

Christian D. Fjeldsted, Letter to A. P. Anderson, August 21, 1890, in

Scandinavian Mission, Letterpress Copybook 9, LDS Church History Li-

brary; Record of Members, Benjamin Ward, 1892–1903, 29, LDS Family

History Library; Record of Members, Salt Lake City 13th Ward, early to

1900, 109–10, 113–14, LDS Family History Library.

***

International Genealogical Index, s.v. Alexandria Caroline Lind-

rot; Record of Members, Benjamin Ward, 1907–26, 6, LDS Family History

Library; Alexandra Carlino Lundell, Death Certificate, Utah Death Certifi-

cate; “State Obituaries,” Deseret News, August 3, 1931, Sec. 2-5.

low). She obtained her passport in Helsinki on August 29, 1888, ap-

parently visiting the passport office with Winqvist. By then, she was a

seamstress in Helsinki.

59****

The passenger record for the transatlantic journey on the steam-

er Wyoming, departing from Liverpool on October 6, 1888, gives her

destination as Nephi, a town in central Utah. During her early years in

Utah,shespentatleastsometimeinbothSaltLakeCityandinthe

Sanpete area. She married Alexander Winqvist, but the date is not

known nor is their pre-immigration relationship clear. Her passenger

record lists her occupation as “wife,” but a newspaper article report-

ing on their departure from Finland says that they were planning to

marry(polygamously,noless),oncetheyarrivedinUtah.According

to Salt Lake County marriage records, the two were wed on March 18,

1890, by George H. Taylor, bishop of the Salt Lake Fourteenth Ward.

Emelie was rebaptized and reconfirmed on April 29 and May 1, 1890,

respectively. Two weeks later, on May 14, Emelie was sealed to Alexan-

der in the Logan Temple by Apostle Marriner W. Merrill, after having

participated in the temple endowment ceremony for the first time.

Emelie may have died or divorced Alexander during the 1890s; she is

not listed with him in the 1900 U.S. Census and he married other

women. (See below.)

60+

C. August Nordin

Of all the Mormon emigrants from Finland, C. August Nordin

is the most enigmatic. His birth date and place are not known nor is

the date of his baptism. He first surfaces in the minutes of an LDS

188 The Journal of Mormon History

****

Record of Births and Christenings, Sipoo Parish, 1828–68, 340,

Finnish National Archives; Passport Records, 1888, Archive of the Adminis-

trative Department of Uusimaa Provincial Government, Finnish National

Archives. Passageer-liste for udvandrerskibene fra København til Hull,

1872–94, LDS Family History Library.

Mormon Immigration Index, Departure date October 6, 1888, s.v.

Emelia Lindstrom; Marriage Records, 1887–1965, Salt Lake County, Book

B, License 1283, March 15, 1890, LDS Family History Library; Record of

Members, Salt Lake City 14th Ward, 1875–1901, LDS Family History Li-

brary; Marriage Records, Cache County, 1888–91, 387, LDS Family History

Library; International Genealogical Index, s.v. Emelia Lindstrom; 1900

U.S. Census, Benjamin, Utah, District 155; Record of Members, Benjamin

Ward, 1892–1903, 38, LDS Family History Library.

meeting in Pohja on January 24, 1886, where he was ordained a

priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. This ordination implies that he

was either a native Finn or a Swede working in Finland and living in

the Pojo area. He paid 30 Finnish marks in tithing during the second

quarter (February to May) of that year. In September 1886, Nordin

baptized Alexander Winqvist (see below) in Helsinki and ordained

him a teacher, another lay office in the Aaronic Priesthood, on April

10, 1887. This baptism and Nordin’s appointment as president of

the Finland Branch in October 1886 suggest that Nordin had

quickly become a missionary after his ordination as priest in Janu-

ary.

61++

Nordin’s immigration records include his name in the alphabet-

ical index of members in the Finland Branch’s early membership re-

cord.Heismarkedashavingimmigrated.Nodateisgiven,butthe

third quarter (August to November) of 1887 is plausible. Only one

person is listed as emigrating during that period, and the Swedish

word emigrerad (“emigrated”) in Nordin’s entry is written in the hand

of Leonard Nyberg, then the resident Mormon missionary.

62+++

Alloth-

er immigrants listed in this record are identified by departure dates

other than 1887. Thus, Nordin is the only clear candidate for immi-

gration during this period. This conclusion is strengthened by the

fact that, in May 1887, a conference in Stockholm released him from

missionary work “with permission to emigrate to Zion.” I have found

no additional information on Nordin.

MariaAmandaReutervall

When Maria Reutervall was born on July 13, 1861, her family

seems to have been well off. Living in the southwest coast town of

Naantali, Maria’s father, Karl Johan Reutervall, was a master saddle

maker, giving the family a certain amount of prestige in the commu-

nity. However, he died in 1868 when she was about seven. Many of her

siblings moved away—one sister to Sweden in 1872 and other siblings

to nearby Turku between 1872 and 1875.

Maria left home in 1877 and became a maid at the estate of

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 189

Finland Branch Record, 1876–97, LDS Church History Library;

“Halfårliga konferensmötet i Stockholm,” Nordstjernan 10, no. 22 (Novem-

ber 15, 1886): 348.

+++

“Konferensmöte, afhållet i Stockholm,” Nordstjernan 11, no. 11

(June 1, 1887): 172.

Kultaranta.

++++

It is not clear how long she was there; but on June 4, 1881,

she obtained a passport in Turku for travel abroad. One of the cities

she visited was Stockholm, where she was baptized Mormon on May

3, 1882, by R. Berntson. By the summer of 1884, she was living again

in Turku where branch records list her as a tithe-payer for the Au-

gust-to-November quarter. On June 4, 1886, she obtained another

five-year passport in Turku, this time accompanied by her widowed

mother Karolina and her younger sister, Emilia. Maria’s intention in

obtaining the passport was for emigration purposes; her mother and

sister obtained passports for a shorter time.

64*

I hypothesize that they

wanted to accompany her on the first leg of her journey—probably to

Stockholm. Maria traveled from Sweden—and possibly all the way

from Finland—in the same company as the Blom family (see above)

and Anna Carolina Ruth (see below). She arrived in Salt Lake City on

July 10, 1886, where she was rebaptized and reconfirmed on August

5.OnDecember1,shemarriedaSwedishconvert,AlexanderS.Hed-

berg, in the Logan Temple. Hedberg had been a missionary to Fin-

land two years earlier, and the two may have met when Maria was liv-

ing in Turku. However, since Hedberg, like Maria, was baptized in

Stockholm in 1882, that city seems to be the more likely site of their

acquaintance.

65**

Maria and Alexander moved from Utah to Chicago sometime

between 1888 and 1891. The reason for this move is not known, but

theymayhavebeenunhappywithChurchconditionsinUtah,consid-

ering their later informal disaffiliation. In any case, the couple owned

a house in Pullman, Chicago, and had two sons—the first born in

Utah, the second in Illinois. There was no regular LDS unit in Chi-

190 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Naantali Parish, all in Finnish National Archives: Record of Births

and Christenings, 1838–79, 268; Communion Books, 1861–67, 141, and

1868–1880, 31.

Communion Books, Naantali Parish, 1868–80, 345; Passport Re-

cords, 1881 and 1886, Archive of the Administrative Department of Turku

and Pori Provincial Government, Turku Provincial Archives; Record of

Members, Stockholm Branch, 1863–1903, 125, LDS Family History Li-

brary.

Record G, 135; Record of Members, Salt Lake City 13th Ward, early

to 1900, 63–64; International Genealogical Index, s.v. Maria Reutervall; Re-

cord of Members, Stockholm Branch, 1863–1903, 124, all four in LDS Fam-

ily History Library.

cago at the time, and thus it is unclear how the Hedbergs’ feelings to-

ward Mormonism evolved during this period.

66***

In 1896, however, Church leaders decided to organize a branch

in Chicago. Christian D. Fjeldsted, former Scandinavian Mission pres-

ident, was one of those spearheading the project. He reports visiting

the Hedbergs at least three times and unsuccessfully trying toarrange

a meeting with Alexander, who had by then become an inventor and

had applied for patents. This lack of welcome implies that the Hed-

bergs’ feelings toward Mormonism may have grown cold, although

they had had their older son baptized at age eight in August 1896.

The branch’s first membership record indicates that the branch had

lost track of the family’s whereabouts in 1897, and the later member-

ship record labels Alexander an “apostate” and Maria as “lost.” Thus

it seems that the Hedbergs drifted away from Mormonism.

67****

Anna Carolina Ruth

Anna was born on June 29, 1828, in Viipuri in the far southeast

region of Finland and was the wife of a master chimney sweep, Josef

Ruth. By the time of her Mormon baptism in October 1883, she had

been widowed for a few months and was living in the southern Fin-

land town of Sipoo. A newspaper reported that she was “well off,

rich.” Mormon elder Lars Swalberg was said to have been so success-

ful in his “zealous conversion work” that Anna had decided to “sell

her possessions and follow him” to Utah.

68+

It took another three years before Anna left Finland; but like her

conversion, her planned departure also generated public discussion.

A local correspondent from Sipoo sent a column to Hufvudstadsbladet

in Finland’s capital, stating that “the businessman’s widow Ruth” had

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 191

***

1900 U.S. Census, Chicago Ward 34, District 1110.

****

Christian D. Fjeldsted, Journals and Record Books, 1890–1905,

May 30, June 4, 15–16, and 26, 1896, LDS Church History Library; Record

of Members, Chicago Branch, 1896–1901, 15–16, LDS Family History Li-

brary; Record of Members, Chicago Branch, early to 1917, 30, LDS Family

History Library.

Record of Births and Christenings, Viipuri Swedish Parish, 1798–

1840, n.p., Finnish National Archives. Finland Branch Record, 1876–1897,

LDS Church History Library; Letter by “–m” in Sipoo on November 26,

1883, printed in “Korrespondens,” Hufvudstadsbladet, December 2, 1883, 2.

See also “Bref från landsorten,” Folkwännen, December 4, 1883, 2.

now left for “the promised land.” Somewhat sarcastically, the writer

mused that she was quite a catch for the Mormons due to her wealth;

and therefore “she should, at least at first, be a welcome guest in the

‘Zion’ she has travelled to.” It is not known whether she traveled with

the Blom family and Maria Reutervall all the way from Finland in

June 1886, but she most likely joined them by the latest in Sweden to

continue the journey with the rest of the Mormon company. The pas-

senger record identifies her as “a spinster,” rather than as a widow.

69++

Anna settled in Salt Lake City where she was rebaptized and re-

confirmed in March 1887. She lived at the same address as Maria

Reutervall and Alexander Hedberg, thus confirming that she main-

tained contact with at least one other Finnish Mormon convert after

immigrating. On May 29, 1891, Anna was “set apart” as a missionary

by Apostle Abraham H. Cannon to “do missionary labor while in

Scandinavia and Russia on genealogical research.” Accordingly, she

returned to Finland that summer.

70+++

Her visit eventually became public knowledge just as her conver-

sion and departure had; a Finnish Mormon visiting her homeland

seems to have been a matter generating some interest. Hufvudstads-

bladet printed a news item on her in early September, and it was re-

printed in several newspapers. According to the story, sixty-three-

year-old Anna, who was described as “very energetic and lively for her

age,” was very satisfied with her life in Salt Lake City and was manag-

ing a hotel. She reported that other Finns in Utah were also doing

well. Her portrayal of Salt Lake City and Mormonism in general was

much different than many of the stories then in circulation. Instead of

192 The Journal of Mormon History

“Ett och annat från Sibbo,” Hufvudstadsbladet, June 20, 1886, 2.

Passageer-liste for udvandrerskibene fra København til Hull, 1872–94, LDS

Family History Library; Record G, 135, LDS Family History Library.

+++

Record of Members, Salt Lake City 13th Ward, early to 1900, 5–6

and 63–64, LDS Family History Library; Utah Gazetteer and Directory of Salt

Lake, Ogden, Provo and Logan Cities, for 1888 (Salt Lake City: Lorenzo Sten-

house, 1888), Salt Lake City section, 165 and 257; Missionaries of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 4, 1891:136, LDS Church

History Library. Jones, “Conversion amid Conflict,” 34, citing an earlier

history of women missionaries, states that Ruth “returned to Finland in

1891 to provide spiritual training to LDS Finnish women” but provides no

supporting evidence. I am not aware of any evidence for a Relief Society in

nineteenth-century Finland.

focusing on despotism and a tightly controlled theocracy like some

Mormon critics, Anna, a faithful Mormon, opined that her beloved

faith was not “narrow-minded and ‘pietistic.’” Indeed, she asserted,

she wished she had moved to Salt Lake City twenty years earlier.

71++++

After returning to Utah, Anna was again rebaptized and recon-

firmed—not once, but twice, in both 1893 and 1894. She moved to at

least four different residences in Salt Lake City before her death on

March 7, 1916. In Utah she was known variously as Annie Root, Anna

Ruth, and Karoline Root.

72*

Alexander Winqvist

TheonlyFinnishMormonimmigranttohavebeenbornonFin-

land’s central west coast, Alexander Winqvist was orphaned at age

four in 1852 while living in the village of Forsby near the town of

Uusikaarlepyy. A couple took in him and an older sister, Anna; but

Anna died in 1858. He became a carpenter by trade, moved away

from home at age twenty (1868), worked for a time in St. Petersburg,

married Erika Wahlsten (born 1838), and relocated to Helsinki in

1869. In Helsinki, Alexander became a Mormon in the middle of a

difficult illness in September 1886 at age thirty-eight. Erika joined the

Church the following year at age forty-eight. Also in 1887, Alexander

was ordainedto the office of elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

73**

Alexander left Finland for Utah in September 1888 with Hedvig

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 193

++++

“Finsk mormon på besök i hemlandet,” Hufvudstadsbladet, Septem-

ber 11, 1891, 2. The story was reprinted later the same year in at least

Aamulehti, September 13, 3; Keski-Suomi, September 15, 3; Kotka, Septem-

ber 17, 3; Jyränkö, September 25, 3; and Uleåborgs Tidning, December 18, 1.

The article states that about ten female Finnish Mormons emigrated to

Utah around 1885–86 with a Mormon elder. The membership record con-

tains no evidence for such a large number.

Record of Members, Salt Lake City 13th Ward, 1890–1901, 65–66,

LDS Family History Library. For Anna’s addresses, see R. L. Polk & Co’s Salt

Lake City Directory (Salt Lake City: R. L. Polk & Co.) 1899:708, 1911:868,

1913:832, 1915:844, and for her death, 1916:718; see also “Called by

Death,” Deseret News, March 8, 1916, 2.

Communion Books, Uusikaarlepyy Rural Parish, 1851–57, 12, 41,

and 1858–69, 321, Finnish National Archives; Communion Books, Helsinki

Undivided Parish, 1856–69, 642, and 1870–81, 642, Finnish National Ar-

chives; Finland Branch Record, 1876–97, LDS Church History Library. On

Johansdotter and Emelie Lindström. (See above.) According to a con-

temporary newspaper article, Alexander left his wife and a grown-up

daughter behind, and “the wife was compelled to give her agreement

to the divorce,” with Alexander planning to marry his two co-travelers

in Utah.

74***

Alexander arrived in Salt Lake City on October 23, 1888, and at

some point thereafter adopted the name Alexander Gustafsson, the

patronymic surname being based on his father’s given name. After

being rebaptized and reconfirmed on April 29 and May 1, 1890, re-

spectively, Alexander was endowed in the Logan Temple in 1890 and

was sealed the same day to Emelie Lindström. Three years later in July

1893, he married Eva Carlson, a Swedish convert, in the newly com-

pleted Salt Lake Temple, after having again been rebaptized and re-

confirmed a month earlier.

75****

By 1900, Alexander had relocated to Benjamin, in Utah County,

where he farmed. According to census records, he was married to a

woman named Anna, who had immigrated in 1898. Sharing their res-

idencewasEvaCarlson’sdaughter,Jennie.Annawasthusatleasthis

third wife since he had immigrated to Utah, but it is not known

whether the marriages were polygamous or serially monogamous. By

1905 Alexander had fathered at least three children on American

soil.

76+

Alexander’s fifth marriage (counting his first to Erika) took

place in 1909 when he was sixty-one. Again, he married a Swedish

convert, fifty-nine-year-old Helena Sophia Johnson. Sometime in the

next eleven years, Helena died. According to the 1920 census, Alex-

ander, then age seventy-two, was a widower living alone. He died

194 The Journal of Mormon History

Winqvist’s feelings regarding his illness, see his September 25, 1886, letter

to F. R. Sandberg, ibid., fd. 3.

***

“Mormoner i Helsingfors,” Finland, September 20, 1888, 3.

****

International Genealogical Index, s.v. Alexander Gustafsen and s.v.

Alexander Gustavsen. Record of Members, Salt Lake City 14th Ward,

1875–1901, LDS Family History Library; Marriage Licenses, Salt Lake

County, 1890–93, No. 3617, July 6, 1893, LDS Family History Library.

1900 U.S. Census, Benjamin, Utah, District 155; 1910 U.S. Census,

Benjamin, Utah, District 185; Record of Members, Benjamin Ward, 1892–

1903, 38, LDS Family History Library.

three years later on December 29, 1923, in Benjamin.

77++

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISONS

The biographical sketches above are not complete and need to

be expanded considerably by future research. Nevertheless, they pro-

vide a basic understanding of how the group of immigrants was con-

stituted and allow some analytical observations and comparisons.

First, despite the small group, these Finnish Mormon immi-

grantsarehighlydiverse.Thegroupconsistsofbothmenandwo-

men, young and old, single, married, and widowed individuals. Six

(two adults and four children) were Swedish nationals who had lived

in Finland for about six years at the time of their immigration. One

moved to Sweden after baptism and left for Utah from there one year

later. One or two (Ruth and Reutervall) came from relatively affluent

backgrounds while others were craftspeople or laborers, such as

weavers, carpenters, or maids.

All of the native Finns were baptized in the 1880s, with none dat-

ing from the first five years of proselytizing in Finland (1875–80).

Moreover, like early Mormons generally in Finland, they were Swed-

ish-speaking Finns. In contrast, the larger migration from Finland to

America included both Finnish and Swedish speakers. Apparently,

none of the members listed in the Finland Branch record emigrated

after 1890. The time between baptism and emigration ranges from

seven months (Emelie Lindström) to seven years (Alexandra Lind-

roth) for reasons that are, at this point, obscure. Apparently the moti-

vations were individual in each case.

Of the adult immigrants, seven (70 percent) were women and

three (30 percent) were men. Including the children alters the pro-

portions somewhat. Eight were female (57.1 percent) and six were

male (42.9%). Men constituted 73.7 percent (for 1880–84) and 75.6

percent (1885–89) of all immigrants from Finland to the United

States. Between 1869 and 1914, men still made up nearly 65 percent

of the total, a somewhat higher fraction than emigration from other

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 195

Marriage Records, Utah County, Marriage Applications, June

1909–November 1913, Application no. 249, LDS Family History Library;

1920 U.S. Census, Benjamin, Utah, District 192; Record of Members,

Benjamin Ward, 1919–40, entry 236, LDS Family History Library; Alexan-

der Gustafsson, Death Certificate, Utah Death Certificate.

Nordic countries.

78+++

The higher proportion of women is more in line

with Mulder’s finding that 53.5 percent of Scandinavian Mormon im-

migrants were women.

79++++

However, the small number of Finnish im-

migrants makes it impossible to find much significance in these fig-

ures.

It is also noteworthy that the geographical distribution of the

Mormon emigrants is diametrically opposite to that of the general

emigrants.

80*

All but one of the Mormon emigrants lived in southern

Finland, a generally low-volume emigrant area. None of the Mormon

emigrants lived in the upper west coast area of Ostrobothnia (only

one grew up there), which otherwise showed the highest volume of

emigration.

Perhaps more meaningful is Mormon emigration from Finland

in contrast to emigration from the other Nordic countries. There is

evidence for 78 individuals converting to Mormonism in Finland up

to the year 1900.

81**

Seven emigrants (discounting the Swedish nation-

als and Maria Reutervall who was baptized in Sweden) thus corre-

spond to a maximum of 10 percent of all converts moving to Utah.

The figures for Sweden, Norway, and Denmark up through 1905 are

44 percent, 41 percent, and 53 percent, of all converts respectively.

82***

This difference is rather striking. What could have caused it?

For one thing, Finnish Mormons were scattered around the

country in very small groups, while Sweden, Norway, and Denmark

had numerous functioning branches and missionaries. In these

branches, the principle of gathering was preached and members mu-

tually reinforced the desire and longing for emigration. The

196 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Reino Kero, Migration from Finland to North America in the Years be-

tween the United States Civil War and the First World War (Turku: Turun

yliopisto, 1974), 91–93.

++++

Mulder, Homeward to Zion, 109.

Kero, Suureen länteen, 56–59.

Jones, “Conversion amid Conflict,” 3, estimates perhaps 200 con-

verts or “a few hundred” (18). I find this figure over-optimistic since it is

based on a hypothesized 100 baptisms in 1875–78 and another 100 during

1878–95 (22). My analysis of the Finland Branch Record, 1876–97, indi-

cates that a majority of the baptisms occurred after 1878 and totaled only

about eighty; as I have argued above, I see this branch record as covering

the whole country.

***

Jenson, History of the Scandinavian Mission, 534–36.

Nordstjernan published a letter from a leader in Kristiania, Norway,

describing how some who had been Church members for about

thirty years wished to be “able to leave these troubled places and

come home to Zion, to receive greater blessings there, before they . . .

enter death’s gate.” Such converts “longed for liberation.”

83****

Stockholm, many seasoned Mormons wished “to see the day when

they can say farewell to their native land and go to the land of Jo-

seph’s inheritance.”

84+

The scattered Finnish Mormons were mostly unable to experi-

ence such social cohesion, integration, and mutual reinforcement of

longing for Zion and, hence, were less able to mobilize for action. I hy-

pothesize that the urge to emigrate never became prevalent among

Finnish Mormons. One or two traveling missionaries covering the en-

tire country were simply not able to create a widespread vision shared

among the members. As a result, fewer decided to leave their native

land behind and embark on the adventure.

Another reason may be the scarcity of examples. Given the very

small number of Finnish Mormons who immigrated to Utah, they did

not leave solid congregations behind to whom they could address let-

ters warmly urging them to come, too. Without these role models,

emigration may have seemed too overwhelming. Saints in other

Nordic countries had an encouraging support system grounded in

real-life experience by the Mormon compatriots who had preceded

them to America. Such encouragement substantially reduced the psy-

chological obstacles against leaving their homelands.

A third reason may be a simple lack of means. Although the gen-

eral socioeconomic composition of the Finnish Mormon converts is

not known, poverty was a well-known problem for other Nordic

Saints. The above-mentioned Saints in Kristiania, for example, asked

their ecclesiastical leader “to notify them if there was any way opened

for the poor.” A missionary in Iceland commented in 1888 that al-

most all of that country’s thirty-four Mormons wanted to “travel to the

place the Lord has prepared for his faithful; but as they for the most

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 197

****

H. J. Christensen, Letter, July 27, 1885, Nordstjernan 9, no. 16 (Au-

gust 15, 1885): 254. H. J. Christiansen, Letter to N. C. Flygare, July 14, 1886,

Nordstjernan 10, no. 15 (August 1, 1886): 235.

Math. Nilson, Letter to K. Peterson, November 28, 1872, in “Korres-

pondance,” Skandinaviens Stjerne [The Star of Scandinavia] 22, no. 6 (De-

cember 15, 1872): 94.

part are poor, they cannot get this wish fulfilled without help.”

85++

De-

spite the large general migration from Finland to the United States,

there is not enough evidence to indicate whether the Mormon Finns

weresimilartothatpopulation.

OCIETAL REACTIONS TO MORMON EMIGRATION

Reactions to general emigration from Finland to the United

States were at first highly negative but became more positive as time

went by. After initial anti-emigration propaganda by Finland’s na-

tional senate in the 1870s, for example, official reactions toward emi-

gration became somewhat more permissive and the government took

a more passive stance. The 1880s and 1890s saw a more general ac-

ceptance of reasons for emigration, especially the promise of greater

prosperity on the other side of the Atlantic.

86+++

The attitude voiced by some newspapers and some Lutheran

priests, however, was still often anti-emigration. For example, accord-

ing to Taisto Hujanen and Kimmo Koiranen’s study of emigration in

national newspapers, the Uusi Suometar was predominantly against

emigration during the 1880s, and Wasabladet displayed a similar, if

more muted, attitude.

87++++

To some extent this pattern continued into

the 1890s, at least for Uusi Suometar.Exemplifyingmanyoftheargu-

ments presented against emigration through the years, one individ-

ual, using quasi-religious terms, insisted that people “should stay in

the calling into which providence has put them, seek to improve the

circumstances and work with doubled zeal to create a brighter future

fortherisinggenerations....[Emigrants]arethusmorallyinthe

same position as those strong men, who in a fire or shipwreck wretch-

edly save their own lives, leaving the elderly, women and children to

drown.”

This moral position assumed that emigration betrayed

one’s ancestral homeland and evaded one’s sacred obligations to-

198 The Journal of Mormon History

Math. Nilson, Letter to C. G. Larsen, September 19, 1873, Skandin-

aviens Stjerne 23, no. 3 (November 1, 1873): 42–43; Haldur Johnson, Letter

to N. C. Flygare, November 30, 1887, Nordstjernan 12, no. 2 (January 15,

1888): 28.

+++

Kero, Suureen länteen, 113–22.

++++

Taisto Hujanen and Kimmo Koiranen, Siirtolaisuus suomalaisissa

sanomalehdissä vuosina 1880–1939 ja 1945–1984 [Migration in Finnish

Newspapers in the Years 1880–1939 and 1945–1984] (Turku: Siirtolais-

instituutti, 1990), 77–78.

ward future generations and one’s own people.

Another common attitude was that emigrants were seen as gull-

ible, succumbing to their delusions concerning the grandeur of Am-

erican life and the general belief concerning greener grass elsewhere.

Even Mormon Utah could be used as an example of such misguided

actions. Wasa Tidning reported in September 1885 that nine non-

Mormons from the Ostrobothnian region had auctioned off their

possessions to raise travel money to Utah because they had received

letters containing “glowing imagery of ‘gold and green forests.’”

89**

On the other hand, Finnish newspapers also reported on com-

patriots traveling in, residing in, or emigrating to Utah without any

implicit criticism, thus displaying a divided attitude toward emigra-

tion. In 1882, for example, several newspapers reported matter-of-

factly that a Finnish tailor and a carpenter (presumably non-Mor-

mons) were emigrating after having received a letter from a friend in

“the land of the Mormons” who was “doing well” and who described

his condition as “excellent.”

90***

When it came to the Mormon variant of emigration to the

United States, opinions in Finland were often negative. Most of the

societal reactions discussed below are simply examples of what was

being written in newspapers in other countries and are not direct re-

sponses to Mormon emigration from Finland in particular; this con-

sequence is natural, resulting from the very limited extent of Mor-

mon emigration from Finland. While not a direct response to the

Finnish situation, however, these public responses contributed to how

the reasons and consequences of Mormon emigration came to be un-

derstood by the general population. As such they also contributed to

the atmosphere in which emigrating Finnish Mormons had to make

their decisions.

The general criticism of not loving one’s native land could also

be applied to those leaving for religious reasons. In 1883, for exam-

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 199

“Siirtolaisuudesta wieläkin,” Uusi Suometar, June 27, 1899, 2.

“Lappfjärdsboar på långresa,” Wasa Tidning, September 4, 1885,

2–3.

***

“Emigranter,” Östra Finland, supplement, October 15, 1882, 1. For

examples of letters concerning Finns living in or visiting Utah, see “Korres-

pondens från Österbotten,” Hufvudstadsbladet, January 15, 1874, 7, and

September 17, 1874, 7; and “Bref till Morgonbladet,” Morgonbladet, Octo-

ber 28, 1874, 1.

ple, the newspaper Folkwännen reported that a number of Finns had

emigrated to the more religiously tolerant United States due to dissat-

isfaction with the Lutheran Church’s authority in Finland. Included

in this number were some Baptists, Methodists, Laestadians, and

Mormons. The writer characterized them as “half-crazy dreamers”

and chastised them for their decision. They had turned their backs on

their native land and, he said with considerable vindictiveness, “one

may hope” that they have done so “for all time.”

91****

One writer commended the Mormon emigrants for their “mild-

ness, hospitality, love of native country, endurance, and faithfulness,”

expressed sorrow for these “poor misled victims of Mormonism’s

curse,” and blamed, not the emigrants, but the missionaries—the

“contemptible seducers” whose “slithery tongues” had “lured” the

converts.

92+

Such shifting of responsibility from individual to institution was

common—and still is in modern opposition to new religious move-

ments. According to Douglas Cowan, a central view among anti-cult

activists is that a religious group compromises “the cognitive ability

of the potential recruit” during the conversion process. This compro-

mise becomes more pronounced during the socialization provided by

the group, and thus the individual’s “capacity to make rational, in-

formed decisions” is no longer what it used to be.

93++

As expressed in

extreme forms of anti-cult discourse, individuals are simply brain-

washed. From such a viewpoint, it becomes natural and rational to

free them from the responsibility tied to their decisions. After all, if

they can no longer make rational decisions, the guilt must lie with the

party that took away that ability.

In many countries, the public saw Mormon emigrants as unedu-

cated individuals from the lower classes who were beguiled by cun-

ning missionaries. This view made the activities of the Mormon mis-

sionaries especially reprehensible in the public mind. Educated per-

200 The Journal of Mormon History

****

“Om utwandringen och dess förnämsta orsaker,” Folkwännen,Feb-

ruary 14, 1883, 1. As discussed above, only one Finnish Mormon is known

to have immigrated to Utah by 1883.

“Mormonismen och den skandinaviska emigrationen,” Björneborgs

Tidning, August 3, 1881, 3; “Mormonerna,” Uleåborgs Tidning, July 5, 1877,

3; “48 mormonismin kannattajaa,” Maamme, June 3, 1890, 2.

Douglas E. Cowan, Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Chris-

tian Countercult (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003), 16.

sons making their emigration decisions based on fraudulent religious

premises was one thing, but deceiving the poor was another com-

pletely, and produced calls for action. When the Finnish Mormons

Hedvig Johansdotter, Emelie Lindström, and Alexander Winqvist

emigrated to Utah in 1888, for example, the newspaper Finland re-

acted strongly. The writer described how resident Mormon mission-

ary Leonard Nyberg deployed “beautiful notions to catch his vic-

tims.” Were the authorities not going to do anything “to prevent un-

skilled and ignorant people from becoming victims” to the Mor-

mons?

94+++

Several other newspapers reprinted parts of Finland’s article

and repeated the plea.

95++++

Finnish authorities, however, apparently

took no steps to prevent Finnish Mormons from emigrating.

In contrast, some papers accused Mormon missionaries of fo-

cusing their efforts on the wealthy: “That is the reason that only few

with little means come to the Mormon state.”

96*

When Anna Carolina

Ruth left for Utah, the reporter commented cynically that Elder Lars

Swalberghadmade“quiteapassablecatch,astheoldwomanownsa

pretty capital” and that she would be welcome in Zion because of it.

97**

The motives attributed to the missionaries were thus sometimes mu-

tually contradictory. However, this very contradiction shows a gen-

eral distrust toward the Mormon missionaries: Both motives were

seen as negative and subversive.

As one additional example of shifting the moral blame for leav-

ing one’s homeland from the emigrant to the missionary, some prose-

lytizers could be suspected of seeking their own financial betterment

at the expense of their converts. Such suspicion arose when mission-

aries allegedly participated in pro-emigration business activities: “In

addition to the spiritual sowing they work with recruiting emigrants

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 201

+++

“Mormoner i Helsinfors,” Finland, September 20, 1888, 3. On the

theme of seduction, see also “42 nuorta naista,” Aamulehti, November 26,

1890, 3.

++++

See, for example, “Mormoneja Helsingissä,” Uusi Suometar,Sep-

tember 21, 1888, 3, and “Mormoneja Helsingissä,” Sanomia Turusta,Sep-

tember 24, 1888, 2. In contrast, some newspapers that reprinted parts of the

story dropped the plea from the text. See, for example, “Mormooneja

Helsingissä,” Päivän Uutiset, September 21, 1888, 2, and “Mormoner i

Helsingfors,” Wiborgsbladet, September 22, 1888, 2.

“Ett mormonsällskap,” Helsinfors, August 4, 1882, 3.

“Ett och annat från Sibbo,” Hufvudstadsbladet, June 20, 1886, 2.

for the benefit of the transatlantic steamship companies,” charged

Folkwännen in 1883. Presumably such recruiting would have also in-

cluded remunerations to the missionaries. Later the same year, Folk-

wännen also accused Swalberg of working as an emigration agent for

the Guion line.

98***

The emigrants sometimes left part of their families behind on

less than good terms. In 1864, for instance, a Finnish paper reported

that a man in Jönköping, Sweden, had “mistaken himself in the choice

of a life companion.” His wife converted to Mormonism, and eventu-

ally she and their daughter secretly agreed with a Mormon mission-

ary that they would emigrate to Utah. The man knew nothing of it un-

til a priest informed him that his daughter had not turned up for a les-

son and had apparently left for Utah. Distraught, the man alerted the

authorities but it was already too late. Not even a telegram to the even-

tual departure city of Gothenburg, Sweden, could block their depar-

ture.

99****

Among Finns, Alexander Winqvist left behind his wife, Erika,

in 1888, allegedly forcing her into a divorce.

100+

Undoubtedlymanyofthestoriesinthisgenrearetrueatleastin

part; however, they contain only one party’s viewpoint. Emigration,

whether undertaken by Mormons or others, was not always a happy

occasion. In the Mormon case, however, it was the allegedly fraudu-

lent premise of the endeavor that made it doubly serious and had the

potential of triggering staunch opposition to Mormonism. Mormon-

ism was not simply about believing certain doctrines about the after-

life; rather, it could involve profound actions, life changes, and alter-

ations in family relationships that the non-Mormon party viewed as

being grounded in deception. Thus, in a sense, the doctrine of gath-

ering and the resulting practice of emigration was one of the most

radical tenets of Mormonism, upsetting the societal status quo more

than most religious preferences. In conjunction with plural marriage,

202 The Journal of Mormon History

***

“65 mormonapostlar,” Folkwännen, May 10, 1883, 2, “En mormon-

apostel,” Folkwännen, November 21, 1883, 1.

****

“Mormonrörelsen i Sverige,” Helsingfors Dagblad, April 30, 1864, 2;

“Ruotsista,” Suometar, April 30, 1864, 1. Later it was even alleged that Mor-

mon missionaries in Switzerland tried to send children to Utah without

their parents, partly because it was cheaper to emigrate minors. “Mormon-

erna i Schweiz,” Åbo Underrättelser, September 19, 1887, 2, and July 19, 1890,

100

“Mormoner i Helsingfors,” Finland, September 20, 1888, 3.

emigration thus contributed to Mormonism’s high degree of tension

with the rest of society.

Public media also saw Utah, the destination of the emigrants, in

largely negative terms. A common theme was that the fervent and ide-

alistic Mormons would realize, “though too late, that they have been

deceived in the most disgraceful way.”

101++

From this perspective, the

emigrants had essentially been enslaved by a system that had deceived

them and lured them from their native lands. Again, a central tech-

nique was to blame the deceptive missionary rather than the innocent

convert. Missionaries “painted life at the Salt Lake with the most en-

ticing colors.”

102+++

In Utah, “like everywhere in America, fried spar-

rows f ly into one’s mouth.”

103++++

This theme came up in an 1881 review of the Finnish Lutheran

Church’s condition and its relation to foreign preachers and dissent-

ers, even though no Mormons are known to have emigrated by then:

“Howlittlethepeopleingeneralhavebeenableto‘seekthespirit’is

shownbythefactthat,eventhisyear,manypersonshavelistenedto

preachers of the Mormonite sect and have followed them into slavery

of the ‘last day saints’ in the Mormon city.”

104*

Similarly, when reports

of Mormon missionary activity around Vaasa arrived in late 1881, the

Helsingfors printed an article by Swedish journalist Jonas Stadling,

who had visited Utah:

Among the 4,000 to 5,000 Scandinavian Mormons that live in Salt Lake

City, I met many who admitted they were disappointed in their hopes

concerning “Zion,” while others, especially women, with tears in their

eyesspokeoftheirhomeontheothersideoftheocean....Theyare

here involved in the worst slavery imaginable—slavery under fanaticism

and unskillfulness and slavery under a gang of crooks, thieves, and

murderers....[Inthetemple]theyareinitiatedintothegloominessof

plural marriage and human sacrifices (“blood atonement”) [sic] and

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 203

101

“Mormonismen och den skandinaviska emigrationen,” Björne-

borgs Tidning, August 3, 1881, 3.

+++

102

“Hungersnöden på Island,” Östra Finland, October 11, 1882, 6.

++++

103

“En mormonkonferens i Stockholm,” Wiborgsbladet, October 31,

1882, 3.

104

“Turusta. Wuosi 1881. Kirkko,” Sanomia Turusta, January 3, 1882,

come out thus “initiated.”

105**

Part of this interpretation that Mormons were victims of “white

slavery” stemmed from the emigrants’ poverty coupled with loans

from the Perpetual Emigrating Fund. First, the elders enticed them

to emigrate; but once they arrived in the new Mormon society, they

were bound down with the difficult obligation of repaying their loan.

Uusi Suometar summarized this view: “Those that move away usually

end up in the ‘Zion’ on the other side of the Atlantic in the manner

that they are enticed to borrow money from a help fund in Utah,

where things are handled so that they scarcely ever are able to pay

back their debt, but rather walk around there as slaves for their entire

lives.”

106***

Furthermore, women and children were often singled out, not

only as slaves of a theocratic religious system, but also of a polygamous

and patriarchal society. In 1879, for instance, it was reported that a

young Swiss woman had emigrated to Utah; but when she had rejected

the polygamous marriage proposal of the missionary who converted

her, he became furious. Her situation was difficult, and she beseech-

ingly wrote home to Switzerland, asking that she might “for God’s sake

be freed from her slavery.” Accordingly, the Swiss general consul in

Washington was going to take action to “free [her] from the Mormons’

hands.”

107****

Some years later, another newspaper claimed that a Danish

Mormon missionary had seduced forty-two young women to emigrate

to Utah although they had willingly embraced polygamy.

108+

And after

referring to the abuse of Mormon women, a letter writer “seriously

warned people of both sexes in the Nordic countries against letting

themselves be seduced into misery by Mormon agents.”

109++

Sensationalistic reports such as these naturally resulted in a felt

need to educate the population concerning the dangers of converting

to Mormonism and emigrating to Utah. In that manner, the problem

could be easily remedied by persuading people not to leave their na-

204 The Journal of Mormon History

105

“Mormonismen,” Helsingfors, December 2, 1881, 3–4.

***

106

“Mormonilaisuus Skandinawiassa,” Uusi Suometar, November 26,

1879, 2.

****

107

“Från mormonernas land,” Åbo Underrättelser, December 13, 1879,

3. “Mormonåterwandring,” Åbo Underrättelser, August 12, 1873, 2, reported

that some Mormons were returning to their homelands in largenumbers.

108

“42 nuorta naista,” Aamulehti, November 26, 1890, 3.

109

“Till mormonlandet Utah,” Norra Posten, July 19, 1883, 4.

tive land in the first place. As the case of Hedvig Johansdotter shows,

however, sometimes even personal discussions and visits were not

successful. Some probably regarded with skepticism the excessively

gloomy depictions of Utah. One visitor to Utah contrasted “having

been crammed with the most unbelievable fables about the Mor-

mons,” only to find tranquility and normalcy instead.

110+++

Thus, the

very intensity of the opposition may have worked against its own

purposes.

Nevertheless, newspapers sometimes specifically explained that

they were publishing an exposé of Mormonism to prevent people

from emigrating. The newspaper Nya Pressen, for example, prefaced

an article by saying that it wanted it to “warn simple persons who are

prepared to go to Utah” before it was too late.

111++++

In 1888, Wasabladet

reported that a Mormon missionary had appeared in the Vaasa area

and referred the public to critical articles that the newspaper had

published only a month previously from American pastor M. W.

Montgomery. He had composed them specifically for Scandinavians,

and they had been published widely. Wasabladet had headlined them

simply “Warning to Emigrants.”

112*

Some organizations with connection to Scandinavia set up Lu-

theran missions to Utah, endeavoring to work among Mormon emi-

grants from those countries. The aim was not to have them return to

their homelands but to deconvert them from Mormonism and recon-

vert them to Protestant Christianity, if possible. It is not known that

any Finnish organizations had been set up for a similar purpose; how-

ever, Finnish non-Mormon immigrants to the United States were seen

as potential Mormon converts. After detailing alleged conditions in

SaltLakeCity,onewriterhopedthat“theLordGodwouldprotect...

especially our Finnish emigrants in America so they would not be in-

gratiated in Mormonism’s perversions.”

113**

The author was most

likely editor Johannes Bäck, a Lutheran pastor who had confronted

Mormonism in Vaasa and its surroundings five years earlier.

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 205

+++

110

“Bland mormonerne,” Finland, January 29, 1889, 4.

++++

111

“Bidrag till mormonismens historia,” Nya Pressen, October 27,

1884, 4.

112

“En mormonpredikant,” Wasabladet, June 13, 1888, 2. Selections

of Montgomery’s longer text were published in this newspaper as “Warning

till emigranter. Mormonismens styggelser blottade,” May16, 26, both on 3.

113

“Om mormonismen,” Mellersta Österbotten, December 15, 1881, 3.

These reactions show that the general themes of deception, se-

duction, slavery, and profiteering were present in Finnish discourse

and image construction related to the emigration activities of the

Mormons, sometimes even before emigration from Finland had actu-

ally occurred. Compared to criticisms against general emigration

from Finland to Utah, the converts themselves were seldom blamed

for falling prey to hopes for a better future elsewhere. Rather, the cul-

prit was the Mormon organization that had clouded the formerly

sound judgment of the new converts and deprived them of life’s

goodness:“HowmanynobleseedsofChristianityhasnottheawful

Mormonism suffocated, while robbing the deceived of native coun-

try, family happiness and other precious gifts!”

114***

CONCLUSION

For the Mormons, emigration to Utah signaled an end to spiri-

tual and physical diaspora. It was a divinely mandated practice, calcu-

lated to transform the new convert from a citizen of Babylon into a

true Saint in Zion, his or her authentic spiritual home. In emigration,

the converts’ religious identity took precedence over their national-

ity. Emigration was to them a vehicle for the gathering home of God’s

scattered people, now remembering their heritage. While it has been

debated whether the Mormons can be seen as an ethnic group, it is

clear that, especially in Utah, they became a tightly knit group with a

shared sense of sacred history and destiny. They had been gathered

from the wicked world and could build Zion as one people with uni-

fied goals. In numerical terms, the emigration experiment was highly

successful for the Church.

Considering that only fourteen individuals became Mormon

emigrants from Finland, emigration is clearly a minor part of the early

Mormon experience in Finland. Nevertheless it is essential not to over-

look it, especially when seeking to contextualize Mormonism in Fin-

land with the faith’s emigration-rich history in the rest of Scandinavia.

The numerical contrast that emerges between the other Nordic coun-

tries and Finland is noteworthy. Despite the small numbers, emigra-

tion was an important theme in the image formation of Mormonism

among the general public. Newspapers dealt with the phenomenon,

often in negative terms, warning people against embarking on such a

path.

206 The Journal of Mormon History

***

114

“En tidsbetraktelse. II.,” Finland, November 19, 1886, 3.

Mormon emigration is also important in charting historic rea-

sons for emigrating from Finland. Due to the common emphasis on

socioeconomic and other factors behind emigration, it is easy to by-

pass the power of religion in a culturally homogenous country. The

fact that some Finnish individuals left their homeland chiefly because

their faith told them that their true “home” was elsewhere is some-

thing rarely encountered.

KIM ÖSTMAN/FROM FINLAND TO ZION 207

“THE LORD, GOD OF ISRAEL,

BROUGHT Us OUT OF MEXICO!”

UNIUS ROMNEY AND THE 1912

ORMON EXODUS

Joseph Barnard Romney

INEARLYOCTOBER OF 1912, the thirty-four-year-old president of the

LDS Juarez Stake in Mexico stood before Joseph F. Smith, the ven-

erable president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

his counselors, and the other General Authorities. Some 4,500

Mormons had just abruptly evacuated the Mormon colonies in

northernMexicoandfledtotheUnitedStates.JuniusRomney,the

young stake president, later wrote that President Smith asked

“What impelled me or justified me in making such a drastic

move?” Romney responded that he acted “under the inspiration of

God.” In a later formulation of that answer he wrote, “The Lord,

God of Israel, brought us out of Mexico!”

1**

That answer was pro-

vided by the only person in the world who was in a position to sat-

208

* JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY {jfromney@srv.net), is a retired

teacher from Brigham Young University—Idaho. He is the grandson of

Junius Romney. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I express appreciation to John

C. Thomas, Michael Landon, and the Journal of Mormon History reviewers

for their helpful suggestions on this article. I also thank Florence Black

Romney, my wife, and Megan Romney, my granddaughter, for their re-

search and editorial assistance.

The first answer comes from Junius Romney, “Was the Exodus Nec-

isfactorily answer President Smith’s question. This is because, as

Nelle Spilsbury Hatch wrote, “No personal violence or property ex-

tortion was suffered without President Romney’s being notified, no

redress claimed without petitioning his aid to affect it.”

2***

That is to

say, he was uniquely central in all that went on in the exodus. Not

only could he factually explain what occurred, but he could also, I

argue, offer the most insightful interpretation of why the events oc-

curred as they did.

This article sketches the background of the Mormon colonies in

Mexico, their intersection with the Mexican Revolution, the condi-

tions under which Junius Romney became president of the Juarez

Stake, his leadership role as the colonists responded, and the massive

evacuation of all the colonists to the United States during the sum-

mer of 1912. Using hitherto unpublished sources, it reconstructs

Romney’s role in key decisions leading up to the exodus and presents

his conclusion that God was the ultimate director of that process.

HE MORMON COLONIES IN MEXICO

Although Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1821,

its next half-century saw much political instability. During that pe-

riod, the Latter-day Saints entered Mexico on two major occasions.

The first was the epic march of the Mormon Battalion in 1846 as part

of the war between the United States and Mexico. The second was the

migration of the Saints into the Valley of the Great Salt Lake begin-

ning in July 1847, about six months before that region became part of

the United States.

In 1876 the political climate began to change in Mexico when

PorfirioDiaz,animportantgeneralintheMexicanarmy,became

president of the republic, in a regime often called the Porfiriato.He

began a largely effective process of establishing political stability by

applyingapolicyof“pan y palo” (bread and stick). The bread was for

his supporters, who received political, social, religious, and economic

benefits;thestickforthosewhoopposedhim,whichincludedtheru-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 209

essary?”, c. 1960, typescript on onion-skin. The later formulation comes

fromJunius Romney, “Remarksof Junius RomneyMade in the Garden Park

Ward Sacrament Meeting, Salt Lake City, July 31, 1966,” 6, photocopy

(hereafter Garden Park Ward Remarks).

***

Nelle Spilsbury Hatch, Colonia Juarez (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book,

1954), 164.

ral poor. Diaz supported foreign investment, welcomed non-Catholic

religions and foreign immigrants, and provided political stability, all

of which attracted the Mormons. Diaz admired the Mormon people

who had demonstrated their ability to succeed economically in a

landscape similar to that found in northern Mexico. So when Mor-

mons started looking into settlement possibilities in Mexico, Diaz wel-

comed them.

3****

The Latter-day Saints found Mexico attractive in three ways.

They took seriously the mandate to preach the gospel to all nations,

they needed to expand their settlements in the West to accommodate

their ever-growing population, and they were actively looking for loca-

tions in addition to Utah, particularly because of the intensifying fed-

eral pressure against their practice of polygamy. After making plans

in 1874, explorers left Utah in September 1875 with others following

in 1876 and 1879. Saints traveled into the Mexican border states of

Sonora and Chihuahua, but also reached as far south as Mexico City.

In these and successive trips, they preached with considerable success

and also searched for possible settlement sites.

Groups with the primary purpose of colonization began enter-

ing Mexico in 1885.

An essential motivation for the move was advice

from President John Taylor that “President Porfirio Diaz assured the

210 The Journal of Mormon History

****

See Michael C. Meyer and William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican

History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979). For the revolution, see

Charles C. Cumberland, Mexico: Struggle for Modernity (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1968).

Blaine C. Hardy, “The Mormon Colonies in Northern Mexico: A

History, 1885–1912” (Ph.D. diss., Wayne State University, 1963); and

Thomas Cottam Romney, The Mormon Colonies in Mexico (1938; rpt., Salt

Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005). The 2005 edition, with an intro-

duction by Martha Sonntag Bradley, has pagination identical to the original

for the text; footnote citations can be followed in either edition. To differen-

tiate between the Romney brothers, I use “Romney” or “Junius” for Junius,

and “Thomas” or “Thomas Romney” for Thomas. For conditions during

the Diaz period, see F. LaMond Tullis, Mormons in Mexico: The Dynamics of

Faith and Culture (Logan: Utah State University, 1987), esp. 75–77, 83–84,

87–94. Tullis also comments extensively on missionary efforts among na-

tive Mexicans, which by 1912 had resulted in about 1,600 Mormons in cen-

tral Mexico. They are not part of this article.

church there were no laws against polygamy” in Mexico.

5++

In the next

twenty-one years, nine major Mormon colonies were established in

the two northernmost Mexican states of Chihuahua and Sonora.

South of El Paso in the state of Chihuahua, along the valley floor near

the Casas Grandes River were Colonia Diaz, Colonia Dublan, and

ColoniaJuarez.InthemountainstothewestwereColoniaPacheco,

Colonia Garcia, and Colonia Chuichupa. In the state of Sonora south

of Douglas, Arizona, along the Bavispe River were Colonia Morelos,

Colonia Oaxaca, and San Jose.

6+++

Although Mexico was not formally dedicated for the preaching

of the gospel, the earliest missionaries had been formally blessed by

Apostle Orson Pratt; and both the missionaries and later colonists

carried out their respective missions under the direction and with the

full support of Church leaders in Utah.

7++++

For their part, the colonists

assumed that Mexico would become their new homeland and that

they would stay there for the rest of their lives. Indeed, even in the

midst of the revolution Junius Romney had “not the slightest thought

butthatwewouldbeabletoremain”inMexico.

As they had done in Utah, the colonists moved into an area with

a sparse indigenous population and settled on previously undevel-

oped sites. They created a self-contained culture within the larger

Mexican political and social system. Each colony had its own presidente

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 211

B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage

(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 173–78.

+++

The colonies in Chihuahua in 1912 were Colonia Diaz (established

1885, named for President Diaz, population, 750), Colonia Dublan (1888,

named for Manuel Dublan, secretary of the treasury, pop. 1,200), Colonia

Juarez (1885, named for former President Benito Juarez, population 800),

Colonia Pacheco (1887, named for Carlos Pacheco, minister of war, popula-

tion 275), Colonia Garcia (1894, named for Telesforo Garcia, a private land

owner, population 275), and Colonia Chuichupa (1894, an Indian name

meaning “place of the mist,” population 275). Those in the state of Sonora

were Colonia Oaxaca (1892, named for the birth state of President Diaz,

population 64), Colonia Morelos (1898, named for Jose Maria Morelos, a

leader in the war for independence from Spain, population 625) and San

Jose (1906, population 200). Information from manuscript records of the

various wards, LDS Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

++++

Tullis, Mormons in Mexico, 19.

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?”, 13.

(town sheriff and chief administrative authority), town council, and

local officials which were subject to the authority of Mexican munici-

palities within which they lived.

9**

They participated in some Mexican

national holidays and cultural activities, and by and large were on

good terms with native Mexicans.

10***

Some colonists became Mexican

citizens, but the majority did not.

11****

The colonists quickly built homes, graduating from rough shel-

ters to modest adobe dwellings to substantial brick homes equal in

quality to those in Utah. They furnished their homes in large measure

with products from the United States. They built churches, tithing

houses, a fine Relief Society building in Colonia Dublan, and primary

schools, with an academy (high school) in Colonia Juarez which con-

tinues to function up to this day. Their economy was prosperous and

diversified—including prize-winning fruit, grain, substantial herds of

cattle, lumber, gristmills, mercantile establishments, and other busi-

nesses needed to support a growing population. Some of their prod-

ucts, notably fruit, were distributed elsewhere in Mexico. Not only did

this prosperity bless the colonists, but it came to the attention of Presi-

212 The Journal of Mormon History

The challenge of dealing with Mexicans living within the colonies is

shown in the case of Juan Sosa which began in April of 1911. Guy Taylor

acted for his absent brother Alonzo, the presidente in Colonia Juarez, when

some trouble arose. Guy, along with several other colonists, attempted to

arrest Sosa for alleged thefts and in the process accidentally killed him.

From the time that this failed arrest and death occurred until early 1912,

there was considerable tension between the colonists and Mexican munici-

pality authorities. Romney returned from Salt Lake City in time to be in-

volved with legal negotiations to get one of the colonists, Leslie Coombs,

out of jail, but it was events associated with the revolution that eventually

led to Coombs’s release. Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 167–77.

***

Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 131–35; Annie R. Johnson, Heartbeats of

Colonia Diaz (N.p., 1972), 128–41.

****

Romney wrote that he had sound “reason for believing that Joseph

C. Bentley, Anson B. Call, John T. Whetten, Edward Eyring, John J. Walser,

and Edmund C. Richardson had become Mexican citizens.” Romney, “Spe-

cial Tributes,” 1, onion-skin typescript. Romney, “Was the Exodus Neces-

sary?”, 8–9, also states that “the overwhelming majority of the Colonists

were American citizens.” See also Joseph C. Bentley, Life and Letters of Joseph

C. Bentley (N.p., 1977), 77–85, 107; William G. Hartley and Lorna Call Al-

der, Anson Bowen Call: Bishop of Colonia Dublan (Provo, Utah: N. p., 2007),

70, 85, 174, 182.

dent Diaz, Chihuahua Governor Miguel Ahumada, and other Mexi

can officials who praised Mormon economic accomplishments.

12+

All

of these conditions led Thomas Cottam Romney, one of the colo-

nists, to write, “It now seemed that we had about all we could wish

for.”

13++

THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION AND THE COLONISTS

In the first decade of the twentieth century, dissatisfaction with

the Porfiriato became evident among many Mexican citizens, a feeling

not shared by the Mormon colonists. A major complaint was that, in

spite of its internal order and material gains, it failed to support the

liberal elements of political guarantees, social justice, and anti-cleri-

calism called for by the liberal constitution of 1857. Diaz’s declara-

tion in 1908 that he did not intend to run for president in 1910 fanned

liberal hopes for a reformation, but Diaz changed his mind and his re-

election as president was affirmed on September 27, 1910. An oppo-

nent of Diaz, Francisco I. Madero, declared Diaz’s reelection invalid

and announced himself as Mexico’s provisional president. Madero

called for people to rise up in armed rebellion against Diaz on No-

vember 20, 1910, and many people throughout the country did so, es-

pecially in the state of Chihuahua. These various uprisings had differ-

ent local leaders, but all of them generally supported Madero. Mexico

had previously experienced many revolutions, but this was the begin-

ning ofthe Mexican Revolution, the one which led to the Mexico of to-

day.

14+++

In this revolution, Diaz’s supporters, and his successors who

controlled the government in Mexico City, were called “federals” by

the Mormons. Their composition changed from time to time, as did

their political agendas, depending on who was victorious in the most

recent revolutionary battles. The pro-Madero forces, which the Mor-

mons collectively called “rebels,” likewise periodically changed lead-

ership and political agendas. The Mormons initially favored Diaz,

who had facilitated their settlement and who maintained the order

under which they flourished. But they did not overtly express their

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 213

Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 105–12; Johnson, Heartbeats, 128–41.

Thomas Cottam Romney, A Divinity Shapes Our Ends (N.p., 1953),

147.

+++

Charles C. Cumberland, Mexican Revolution: Genesis under Madero

(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1952).

support in either word or action.

By October 1, 1911, Diaz was defeated in battle and resigned the

presidency. On November 6, 1911, Madero became the president of

Mexico,buthefailedtoactswiftlyoradequatelyenoughtoimple-

ment reforms for the problems facing the nation. Even during the

first month of his presidency, opposition appeared against his presi-

dency. On March 25, 1912, Pascual Orozco, one of his previous sup-

porters in Chihuahua, broke with Madero, collected an army of some

8,000 men, and moved against the president. Orozco thus became the

leader of the “rebel” forces while Madero and his army became the

“federals,” the two major protagonists contesting the region of the

Mormon colonies.

15++++

Despite their stated policy of neutrality, the Mormons were un-

able to avoid threats and exploitation from Orozco’s rebels; and fear-

ing for their lives, they fled to the United States for protection. This

mass evacuation, called “the exodus,” occurred in the summer of

1912. Its leader was Junius Romney, the thirty-four-year-old president

of the Juarez Stake.

ISTORIES OF THE EXODUS

Although this traumatic event of the exodus affected many lives

and has been described in a number of books, memoirs, and articles,

the unique view of Junius Romney has been only partially presented.

For many years, he chose to say little about that period. Later, when he

began to write and talk more, his views were only minimally circu-

lated and cited. The current availability of his writings coincides with

a time when the history of the colonies has come more to the fore-

front of public awareness. Evidence of this increased interest is dem-

onstrated by the dedication of the Colonia Juarez Temple on March6,

1999, and in an increasing interest in the colonies by the public and by

historians.

16*

Particularly noteworthy is the 2005 reprinting of what is still, ar-

guably, the best single-volume history of the colonies, Thomas

214 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Michael C. Meyer, Mexican Rebel: Pascual Orozco and the Mexican Rev-

olution, 1910–1915 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967).

“The Crowning Glory of Colonia Juarez,” Church News, March 13,

1999, 1–3, 6–9. Descendants of the original colonists sometimes visit the

colony sites and cemeteries, mostly in Chihuahua and occasionally in

Sonora. Contact with native Mexicans has been especially limited in

Cottam Romney, The Mormon Colonies in Mexico, first published in

1938. Thomas wisely used as his primary source for his account of the

exodus, an affidavit written in 1935 by his younger brother Junius.

17**

In fact, a page-by-page comparison between the affidavit and Thom-

as’s four chapters on the exodus discloses that about 68 percent of

those chapters rely closely on the affidavit.

18***

The value of both Thomas’s book and what is provided by Junius,

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 215

Sonora. But in the summer of 2007, a group of some twenty descendants of

the colonists, including me, visited Colonia Morelos in Sonora, made a ma-

jor contribution to its school, mingled with the non-LDS Mexican residents,

and had a joyful evening fiesta with them. We visited the cemetery in

Colonia Morelos and the cemetery on the site of what had been Colonia

Oaxaca, then visited Chihuahua. This contact with the residents of Colonia

Morelos continues up to this date. In addition, several colony families now

have internet websites. Also a tour guide service to the colonies is now avail-

able. Attention by historians is illustrated by several papers which were pre-

sented at the 2002 Mormon History Association annual meeting in Tucson,

Arizona, and a post-meeting tour to Colonia Dublan and Colonia Juarez in

Chihuahua.

This affidavit is among Junius’s papers and is entitled “Affidavit of

Junius Romney,” unsigned, dated in pen this “6th” day of “December,”

1935,” with unsigned spaces for a notarization. It is a typed carbon copy of

80 pages on legal-sized paper. Junius’s son Eldon provided me with this doc-

ument in 1992. The heavy paper cover is labeled “Affidavit of Junius Rom-

ney prepared by [sic; probably should be “for.”] J. Reuben Clark (2 copies).

Read by Olive [Romney] Marshall 1/28/60.” My search of the J. Reuben

Clark papers at BYU produced no record of this affidavit allegedly pre-

pared “by” him. Junius may have intended to send it to Clark, but likely only

Thomas seems to have used it. Years ago I asked Ethyl Romney, Thomas’s

second wife, if she had any of Thomas’s papers or sources for his book. She

said she had none. Junius’s papers and correspondence with Thomas make

no reference to this affidavit. A comparison to Thomas’s The Mormon Colo-

nies, which can be used as a general outline for this article, is easy since the

affidavit is organized chronologically by dates. A veiled reference to this af-

fidavit appears in The Mormon Colonies: “ . . . later in referring to this inci-

dent Mr. Romney ...”(173). An earlier version of this affidavit (109 pp.)

with a typed date of “July 1930,” likewise unsigned, is also in Junius’s pa-

pers.

***

Chapters 13–16 in The Mormon Colonies deal with the exodus. The

following pages are not from the affidavit: Chapter 13, “Strained Rela-

as seen through that book as well as in his other writings, is described in

Martha Sonntag Bradley’s introduction to Thomas’s book. In the 2005

reprint she writes that Thomas’s “personal account retains its charm

and its importance as a firsthand narrative. His unique vantage point

...makesthisaninvaluableandrichdocumentthatenlargesourun-

derstanding of this moment in the Mormon past.” She also points out

that Thomas describes how the lives of the colonists “were tossed out of

balance by the threat of war, and how negotiations for the movement of

the group either into or out of Mexico took on a similar complex-

ity.”

19****

In his book Thomas added to his personal experiences in the ex-

odus those of his brother, Junius, who in most of the events of the exo-

dus, had a more direct involvement than did he.

In addition to the affidavit, Junius’s papers include other writ-

ings useful in understanding the exodus. The earliest written source

for his view, one from outside his papers, comes from an interview he

hadwithArizonaSenatorMarcusA.Smith,amemberofaSenate

committee investigating “outrages on citizens of the United States in

Mexico.” It is useful for the information it contains but more valuable

to compare it with Junius’s later comments for their accuracy.

20+

Junius’s papers include handwritten notes, miscellaneous pa-

pers, letters, typescripts, and copied typescripts. Those pertinent to

this article began to be formulated at least by 1930, in the affidavit,

216 The Journal of Mormon History

tions,” the description of the revolutionary setting (149–51), the Juan Sosa

killing (163–66), an Associated Press dispatch (172), one paragraph from

Henry E. Bowman (178), and a summary (180); Chapter 14, “The Exodus of

the Chihuahua Colonies,” introduction (182), the colonists’ surrendering

their guns to the rebels (183–84), and the exodus and aftermath in El Paso

(186, 188–90); all of Chapter 15; and Chapter 16, “Events Following the Ex-

odus,” conclusion (212). The affidavit and other of Junius’s papers give

other facts and interpretation not in The Mormon Colonies, some of which

are in this article.

****

Martha Sonntag Bradley, Introduction, The Mormon Colonies, 10–

11, 12. For Romney’s role in the “negotiations” during the exodus, see Bill

Smith, “The Diplomacy of Junius Romney in Mexico,” paper delivered at

the Mormon History Association annual meeting, May 2002, Tucson, Ari-

zona.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Investiga-

tion of Mexican Affairs, 66th Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Documents, Vols. 9–10,

Serial numbers 7665 and 7666, 1919–20, 2574–90.

and thereafter in holograph and other formats until about 1959 when

his daughter, Olive Romney Marshall, began to correct and type final

copies of some of the papers, under her father’s direction, which con-

tained the information Junius wanted to present publicly. Papers were

collected from family members and others, one especially large quan-

tity coming from the basement of Junius’s home at 1169 Douglas

Street in Salt Lake City. While a few are now in public depositories

and several were distributed by Junius and are in private hands, event-

ually all came into my possession.

Two of these items are publicly available as photocopied type-

scripts and were energetically distributed by Junius. The first is “Re-

marks Made in the Rose Park Stake Priesthood meeting Which Con-

vened in the Stake Center at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 13, 1966” (17

pp). The second is “Remarks of Junius Romney made in the Garden

Park Ward Sacrament Meeting, Salt Lake City, July 31, 1966” (6 pp).

One set of his papers which did not go through any modifica-

tion since its creation is “A Brief Story of My Life” (32 pp., typescript),

which I have titled “Autobiography I.” He wrote it 1930 (date deduced

from text).

21++

“Autobiography II (my title) was written in 1958 (date

gleanedfromthetext;23pp.typedonseverelyeditedletter-sizeon-

ion-skin paper and legal-size regular paper).

Other papers which went through an editorial and retyping pro-

cess, many of which come in typescripts and copies and show the edito-

rial markings, were completed around 1960. They are “Exit of the Men

to the United States” (20 pp.); “Reorganization of the Juarez Stake” (7

pp.); “Special Tributes” (31 pp.); “Spiritual Preparation” (3 pp.); “This

DeMetrio [sic] Ponce” (title is the text’s first words; the name should be

“Demetrio; 29 pp.); and “This Is Junius Romney Speaking” (title is the

text’s first words; 14 pp.). Junius’s correspondence (1912–60s) also in-

cludes some details. Perhaps the most important items are correspon-

dence with Joel H. Martineau, who was writing a history of the colo-

nies, and a letter to J. ReubenClark Jr. of the LDS First Presidency.

22+++

The significance of Junius’s contribution to our understand-

ing of the exodus becomes more evident when we recognize that

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 217

Pages 1–11 of “Autobiography I” is retyped on seven pages of on-

ion-skin legal-sized paper and is titled “Early Life.”

+++

Martineau was preparing “A Brief Sketch,” of Romney’s life and re-

quested that he review it. Joel H. Martineau, Letter to Junius Romney,

September 6, 1948. On September 20, Junius slightly modified the manuscript

most other writers on the exodus use Junius’s view either through

some of his own writings or channeled through Thomas’s

book.

23++++

His publicly distributed “Rose Park Remarks” and “Gar-

den Park Remarks” and my own publications, which rely heavily on

Junius’s papers, are sources for several important works on the exo-

dus.

24*

218 The Journal of Mormon History

and added two pages on his activity in El Paso immediately after the exodus.

Martineau’s complete but unpublished work is a valuable source on the colo-

nies. Junius Romney, Letter to President J. Reuben Clark, September 10, 1956,

refers to “our conversation on the Denver and Rio Grande Railway train [e]n

route [to the] East some months ago.” This letter accompanied another letter,

written to his daughter, Margaret Romney Jackson, August 27, 1956, in which

he recounted a spiritual experience involving a severe bout with typhoid fever.

He saw the Lord’s hand in his survival and further recognized it as preparation

for his actions as stake president in organizing the exodus.

++++

Elizabeth H. Mills, “The Mormon Colonies in Mexico after the

1912 Exodus,” New Mexico Historical Review 29 (July 1954): 165–82; Clar-

ence William Cox, “The Mormon Colonies in Chihuahua, Mexico” (M.A.

thesis, University of Southern California, 1969); B. Carmon Hardy, “The

Mormon Colonies in Mexico: A History” (Ph.D diss., Wayne State Univer-

sity, 1963), and his “‘Cultural Encystment’ as a Cause of the Mormon Exo-

dus from Mexico in 1912,” Pacific Historical Review 34 (November 1965):

439–54; Johnson, Heartbeats of Colonia Diaz; Frank Fox, J. Reuben Clark: The

Public Years (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press/Salt Lake City:

Deseret Book, 1980).

See Joseph B. Romney, “The Exodus of the Mormon Colonists

from Mexico” (M.A. thesis, University of Utah, 1967) and “The Stake Presi-

dent’s View of the Exodus of the Mormon Colonies in Mexico in 1912,” in

Times of Transition: Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium of the Joseph Fielding

Smith Institute for Latter-day Saints History at Brigham Young University,edited

by Thomas G. Alexander (Provo, Utah: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for

Latter-day Saint History, 2003), 129–38. Works drawing on either Junius’s

addresses or my two articles are Clarence F. Turley and Annie Tenney

Turley, History of the Mormon Colonies in Mexico (The Juarez Stake) 1885–1980

(Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1996); F. LaMond Tullis, Mormons in Mex-

ico: The Dynamics of Faith and Culture (Logan: Utah State University, 1987);

William G. Hartley and Lorna Call Alder, Anson Bowen Call: Bishop of

Colonia Dublan (Provo, Utah: N.p., 2007); Michael N. Landon, “‘We Navi-

gated by Pure Understanding’: Bishop George T. Sevey’s Account of the

JUNIUS’S MOTIVATION FOR WRITING

Junius’s affidavit, completed in 1930, provides evidence that he

gave considerable thought to providing a careful and accurate ac-

count of the exodus and his involvement in it. However, its almost ex-

clusive concentration on the facts of the exodus suggests that he in-

tended to provide only a clear narrative, not an analysis of causation,

motivations, and alternatives. He moved to that interpretive step

later. Moreover, there is no evidence that he distributed the affidavit

to anyone but Thomas, which, I argue, demonstrates that he was not

willing at that time to make any significant public statement which

would be attributed to him.

Still, Junius was motivated to tell his story, because, as he wrote:

“I am, of course, familiar with the facts of the ‘Exodus’ so far as the

part which I played in it is concerned and much of it could not be writ-

ten by any other.”

25**

The catalyst for his expanded writing occurred in 1956 when

Junius found himself on a train with J. Reuben Clark Jr. for some five

or six hours.

26***

Clark was the Mexico specialist for the U.S. State De-

partment during the exodus; and after the exodus, he represented the

colonists’ claims for damages arising from their evacuation. He told

Junius thathe“must write thestory oftheexodusofthe MormonCol-

onies in Chihuahua and Sonora.” Reporting this conversation later,

Junius stated, “I explained to President Clark the difficulties which I

saw in undertaking to follow his instruction because I was sure that it

might offend some people. I told President Clark that if I was to write

thehistoryitwouldhavetobethetruthasIsawitandexperiencedit

and could not be fiction and that probably some of the material would

be such that the Church would prefer not to have it discussed at the

present time.”

Balancing loyalty to the Church and personal integrity, Junius

thus interpreted the lack of clear instruction from Church leaders as

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 219

1912 Exodus from Mexico,” BYU Studies, 43, no. 2 (2004): 63–101; Bill L.

Smith, “Impacts of the Mexican Revolution: The Mormon Experience”

(Ph.D. diss., Washington State University, 2000), and his “The Diplomacy

of Junius Romney in Mexico,” paper delivered at the Mormon History As-

sociation annual meeting, May 2002, Tucson, Arizona; Ryan Prows, “Mor-

mons and the Mexican Revolution” (BYU honors thesis, 2005).

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 4.

***

Romney to Clark, September 10, 1956.

showing

****

that they preferred not to create any additional record of the

event. Junius explained: “The reason for my long silence is that my

first allegiance is to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

and the Church has not seen fit to authorize me to publish the story of

thedramaticeventswhichculminatedinthecompleteevacuationof

alltheMormonColoniesinNorthernMexico....UntiltheydoIshall

remain silent.”

28+

At least one of the reasons Junius interpreted the Church

stance as favoring silence was the controversial practice of post-Man-

ifesto marriages in Mexico. Despite the withdrawal of official sup-

port for new plural marriages in 1890, the Woodruff Manifesto actu-

ally ushered in a difficult and confusing period which combined

public statements of support for the Manifesto with private authori-

zation of continued new plural marriages and continued cohabita-

tion in existing plural marriages, much of it under the direction of

Joseph F. Smith as a member of the First Presidency (1880–1901)

and then as Church president (1901–18). It was not until national

pressure focused sharply on the Church during the Reed Smoot

hearings (1903–7), that President Smith announced a “Second Man-

ifesto” in 1904 affirming that polygamous marriages were not to be

performed anywhere—including in Mexico or Canada—, punished

Apostles Matthias Cowley and John W. Taylor for post-Manifesto

marriages, issued a “final manifesto” in 1907 emphasizing the

Church’s commitment to monogamy, and authorized excommuni-

cations of members contracting new plural marriages in 1911.

These steps were taken reluctantly, under intense scrutiny, and were

accompanied by secrecy so profound that often children did not un-

derstand the marital arrangements of their parents. For the next

three quarters of a century, the Church followed an official policy of

“least said, soonest mended,” and it was not until the last quarter of

the twentieth century that a more balanced analysis and better un-

derstanding of that complicated period could be made.

29++

Junius was well aware of this official attitude. He was always

careful to say that he had no “legal knowledge” of plural marriages af-

220 The Journal of Mormon History

****

Ibid.; Romney, “This Is Junius Romney Speaking,” 2.

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 1.

For a general history of polygamy, including the post-Manifesto pe-

riod, see Richard S. Van Wagoner, Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signa-

ture Books, 1986). For post-Manifesto marriages in Mexico and elsewhere,

ter the 1890 Manifesto; but as a matter of personal integrity, he also

stated that he had good reason to believe that others were so married

and that, if they were not, “they should have been.”

30+++

President Heber

J. Grant was particularly anxious to distance the Church from post-

Manifesto polygamy; and Clark, as his counselor, was fully and aggres-

sively supportive of this position.

31++++

Junius’s train conversation with

Clark, which occurred a decade after Grant’s death and only three

years after Arizona’s raid on Short Creek fundamentalists, was a cru-

cial catalyst—the long-withheld official authorization and encourage-

ment to “write the story of the exodus.” As a significant marker of the

still-complicated attitudes which would endure for another quarter-

century, neither Romney nor Clark spelled out that assumption; but it

is clear that Junius, at least, felt that they understood each other.

Junius was also concerned that his perspectives on the exodus

might be considered criticism of others’ actions during that period:

“Because of differences of opinion, tender feeling and indecision at

the time of the exodus, I remained completely silent for a period of

from 30 to 40 years.” When he began writing after his conversation

with Clark, Junius overcame that problem by writing “Special Trib-

utes” about eight “stalwarts” whom he thought might be offended by

whathewrote:AnthonyW.Ivins,HenryC.Bowman,JosephC.Bent-

ley, Anson B. Call, John T. Whetten, Edward C. Eyring, John J. Wal-

ser,andEdmundC.Richardson.Hehadnoillwilltowardthem.

Rather, he wanted them and their descendants to see their actions,

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 221

see Hardy, Solemn Covenant, and D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Authority

and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon

Thought 18, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 9–105.

+++

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 4; Romney, “Was the Exodus Neces-

sary?” 8. To daughter, Margaret Romney Jackson, Romney wrote on August

27, 1956, 3: “Nor am I surprised or shocked at the interpretation placed by

some church leaders on the application of the Manifesto. Why would it be

thought strange that some devout and worthy church members should have

felt it proper still to accept marriage not in violation of any law of the land

where they lived unless and until expressly prohibited by the church.”

++++

See, for example, the cooperation of the Church and Utah with the

ill-conceived raid on Short Creek fundamentalists by the state of Arizona in

1953. Martha Sonntag Bradley, Kidnapped from That Land: The Government

Raids on the Short Creek Polygamists (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press,

1993).

likehisown,aspartofadivineplan.

32*

JuniusdidnotrespondtoClark’sauthorizationinhaste.Rather,

it was a week or two before the October 1961 general conference that

Junius made an appointment for him and daughter Margaret to meet

with Clark and read the account to him. Clark cancelled that appoint-

mentbecauseofconferencepreparations.AsnearlyasIhavebeen

able to determine, the two never met; nor did Junius identify exactly

which document he planned to read to Clark.

However, piecing together Junius’s perspective as it emerges

from the numerous personal papers he left, it is clear to me that he

dealt with each changing situation first with an intent to follow what-

ever instructions he received from his ecclesiastical leaders, then with

his personal judgment in counsel with other leading men of the colo-

nies and in response to inspiration he received as he prayed for guid-

ance. After the exodus was complete and as he reflected on it, he con-

cluded that a divine plan had been at work. He articulated this conclu-

sion in El Paso immediately after the exodus on August 13 and 14,

1912. and again in October 1912 when he reported his activities to

President Joseph F. Smith.

As time passed, he perceived more clearly a pattern that con-

firmed his impression of a divine plan, successfully implemented, al-

222 The Journal of Mormon History

Romney commented in “Special Tributes,” “I have sound reason to

believe that all of these men, with the exception of A. W. Ivins, had, in good

faith, taken plural wives subsequent to the issuance of the ‘Manifesto’ by

President Wilford Woodruff” (1). Some had returned to Mexico after 1912,

but those who did not “I assume ...havebeen very discreet in seeking to

avoid giving offense to the American people by reason of having taken on

obligations elsewhere contrary to the laws of the United States” (21). Rom-

ney implied, but did not specifically state, that Bentley had post-Manifesto

wives, which was, in fact, the case. See Joseph T. Bentley, Life and Letters of Jo-

seph C. Bentley (N.p., 1977), 77–85, 107. Romney described Anson B. Call as

“a Mexican citizen” like Bentley, “and his marital status seemed to be much

the same. He felt, and I think rightly, that he really should continue to make

his home there in fairness to the Church. He told me ...asmuchduringthe

[my] visit in Colonia Dublan [likely in 1955]” (21). See Hartley and Call,

Anson Bowen Call, 70, 85, 174, 182. Edward Eyring married two of Junius’s

sisters after the 1890 Manifesto (22). See Thomas Cottam Romney, Life

Story of Miles Park Romney (Independence, Mo.: Zion’s Printing and Pub-

lishing Company, 1948), 371, 373.

though most of the participants did not recognize it at the time.

33**

He wrote about his conclusion and, when he thought it appropriate,

attempted to share some of his writings, particularly with the partici-

pants in the exodus and their descendants. With the exception of his

two “Remarks” talks given in July 1966, Junius did not publicly circu-

late his writings. The “Rose Park Stake Remarks,” had limited circu-

lation, but he energetically distributed the “Garden Park Ward Re-

marks,” both in Mexico and in the United States. Following the pe-

riod immediately after the exodus, Junius once briefly visited the

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 223

As a helpful parallel, see several essays in Richard Lyman Bushman,

Believing History: Latter-day Saint Essays, edited by Reid L. Nielson and Jed

Wordworth (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). “Faithful His-

tory” (10–17), reflects on divine causation. Bushman suggests that we as

Mormons “know from our doctrine that God enters history in various

ways.” One way is by “revelation through the prophets.” Junius looked for

guidance to the prophets—the First Presidency and Apostle Anthony W.

Ivins—but received instructions that either left him to his own judgment or

were inconsistent with the situation as he saw it. He later interpreted this un-

usual situation as an indication that God intended that he make the neces-

sary decisions. Bushman’s second “way” is the “providential direction of

peoples.” Junius believed that he received such providential direction, par-

ticularly when he was alone at McDonald Springs Canyon and wrote the or-

ders for those men still in the colonies to evacuate and go to the Stairs. He

could also see that the colonies’ “leading men” were inspired, especially at

critical times when what they did was contrary to their previously held posi-

tions. Certainly, he believed that the Saints followed divine guidance in

obeying their leaders’ counsel to leave Mexico. In “Joseph Smith and Skepti-

cism,” Bushman deals with the question of determining when divine inter-

vention has occurred. He concludes that intellect alone is inadequate to

reach a decision. He points out that some may have seen God in history

when events occurred “which were hard to believe without admitting super-

natural intervention” and quotes James Smith, a defender of miracles, who

wrote that biblical persons “performed miracles, and predicted events,

which human sagacity could neither have foreseen, nor conjectured.”

Bushman suggests that the only way for believers to properly respond to

skepticism “is to show that there is no acceptable explanation for the event

[the restoration through Joseph Smith] but divine power” (148, 154, 157).

Junius, after having rationally worked through the process of the exodus,

became certain that, without recognizing divine intervention, he could not

adequately explain the events that had occurred.

colonies in 1923 when he was going into Mexico to sell radio acces-

sories. In 1955 he visited the colonies with family members without

saying much about the exodus. In 1967, at age eighty-eight, he took

his son, Eldon, and me and repeated the trip. This time, he focused

on the exodus and his life in Mexico. He posed proudly for a photo-

graph in front of the brick house he had built some sixty years earlier

on a lot just north and across the street from the Anthony W. Ivins

house. He walked a few hundred feet west up the street to a brick

house he had built for his mother and there talked to its occupant, a

Romney. He ate apples from fruit trees he had planted, commented

disapprovingly on the number of potholes in the roads, and distrib-

uted “Garden Park Ward Remarks” to everyone he could possibly

reach. His visit seemed to be an effort to bring some closure to the

exodus, the most difficult period of his life.

UNIUS’S SPIRITUAL PREPARATION

Junius’s creation of the autobiographical “Spiritual Prepara-

tion” provides additional evidence that, viewed retrospectively, he

saw particular events and activities as his preparation for his role in

the exodus.

34***

Junius was the third child of Catherine Cottam Romney, the

third wife of Miles Park Romney.

35****

With the other eight children of

CatherineandthechildrenofMiles’sotherfourwives,hehadtwenty-

ninesiblings.Hisfather’sfamilyhadjoinedtheChurchinPreston,

England, during the first years of missionary work in that country and

came to Nauvoo in 1841 where Miles was born in 1843. With his fam-

ily he moved to St. George, Utah, where he married Catherine in 1873

and where Junius was born on March 12, 1878. Junius accompanied

his parents when they entered Mexico and settled in Colonia Juarez in

1885. On October 10, 1900, in the Salt Lake Temple, he married Ger-

trude Stowell, daughter of Brigham Stowell and Olive Bybee Stowell,

who were also early settlers in Colonia Juarez. The young couple set

up housekeeping, supported principally by Junius’s work at the Co-op

224 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Most of the information in this section comes from Romney, “Spiri-

tual Preparation,” and “Autobiography I,” 11–16.

****

Her name is usually spelled “Catherine” by her family. A survey of

her correspondence suggests a spelling of “Catharine.” See Jennifer Moul-

tonHanson, Letters of Catharine Cottam Romney, Plural Wife (Urbana: Univer-

sity of Illinois Press, 1992).

Mercantile business in Colonia Juarez where he had started to work

when he was sixteen. In due time the couple had six children, four

born in Colonia Juarez and two in Salt Lake City.

36+

The first significant event mentioned by Junius as part of his

spiritual preparation occurred as he and Gertrude returned to Mex-

ico after their marriage. They stopped in St. George where they sor-

rowfully learned that Junius’s cousin, the daughter of George and Ra-

chel Cottam, had died in childbirth. This information “wrecked”

their visit, Junius wrote, and likely reaffirmed his commitment to the

sacred value of human life.

In Colonia Juarez, Junius continued clerking in the store and,

with Gertrude, operated the post office in their “little adobe house.”

In August, 1901 their first child, a daughter Olive, was born, followed

in 1903 by Junius Stowell. They agreed that, as part of a plan to im-

prove their economic situation, Junius should seek other employment

and do some studying to become an educator. So he left his work at

the store and began teaching Spanish and bookkeeping part-time at

theJuarezStake Academy.

37++

He also set out on a program of personal

study and attended summer school in 1903, at the LDS Business Col-

lege in Salt Lake City. There he learned good penmanship and touch

typing, skills he retained throughout his life. In the fall of 1903, he re-

turned to Mexico to continue teaching at the academy.

In the summer of 1905, a group of “six or eight enterprising

young fellows” collaborated in burning bricks and quarrying stone to

build new homes. Junius describes his new house, which was eventu-

ally built on the site of their older one, as a beautiful home that would

have cost some “twenty to thirty thousand dollars” in the United

States. In the fall of 1905 he continued his plan to become an educa-

tor by giving up teaching altogether and devoting himself full-time to

study as a fourth-year student at the academy, meanwhile supporting

his family with the post office.

He contracted typhoid fever in mid-August 1905 and did not

get better until early 1906. The disease typically progressed

through a twenty-one-day cycle, rising to the crisis of a very high fe-

ver during the third week. If the patient survived, he would be weak

but would gradually regain strength until the next onset. Ger-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 225

Thomas Cottam Romney, Life Story of Miles Park Romney.

See Hatch, Colonia Juarez, photograph number 15, which shows

Junius in the 1903-4 faculty at the Juarez Stake Academy

trude, who was pregnant with their third child, nursed him faith

fully until she also contracted the disease so severely that “people

had little hopes that she would survive the ordeal.” Dissatisfied

with the service of a physician from Casas Grandes, they relied on

local nurses. Junius had already suffered several cycles when their

third child, Kathleen, was born on November 15. She weighed only

two and a half pounds and was so frail “that there was little hope

among other members of the family that she would live.” However,

Junius reports that he “had a personal knowledge that she would

live.” He blessed her “while lying in one bed with typhoid and

mother suffering from the same disease in another.” Junius af-

firms that “in these trying experiences we received special help

from a higher source.”

38+++

At an unspecified time, during this trying period, Junius re-

ported his especially significant spiritual experience:

I still had need of much more discipline and suffering before I would

be able to face my future and bear the responsibilities to be placed

upon me of which I still was wholly unaware. . . . I suffered all the pains

ofstarvation....Thefeversettledinmyrightlegwhichhighlyinflamed

....withasharppiercingpain....Iseemedtobetheonlyonewhohad

a calm assurance that I would not succumb to this or any complica-

tions....IhadreceivedtheknowledgethatIwastosurviveanyandall

sufferingandfinallyrecover....Eachandeverybreathexhaledwasa

cough....IhadaspiritualexperienceIhopenevertoforget....Iwas

told...[to]sendforElder[George]Teasdale...andrebukethiscough

....[whichwas]instantlycuredbyDivineinterposition....[Iagain

sent] for Elder Teasdale and asked him to rebuke this intermittent fe-

ver....MyfeverwasgoneandIbegansteadybutslowrecovery....

[Thesewere]therichestspiritualexperiencesofmylife...inprepara-

tionforsomeverytryingexperiences...whichwould...requireun-

shaken faith that God is at the helm regardless of the actions of men.

39++++

In addition to these various elements of spiritual preparation,

Junius also learned about Church government and the character of

the leading men in the colonies with whom he would work in the exo-

dus. Among all of them, three were especially significant: Joseph C.

Bentley, Henry E. Bowman, and Anthony W. Ivins.

226 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

Romney, “Spiritual Preparation,” 3.

++++

Romney, Letter to Margaret [Romney Jackson], August 27, 1956,

5–6.

Bentley, a Mexican citizen and Junius’s bishop, strongly felt that

the colonists must maintain political neutrality and rely on the Lord

for protection during difficult times. While these were Bentley’s

strongly held feelings, Junius also knew that he was a staunch sup-

porter of his priesthood leaders. The exodus tested these sometimes

conflicting loyalties

40*

In his tribute to Bentley, Junius wrote: “He was

a man of small stature but of fine intellect and of very fine character.

...Hewaslovedandhighlyrespectedbythemembershipofthe

Ward. I shared these feelings fully with the rest of the membership

and nothing has occurred since to change my feelings of love and ad-

miration for his memory.”

41**

In a similar tribute to Henry Bowman, Junius wrote: “I want to

pay a heartfelt tribute to this fine friend who supplied the finest dem-

onstration of humility that has ever come under my personal observa-

tion.” Junius recorded a strong personality clash between them,

which he characterized as conflict between the “flare for discipline”

of the “German people,” and the “fact that an Englishman is not too

inclined to be pushed around.” The incident is this: Junius was branch

manager of the Juarez Co-op, which Bowman owned. The Mexican

hod carriers, who were building a new brick wall for the store, asked

foranincreaseinpay,whichBowmanrefused.Theywalkedoffthe

job. Bowman took over the construction, and Junius volunteered to

help him. “I was on the scaffold catching the brick as he pitched them

to me. As I was stacking them on the scaffold he shouted at me, ‘Put

them on the wall.’ I asked, ‘Why?’ He said, ‘Don’t ask why. A good sol-

dierneveraskswhy,hejustdoesasheistold.’IremindedhimthatI

was a volunteer and that I could always do better if I understood why I

wastodothings.Hereplied,‘Itdoesnottakemanybrainstomixmud

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 227

Bentley agreed with Ivins who had counseled colonists to “remain

perfectly neutral. . . . Solicit judiciously the protection of whatever faction is

inpower....Seekdiligentlythehelp and protection of God.” And when

confronted with the likelihood that Romney would counsel the evacuation

of the women and children from Colonia Juarez, Bentley said that “all the

power he had would be exerted to prevent it.” And further, “I still feel the

Lord can protect us here as well as anywhere.” But he eventually acceded to

the evacuation decision: “I know that safety lies in obeying the priesthood

and I am always subject to its direction.” Bentley, Life and Letters of Joseph C.

Bentley, 125. See also Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 185.

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 15–16.

and stack brick.’ I retorted, ‘I have been wondering all morning how

you managed to hold down your job but now it is all clear to me.’ . . .

Due to the incompatibility of our dispositions I tendered my resigna-

tion.”

42***

Although Junius claimed that “there was no animosity between

Brother Bowman and myself,” he offered several other examples of

this “clash of personalities.” A religious “clash” had to do with church

government. There may have been bad feelings on Bowman’s part

when Junius became stake president because “it was a matter of com-

mon knowledge that Bowman, then serving on the high council,

would have willingly accepted the appointment.” Practical problems

arose when the high council had prohibitions against “round danc-

ing” and “Sunday base ball” which prohibitions Bowman did not sup-

port. He was also lax in attending council meetings, missed several

important ones, and eventually resigned. A confrontation between

Romney and Bowman on a secular matter involved a conflict between

the native Mexicans and the colonists. In May of 1912, a Mexican who

killedcolonistJamesHarveyinColoniaDiazwasinturnkilledbythe

colonists. Junius organized a legal defense fund for the colonists who

were accused of murder and suggested Bowman contribute $250 to

the fund. Bowman sharply refused, and the two had a spirited verbal

exchange.

43****

Anthony W. Ivins was involved in local business enterprises and

knew of Junius’s business capabilities. He was the stake president un-

der whom Junius served in various capacities including the stake Sun-

day School presidency and stake clerk for four years. He was a neigh-

bor and friend who would frequently see Junius in all of the activities

of life. When Junius was wrestling with the decision of whether to

complete his education to qualify as a teacher or to continue in busi-

ness,heaskedIvinsforadvice.Ivinscommented:“Junius,thischurch

is full of people who choose the field of education but it has few with

your ability in business. Therefore, if you want to be useful to the

church my advice is definitely that you continue in business.”

44+

An example of their relationship is an experience that took

place during Romney’s convalescence from typhoid fever. Ivins, then

about fifty-three, and his sons took Junius camping. Junius was very

228 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Ibid., 5.

****

Ibid., 4–10.

Romney, Letter toMargaret Romney Jackson, August 27, 1956, 1.

grateful, recording that Ivins had taken this action “out of the good

ness of his heart” with the result that the trip “gave me new hope and

vigor, and thus I was placed under lasting obligation to a great and

good man who has been an inspiration to me from the day I first met

him.” Admiration is clear as Junius wrote of Ivins: “He was an intelli-

gent, wise and sagacious leader with superb moral and physical cour-

age of which qualities I think I was and am still as aware as any man

over whom he presided in the Colonies.”

45++

AN UNLIKELY STAKE PRESIDENT

In October of 1907, Ivins was called into the Quorum of the

Twelve. When he and Apostles John Henry Smith and George F.

Richards reorganized the stake in March 1908, Romney was the sur-

prising choice to succeed Ivins. Certainly, Junius did not expect the

calling.Hewastwenty-nineyearsold,had“limitededucationand...

relatively small resources,” and did not “ever think this likely.”

46+++

Ivins

himself recorded in his diary on January 29, 1908, that he had met

with the other General Authorities and they had decided to recom-

mend Guy C. Wilson, then serving as a counselor in the stake presi-

dency and as principal of the Juarez Stake Academy, with Romney as a

counselor.

47++++

Ivins obviously held Wilson in high esteem. In a letter to

Anthon H. Lund, counselor in the First Presidency, written one week

after Junius had crossed the border into the United States, Ivins

praised Wilson as, “in my opinion the strongest and most useful man

intheColonies....Bro.Romneydependslargelyuponhimforcoun-

selintheaffairsofthestake.

48*

Although there is a frustrating gap in the records that would

document when and how Romney replaced Wilson as the General

Authorities’ choice, I hypothesize that a decisive factor was Wilson’s

three wives, two of whom he had married after the Manifesto.

49**

1908, President Smith was obviously unwilling to jeopardize Reed

Smoot’s hard-won victory in the Senate by “promoting” known polyg-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 229

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 3.

+++

Ibid.

++++

Anthony W. Ivins, Diary, January 29, 1908, Ivins Collection, Box 3,

fd. 8, no. 37, Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City.

Anthony W. Ivins, Letter to Anthon H. Lund, August 7, 1912, Ivins

Collection, Box 11, fd. 2, no. 30.

Hardy, Solemn Covenant, Appendix II, 424.

amists. Support for this hypothesis appears in the Saturday, March 7,

1908, priesthood meeting address of Apostle John Henry Smith. He

urged those in polygamy to be true to their marriage vows but speci-

fied that “no man should endeavor to form new obligations with

women to enter into plural marriage.” He said that he and fellow

apostles Anthony W. Ivins and George F. Richards had “carefully con-

sidered the matter of selecting men to preside in this Stake of Zion

and are aware that there are a “number of good, capable and worthy

men whom they felt would honorably fill these positions, yet it has

been thought best to select young men who have not taken plural fam-

ilies, but who are the sons of strong faithful men.”

50***

Romney was not present for this talk. Suffering from a bad cold,

he had decided to stay home from the stake priesthood meeting on

Saturday evening. He later recalled that he had put on his robe to pre-

pareforbedandpickedupabottleofwhiskey,whichhadjustbeende-

livered to him to use to combat his cold, when a knock came on his

door. He opened it, whiskey in hand, and there was Apostle Ivins, re-

questing his presence at the meeting, where he would be sustained as

thenewstakepresident.

51****

After Ivins and Romney reached the meeting, Ivins released the

retiring stake presidency and presented Junius Romney as the new

stake president, with Hyrum H. Harris and Charles E. McClellan as

counselors. He said that Brother Romney “was a young man, but

[they] felt he was the right man for the place.” The 191 priesthood

bearers present sustained this action.

52+

On Sunday afternoon, March 8, 1908, the stake membership

sustained the newly called stake presidency and other stake officers.

The new stake presidency each “expressed their willingness to do

their duty in their new callings and bore their testimony to the truth

of this work as the work of the Lord.” In Elder Richards’s address, he

commented: “The reorganization of this Stake of Zion has given the

230 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Romney, “Reorganization of the Juarez Stake,” 1, 2. Meeting min-

utes, microfilm of holograph, sent to Romney by Joseph Memmott and his

wife, Nylus Stowell Memmott, Gertrude’s sister. For a shorter but essentially

similar description, see Ivins, Diary, March 7, 1908, MSS B–2, Utah State

Historical Society.

****

Junius Romney, “Biography of Gertrude Stowell Romney,” 1959,

10.

Romney, “Reorganization of the Juarez Stake,” 1.

First Presidency and Apostles no little concern” but “I feel the Lord

has guided us in the selection of the brethren who have been sus-

tained here today. I am sure the brethren of the First Presidency and

Apostles will be delighted when they hear of what we have done here

today. I invoke the blessings of the Lord and predict a successful ad-

ministration for them.” Then, in an apparent effort to reduce any anx-

iety over the youthfulness of the stake presidency, Ivins called up sev-

enteen-year-oldWillieSmith,sonofJesseN.SmithJr.,“andcalledthe

attention of the congregation to the fact that the Prophet Joseph

Smith was three years younger than this boy when the Lord called

him to the work.”

53++

That same evening in an officers’ meeting, “Apos-

tles Smith and Richards then gave some instructions to the members

of the new Stake Presidency and gave them strict instructions that un-

tiltheLordshallrevealittotheChurchagainthereshallbenoplural

marriages allowed or taught within the limits of this Stake of Zion.

54+++

After fully instructing these brethren in their duties and each one

stating that he believed with all his heart in every revealed principle of

theGospel as they standtodayand withtheteachings of the leadersof

thechurchtheyweresetapart.”

55++++

WAV ES OF REVOLUTION

Junius Romney had two relatively peaceful years as stake presi-

dent in which to learn his responsibilities and to minister to his peo-

ple; but Diaz’s dual decisions in 1910—first not to run for reelection,

then to seek reelection—plunged the country into turmoil. Over the

next two years, tensions steadily intensified, dragging the Mormons

ever deeper into jeopardy from both sides of the internal conflict. Be-

side seeing the need to protect their lives and property during the rev-

olution, two related issues confronted the colonists. The first chal-

lenge was the difficulty of maintaining political neutrality in a situa-

tion that polarized the entire country; and the second was the risk

that, by any of their actions—or inactions—they might unintentionally

cause U.S. military intervention against Mexico.

Despite vigorous debate, the administration of William Howard

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 231

Ibid., 3–4.

+++

The selection of these monogamous leaders allowed Junius to re-

spond to Senator Smith on September 22, 1912 when he asked Junius

“Have you more than one wife?”Junius replied “No, sir.”Investigation, 2589.

++++

Romney, “Reorganization of the Juarez Stake, 4.

Taft finally reaffirmed its existing policy of neutrality on March 14,

1912, and authorized an embargo on weapons going into Mexico. As

a result, the rebels lost their major source of weapons and ammuni-

tion.

56*

J. Reuben Clark, U.S. State Department solicitor, was in the

center of the diplomatic maneuvering surrounding this embargo.

57**

Church leaders in Salt Lake City—and certainly those in the colo-

nies—had every reason to sidestep Mexico’s internal political prob-

lems by adopting a firm neutrality policy or, in Ivins’s instructions to

the colonists: “Remain perfectly neutral.”

58***

The challenge for the

colonists was not to remain neutral but to have both the federals and

rebels accept that position.

Relative to the second issue—U.S. military intervention—the col-

onists were not only keenly aware of how such an armed incursion

might affect their property and their lives but also how it would almost

certainly generate unwanted publicity about the continuing practice

of polygamy in the colonies. Romney wrote: “Do you think that if we

had been responsible for war between Mexico and the United States

...thatthisChurchwouldnothavebeeninvolvedinawaythatthey

could not afford to be involved?” And again, “Even the question as to

whether plural marriages were continued in Mexico after adoption of

themanifestobytheChurchwouldhavehadtobeansweredbefore

thisdebatewouldhaveclosed.Onecanhardlyimaginethistobetothe

advantageoftheChurch....Ithink...thatakindlyProvidencepro-

tected this people by removal and protected the Church of God from

232 The Journal of Mormon History

For Orozco’s response to this embargo, see Meyer, Mexican Rebel,

71–72.

Fox, J. Reuben Clark, 123, 130, 167–71, 177–79.

***

Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 164; Juarez Stake High Council, Minutes,

April 29, 1911, 3, holograph, acknowledges receiving a letter dated from

the First Presidency urging neutrality. Romney, “Rose Park Remarks,” 7, ex-

plains: “The Church authorities were working closely with the United States

government. They had decided on our policy in Mexico. It was to be one of

neutrality. We were not to mix in these affairs, and we were not to furnish

any guns or ammunition under any circumstances.” See also Romney, “Was

the Exodus Necessary?,” 28: “Invitations to join voluntarily each revolution-

ary movement were received but as often declined. The genuineness of our

neutrality was called into question by each succeeding revolutionary group

but I was usually able to satisfy them that we were doing nothing to aid ei-

ther party only as forced to do against our will.”

an experience which might have duplicated that experienced in the

closing days of the life of the venerable President John Taylor who

died in exile.”

59****

During early 1912, the Orozco rebel forces suffered a series of

defeats from the Maderista federals. One such battle was fought on

July 3, 1912, at Bachimba in the general area of the colonies. After

that battle and facing an imminent embargo on importing arms from

the United States, the Orozco forces looked to the Mormon colonists

as a possible source of weapons, ammunition, and other supplies.

Romney, as stake president, was not only the colonists’ spiritual lead-

er but their de facto economic, political, and military chief as well.

Thus, it was his responsibility to respond personally to rebel threats

and some confiscations and—less frequently—to similar demands

from the federals.

60+

On February 5, 1912, Enrique Portillo, the presidente of the Can-

ton of Galeana which included Colonia Juarez, a resident of Casas

Grandes, and a commander of rebels fighting under the red flag of

Pascual Orozco, confronted Romney in his home in Colonia Juarez.

Backed by some twenty-five soldiers, he demanded rifles and ammu-

nition from the colonists. Romney replied that his people needed ri-

fles for self protection and that he “intended to find out whether

Americancitizenshadarighttoagun...intheirhomeforthede-

fense of their family in Mexico or whether they had not.” The rebels

withdrew without guns.

61++

Romney reported the incident to the First

Presidency, who replied with approval but added, “We feel constrain-

ed, however, to say to you by way of caution that what was wise in this

set of circumstances might not be the right thing to do under a differ-

ent set of circumstances.”

62+++

This action by Portillo led Romney to write in frustration to

Orson P. Brown in El Paso: “Never before have I been made to feel

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 233

****

Romney, “Garden Park Remarks,” 6; Romney, “Was the Exodus

Necessary?,” 11, 40, 41.

Both federals and rebels frequently gave receipts for what they

took, each claiming that, when they won, the colonists would be repaid.

Thomas Romney, The Mormon Colonies in Mexico, 151; Meyer, Mexican Rebel,

85; Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 165.

Junius Romney, Letter to Orson P. Brown, February 9, 1912, type-

script copy.

+++

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 49.

how treacherous and unreliable are most of the people by whom we

aresurrounded....Theyhavemadeuptheirmindstodisarmusby

what ever method might prove easiest.”

63++++

Long-range rifles that the rebels had been able to import from

theUnitedStatesbeforetheembargoputthecolonistsatadisadvan-

tage with their older weapons. They managed to smuggle in some

high-powered rifles which were then distributed to the various colo-

nies, a violation of the embargo but one they felt was necessary.

64*

The

tension between the colonists and rebels reinforced the need for the

234 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Junius Romney, Letter to Orson P. Brown, February 9, 1912.

Brown, who was married to Junius’s half-sister Mattie, was the informal

agent of the colonists in El Paso. Periodically he received money from

Junius for his service. Brown, Letter to Romney, February 29, 1912, type-

script. Enrique Portillo had, under Madero, been the chief political officer

of the district covering Colonia Juarez, where he had been raised. Then he

became a major in Orozco’s rebel army in the uprising against Madero. His

office was in Casas Grandes just a few miles away from Colonia Juarez.

Bentley, Life and Letters of Joseph C. Bentley, 133. Also involved on February 5

was Demetrio Ponce, who was a colonel under Orozco. Romney, “This De

Metrio [sic] Ponce,” 1, explained that Ponce “had hoped to win and marry

one of our Colony girls . . . and had made a study of the principles of the

Gospel and the obligations of the Priesthood. ...Howeverhisproposal of

marriage was declined ...soinsteadofjoining the church he. . . was now a

close companion and chief advisor of the General Jose Inez Salazar,” one of

Orozco’s subordinates. Meyer, Mexican Rebel, 60, notes the relationship

among Salazar, Portillo, and Ponce. Thomas Romney, The Mormon Colonies,

148, corroborates: “If it be maintained by those of opposing views that the

local Mexicans had nothing to do with the decision of the colonists to aban-

don their homes ...Iwouldcitethemthefact that many of the rebels them-

selves, including a large percentage of their leaders, were of local origin.”

According to Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 203, Joseph C. Bentley, Colonia Juarez

bishop during the exodus and stake president after he returned to Mexico,

“neither condemned nor condoned,—never placed blame or criticized an

act [of the exodus] directed by the priesthood. But he did plead for a more

patient appraisal, a better understanding of the Mexican people as the only

basis of peaceable resettlement. ‘They are a naturally good people . . . kindly

at heart but caught in a frenzy of war.’” See also Bentley, Life and Letters of Jo-

seph C. Bentley, 169–70.

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 16, describes the need for better guns:

“As one revolution after another engulfed us and the battles were fought in

weapons with the killing of James D. Harvey on May 4, 1912 in

Colonia Diaz and, in the same colony, of Will Adams on July 3rd.

65**

Romney personally negotiated an agreement with the Mexicans over

Harvey’s death to avoid full-scale conflict. It was a role that required

him to importune Mexican and U.S. authorities in turn.

66***

Seeking counsel, Romney wrote to the First Presidency on May 1,

1912, a letter hand-delivered to El Paso and mailed from there. He re-

ported that Orson P. Brown had advised him that “Bro. Ivins has not

comeandprobablyisnotexpectedsoon....Ihopethatyouwillget

thoroughlyorganizedandbeinshapetoprotectyourselves...ifyou

getwordofintervention....Iwouldsuggestthatatleastwomenand

children at Guadalupe be removed immediately and that every prepa-

ration be made for the mountain people to get together.” Romney said

that he was “not in harmony with” this suggestion for an immediate,

partial evacuation and explained: “We have not forgotten how ear-

nestly Bro. Ivins advocated a different course while here.” He express-

ed his willingness to rely on Brown’s advice if the contingencies Brown

described developed. “It seems to us that our condition is so delicate

that it has had few parallels and we would ask that you kindly assist us

by making plans as far as may be possible for you to do what our respec-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 235

the very outskirts of our towns we discovered that these Mexicans were

many of them armed with Mauser rifles which could shoot with accuracy

probably twice as far as our hunting rifles.” Romney, “Was the Exodus Nec-

essary?,” 18, added: “We had a supply of long-range guns and a plentiful

supply of ammunition which the Church had paid for and which wehad suc-

ceeded in smuggling in from the United States for the protection of the vari-

ous Colonies. These had been distributed to each Bishopric to be secreted

and kept solely for defensive use. It should be stated to the everlasting credit

of the presiding officers in the variouswardsthat they were so faithful to the

trust that no Mexicans ever knew that these guns were in our possession.”

The Dublan men used these rifles when fleeing to the Stairs to join men

from Colonia Juarez.

Romney, “Affidavit,” 13–14; Johnson, Heartbeats,” 311–14. The ear-

lier murders of Elizabeth McDonald, Brother Black, Elizabeth Mortenson,

Marinus Koch, James Walker, and Christopher Heaton indicated that the

later ones were not unique. Romney, Affidavit,” 14–15; Thomas Romney,

Mormon Colonies, 83, 145; Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 164.

***

Johnson, Heartbeats, 311–14; Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 164; Romney,

“Affidavit,” 13–18.

tive duties are. We understand that the responsibility of deciding such

mattersherefallsdirectlyonusbutthatBro.B.isplacedtheretohelp

uswithhissuggestions...butwehavehopedandprayedthatwemight

not have to take any hand in this affair even in defense of ourselves.”

Romneythenpointedoutthattheyhad not and couldnot preparemili-

tarily without “exciting suspicions on the part of the natives ”that

would“precipitateintervention....[I]fwegetthroughthisthingwith-

out the loss of a single life,” he suggested, the colonists might use as evi-

dence that we “have been sincere friends of the Mexican people” by re-

fusing to take any military action except “in defense of our lives.”

Romney pleaded: “If Bro. Ivins was everneeded in El Paso it is now and

if consistent with your views and his feelings we would appreciate it

verymuchifhemightbesentdownthereatoncetobeineasyreachof

us to counsel and advise with us during the crisis.”

67****

In a meeting held on August 13, 1912, in El Paso, immediately

after the exodus, the secretary wrote in the minutes of the frustration

Romney felt in Mexico: “Junius Romney said he had felt that the grav-

ity of the situation in Mexico had not been realized and the dangers

thereof minimized.” In fact, “when he had asked for advice, the re-

sponsibility of advising the people had been put upon his shoulders

by the authority over him.”

68+

A few weeks later, Ivins reached the colonies where he stayed be-

tween May 31 to at least June 17, but there is no record that he pro-

vided Romney with any specific help. Ivins attended church meetings

in Colonia Dublan and Colonia Juarez with Romney and was involved

in a business deal involving 7,500 acres of land in Colonia Diaz. He

also visited Colonia Chuichupa, but not with Romney. Junius wrote

himonJune10,whilehewasstillinthecolonies,describingthelocal

political situation and explaining the activities of some colonists.

69++

However, I have found no evidence of any substantive discussion be-

tween Ivins and Romney about plans for responding to the military

situation. Apparently Ivins thought that the colonists should continue

their current course and that, in due time, things would work out.

Ivins returned tothe United States when, on about July 10, 1912,

General Jose Ines Salazar, a subordinate of Pascual Orozco, demand-

ed that Romney supply a list of all the colonists’ weapons. The pur-

236 The Journal of Mormon History

****

Romney to Pres. Joseph F. Smith and Couns., May 1, 1912, 1–6.

Relief Committee, Minutes, August 13, 1912.

Ivins, Diary, May 31, 1912; Romney to Ivins, June 10, 1912.

pose of this list was allegedly to prevent them from smuggling in arms

from the United States.

70+++

Romney told Salazar that he would request

such a list, consulted with twenty-four colony leaders, including Bish-

op Bentley, in Colonia Juarez, received their unanimous support for

his decision, and then sent letters by couriers to each of the other Chi-

huahua colonies. He instructed them to make an honest report but

told them to “take their time—to take a hunting or fishing trip on the

wayiftheywantedto.”HemerelywantedtohonestlyreporttoSalazar

that hehadrequested the information.

71++++

The colonists made their re-

ports, but nothing came of them because the situation on the ground

quickly changed dramatically.

On July 12, a band of rebels descended on Colonia Diaz, de-

manding their weapons and threatening to return the next morning

with six hundred men to collect the weapons, by force if necessary.

Romney received word that same evening about the demand, and in a

meeting at 9:00

P.M., thirteen leaders from Colonia Juarez met in

Junius’s home and unanimously decided to have Bishop Albert D.

Thurber of Colonia Dublan send couriers overnight to Colonia Diaz.

The couriers were to carry copies of earlier orders from rebel gener-

als instructing the rebels not to molest the colonists and stating that

Edmund Richardson was going to El Paso to contact the rebel’s chief,

Pascual Orozco. Romney prepared letters of introduction to both

General Pascual Orozco and to his father, Colonel Pascual Orozco.

The couriers also carried information that Romney and his coun-

selor, Hyrum Harris, would immediately confer with General Salazar,

the nearest rebel commander.

72*

Arriving in Casas Grandes at about midnight on July 12–13,

Romney and Harris overcame the objections of Salazar’s guard, who

had received orders from Salazar not to disturb him after he went to

sleep. Romney describes how Salazar raised himself on his elbow

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 237

+++

Salazar, a physically imposing man and an important subordinate

of Orozco, was the most significant senior rebel with whom the colonists

dealt. Ralph Vigil, “Revolution and Confusion: The Peculiar Case of Jose

Inez Salazar,” New Mexico Historical Review 53, no. 2 (April 1978): 145–70.

++++

Minutes of meeting in Colonia Juarez, July 11, 1912, holograph;

Romney, “Affidavit,” July 11, 1912; Thomas Romney, Mormon Colonies,

171–72.

Romney to “Generalisimo Pascual Orozco (h), y Coronel Pascual

Orozco (p),” July 13, 1912; Johnson, Heartbeats, 316–19.

from his cot and said, of the rebel commander at Colonia Diaz: “This

man should have known better than to make such a demand. He had

hisordersinwriting.Heshouldhavehadsenseenoughnottomake

any such demands as these—not yet.” According to Romney, those last

two words, “todavia no ....sentacoldchillcreepingupmyspineto

the roots of my hair.” Salazar dictated a message to the rebel leader at

Diaz ordering him to leave the colonists alone. Romney and Harris

rode another seven miles to Colonia Dublan where they met with

Bishop Thurber. Thurber dispatched Nathan Tenney to Colonia Diaz

with Salazar’s order.

73**

As they left Thurber’s home, Romney asked Harris if he had no-

ticed anything unusual about Salazar’s statement. “Yes,” replied Har-

ris, “the captain had his written orders and he should not have made

such a demand—not yet.”

74***

Harris’s response confirmed Romney’s

alarm.“Uptothismomentoftimeithadnevercrossedmymindthat

the Colonists would have to leave Mexico, but from this moment I was

perfectly convinced that unless Salazar changed his attitude toward

the Colonists there would be nothing for us to do but to evacuate the

country, or in the alternative, actually fight the revolutionists. His

manner and expression were such as to convince me that he had al-

ready formed a definite plan for the oppression, if not the extermina-

tion, of the Colonists.”

75****

The next day, July 14, Romney took the train to El Paso “for the

express purpose of ascertaining what the Presidency and Apostle A.

W. Ivins thought we should do in this situation.” Salazar, traveling on

the same train with some of his troops, recognized Romney, sat be-

side him, and began to rail against the U.S. embargo. It was, in fact,

aiding Madero and the federals, he asserted, and he intended to force

theUnitedStatestobecomeinvolvedmilitarily.“Anyhow,”hesaid,

“intervention is already an accomplished fact.”

76+

Ivins was then in El Paso, and their meeting that night at the

Fisher Hotel illustrated their different assessment of the situation fac-

ing the colonists. Romney asked Ivins if he had any advice for him.

When Ivins responded that he “had no advice to give, feeling, appar-

238 The Journal of Mormon History

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 12–13; Romney, “Rose

Park Remarks,” 8–9.

***

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 13.

****

Romney, Affidavit, 22–23.

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 14–15.

ently, that it might be that I [Junius] was unduly exercised, then I sug-

gested we wire the First Presidency asking instructions from them.

Ivins responded that they would know nothing about the matter, and

therefore, what was the good in bothering them? On my insistence

that they might I was told if I wanted to send a telegram then I might

go and do so. When I asked whose names or name I should sign to the

message I was told it did not make any difference but that if I wanted I

could sign both names.” Romney then went and “sent a night letter to

Joseph F. Smith and counsellors telling them of the impending disas-

ter and stating as follows: “We have succeeded in averting the tragedy

atColoniaDiaz,butwefaceasapeoplethesamedemandforour

guns. Shall we fight or surrender our guns? To fight means we fight

with odds of twenty to one in favor of the Mexicans. To surrender any

guns means that our wives and children will be left to the mercy of de-

mons.”Theletterwassigned“A.W.IvinsandJuniusRomney.”

77++

After sending this telegram, Romney returned to the hotel and

showed the message to Ivins who said “I don’t like that.” He particu-

larly objected to the term “demons” in the message. Romney ex-

plained that the term applied to the mixture of “American, Spanish,

Chinese, Italian soldiers and officers” in the rebel forces, not to “Mex-

icans.” Ivins said “that he did not like such strong language and felt its

use unnecessary.” Romney said that “the matter could be easily set-

tled by him simply stating the truth which was that he had nothing to

do with the wording of the message.” Romney added: “I was not

ashamed of anything in the message and that I would not change a

word of it if I could.” Evaluating this event some fifty years later,

Junius wrote: “Possibly I should have been ashamed of the wording of

the message. I may also have been in error in feeling, as I did, that

such criticism was hardly justified when I had been told to prepare

and send the message if I wanted and to send one. However poorly I

mayhavedonethejob,ittoldthetruthasIsawit.”

78+++

The next morning, July 15, the First Presidency wired: “The

course to be pursued by our people in Mexico must be determined by

yourself [Ivins], Romney and the leading men of the Juarez Stake.”

Romney wrote: “The message then went on to express full confidence

in us and their love for us and the assurance that the Lord would sus-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 239

Ibid., 47–48.

+++

Ibid., 48.

tain us in reaching wise decisions.”

79++++

This reply clarified the First Presidency’s February 1912, instruc-

tions which had approved Junius’s action relative to Portillo’s demand

for guns, but warned that different conditions might dictate different

action. Never at any time did Romney take the position that he alone

should make decisions. Instead, he had followed customary Church

procedures of consulting with priesthood leaders and members. The

First Presidency in this most recent message confirmed the process of

counseling together, but Romney was disappointed in his effort to ob-

tain additional guidance from Ivins, who, Romney thought, consid-

ered him only “unduly exercised.”

80*

Romney returned to Colonia Juar-

ez on July 15; and on July 19, Ivins joined him there.

81**

On July 20, after another discussion of the situation, Romney

and Ivins traveled to Casas Grandes, where they made a detailed in-

vestigation, then continued on to Colonia Dublan where they met

with its “leading men,” consistent with the First Presidency’s instruc-

tions. Abruptly a trainload of federal troops from the north arrived in

town and overran the colony, stealing horses and pilfering at will.

This raid prevented the colonists from holding the public meeting

that Romney and Ivins planned for July 21. They started for Colonia

Juarez but were met at Casas Grandes by a rebel courier bearing a de-

mand from Colonel Miguel A. Castillo that Ivins and Romney meet

him the next day at 10:00

A.M. in Pearson, a British railroad town

about ten miles south of Colonia Juarez, “with horses and saddles,

guns and ammunition, cash, merchandise, and anything else that

might be of use to his forces in the revolutionary activity.”

82***

Romney and Ivins obeyed the summons but without bringing

the demanded supplies and equipment. Ivins talked alone with Cas-

tillo whom he characterized “as a very unapproachable and cold

blooded Spaniard.” Castillo reluctantly acknowledged that Orozco

was the “generalisimo” of the revolution and agreed not to enforce his

240 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Ibid. Romney, “Affidavit” gives July 14 as the date of this telegram

and states: “I was told that the matter rests in the hands of Mr. Ivins, the

leading men of the colonies, and myself.” Ivins, Diary, July 11, 1912, says

only: “During the week Prest. Romney has been here from the colonies.”

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?”, 47.

Ivins, Diary, dates his arrival in Colonia Juarez on July 20, 1912.

***

Romney, “Affidavit,” 25.

demands until he had contacted Orozco in El Paso.

83****

Returning through Casas Grandes, Ivins and Romney met Sala-

zar, who was then preparing to send a force against the federals who

had crossed from Sonora and were now in Dublan. According to

Romney, as soon as he and Ivins entered Salazar’s office, the general

“turnedtous,andinaperemptoryandirritatedtoneofvoicede-

manded, ‘What do you want?’ Mr. Ivins began an explanation of the

purpose of our visit whereupon Salazar immediately interrupted him

and savagely ordered, ‘Get out in the street. When I want you, I will

sendforyou.’Wewentoutintothestreet.”Theylaterhadabriefinter-

view with the General and were “not able to obtain any assurances

from him and the interview as a whole was very unsatisfactory.”

84+

On July 23 Ivins wrote Romney from El Paso: “Whenever you

feel that conditions are sufficiently settled to justify me in going

home let me know. I want to get away from here.” On July 24 he again

wrote Romney: “I have been over to Juarez twice today trying to find

Orozco Hijo [the son] but without success. D. V. Farnsworth . . .

thought he could reach him through Ponce but failed.” Ivins contin-

ued “I have been in bed nearly all day, a recurrence of my former trou-

ble....ItisclearthatIshallhavetogetawayfromherebeforeIcanre-

cover.”

85++

AgainonJuly25,IvinswrotethattheU.S.consulThomas

Edwards had likewise been unable to contact Orozco. So Ivins wrote

Orozco a letter describing the conditions facing the colonists and ap-

pealing to him. The letter to Junius ended by saying “I am feeling

better today but so shaky I can hardly write as you will see.”

86+++

These letters were the last communication between Ivins and

Romney before the exodus. Despite the warning signs, Ivins seemed

to feel that the colonists should respond minimally and that, in due

time, the situation would stabilize. But he was no longer available,

leaving the decisions to be made, according to the First Presidency’s

instructions, by “Romney and the leading men of the Juarez Stake.”

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 241

****

Ibid., 26.

Ibid. 26–27. Ivins describes the interview differently: “Gen. Salazar

assured us that we should be protected at the same time giving us to under-

stand that he would be obliged to have money or supplies for his men.” Sup-

porting his optimism was the fact that “some horses were taken from

Dublan . . . but were returned.” Ivins, Diary, July 20, 1912.

Ivins, Diary, July 8, 1912, identifies his illness as dysentery.

+++

Ivins, Letters to Romney, July 23, 24, and 25, 1912, holographs.

REMARKABLE HUMILITY IN CASAS GRANDES

HenryE.Bowmanandhisbusinesspartner,L.P.Atwood,who

were working on a railroad line being constructed into the mountains,

met with Salazar on July 26. Salazar demanded that Bowman and

Romney meet him the next day at 10:00

A.M in Casas Grandes.

87++++

The

next day, July 27, Romney arranged with Joseph C. Bentley, Guy C.

Wilson,HyrumHarris,andAlbertW.Thurbertoaccompanyhim

and Henry E. Bowman to the meeting. As they approached Casas

Grandes, it was decided that only Bowman and Romney would go in

to meet with the general.

88*

Romney,onhisown,wouldhavefeltmore

comfortable with any one of the other four men, given the personality

clashes between him and Bowman. But the events of the next few min-

utes resulted in a remarkable reconciliation between them.

The exchange between Romney and Salazar was a prickly one.

Salazar announced that he was withdrawing all former guarantees

and rejected Junius’s reminder that the colonists had relied in good

faith on these written guarantees: “These are mere words, and the

wind blows words away.”

89**

Then Salazar got to his ultimatum: Rom-

ney and Bowen “would never get out of there unless the guns were

first delivered to the [rebels].” Romney reacted promptly. He told

Salazar“todohisworstasmyultimatumwasthatIwouldnevercom-

ply with his demand and I added, I was not half as much afraid of any-

thing he might do to me as I was to be regarded a traitor by my people

242 The Journal of Mormon History

++++

Bowman, Affidavit, August 12, 1912, Investigation, 2598. Bowman

said that Salazar told him that Orozco had ordered that “all promises and

guaranties formerly given were withdrawn . . . [and] that we could consider

ourselves prisoners until arms were forthcoming. ...Whileitwasnottheir

purpose to take our lives if we conceded to all their demands, still he had no

guaranty of protection to offer, and we must look to Taft or to Madero for

protection.” Alonzo Taylor, stake clerk, dates this meeting on July 25, 1912;

other dates in his account are also two days earlier than Romney’s. “Record

of the Exodus of the Mormon Colonists from Mexico in 1912,” in Bentley,

Life and Letters of Joseph C. Bentley, 136–56.

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 10–11; Romney, “Affidavit,” 28. The

group joined in prayer before deciding who would go in to meet with

Salazar. Junius noted in hindsight that “strangely enough it had not oc-

curred to any of us that the Lord had already settled this matter of proce-

dure for us.” Romney, “Special Tributes,” 12.

Romney, “Affidavit,” 28.

whichIwouldbewereItocomplywithhisdemand....Heinter-

preted this as an insinuation that he was afraid of us and so he

shouted ‘Neither am I afraid of you. Go home to the Colony and if you

do not deliver the guns by tomorrow at 10

A. M. we will march against

you just the same as though you were federals.’”

90***

Romney appraised the odds: “There were approximately 2,000

rebels in the neighborhood of Casas Grandes and they had as part of

their equipment five or six cannons.” He asked Salazar if the colonists

could remove their women and children before responding to his de-

mands. Salazar rejected the request and “gave Mr. Bowman and my-

self distinctly to understand that if we did not do as he demanded he

would take out his vengeance on our women and children by remov-

ing all restraint from his soldiers and turning them loose upon them.

Thiswasaneventualitytooterribletoinvite.”

91****

Earlier, during a break in the conversation, while Salazar and

an aide Demetrio Ponce consulted in another room, Bowman sug-

gested that Romney should be conciliatory and avoid “friction as he

rightly observed that the General was wrought up.” Romney recog-

nized that it was Bowman’s duty to volunteer his counsel but he

promptly announced that it was his determination to do that “which

was diametrically opposed” to what Bowman suggested. Romney

was then startled to hear what he characterized as “the most beauti-

ful display of manly humility I have ever witnessed.” Bowman said,

“President Romney, I realize that you are the man that has the right

to know what to do ....[and] whatever your decision I will back you

to the end.” Romney responded, “Brother Bowman, you will never

know how much I appreciate that.”

92+

Later Romney concluded:

“Had it not been for the wonderful display of humility at the crucial

test he would have borne a tragic responsibility for thwarting the de-

sign for the removal of the Saints.” Looking back in 1960 at this emo-

tionally charged moment, Romney felt that the incident made “it

abundantly clear to me that the Lord brought about the indispens-

able unity which none of us could have achieved.”

Bowman’s hu-

mility meant that he could join with the other male colonists to offer

invaluable assistance in helping the women and children leave Mex-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 243

***

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?”, 15.

****

Romney, “Affidavit,” 29.

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 12–13; Romney, “Rose Park Remarks,”

11–12.

ico and to assist all of the colonists who later went to El Paso.

HE WOMEN

AND CHILDREN’S DEPARTURE FROM CHIHUAHUA

The meeting with Salazar on July 27 concluded with the decision

that an escort of fifty rebels would accompany Romney and Bowman to

Colonia Dublan where they would collect weapons and ammunition to

turn over to the rebels. That same afternoon, Romney and the leading

men of Colonia Dublan met in Thurber’s home and decided to give the

rebels their least desirable weapons, thus partially complying with the

rebels’ demands, and also to send their women and children to the

United States. At that point, it seemed that the crisis would be brief and

that they could shortly return to their homes. Accordingly, about

eighty-one rifles and thirteen pistols of the least valuable weapons and

some ammunition were turned over to the rebel unit that very after-

noon, and families began immediate preparations for departure to El

Paso, Texas. Led by Bowman and others, the women and children from

Colonia Dublan left by train for El Paso that evening.

94+++

That same day in Colonia Juarez, Bishop Joseph C. Bentley and

severalmenwithhiminhishomewerestruck“likeathunderbolt”

with the telephoned report of what was going on in Colonia Dublan.

Bentley promptly called a meeting. Most of the town’s leaders, like

thebishop,“sawnonecessityofoursendingourfamiliestothe

United States, but believed if we put our trust in the Lord, He would

take care of us.” Later, when Romney joined them he explained what

had occurred during the last few hours. At that point, the group de-

cided that they would likewise give up their less valuable weapons. Ac-

cording to Bentley, Romney “advised his family to go out as soon as

there was a train and what he advised his own family he advised every

other family in the Stake.” Bishop Bentley then said, “As far as I am

concerned that would settle it with me, inasmuch as that [is] the coun-

sel of President Romney, whatever my feelings had been would make

no difference. I would move my family and advise every other family

to move also.”

95++++

The next morning, July 28, Colonia Juarez men brought their

weapons to the town bandstand. Women and children, guarded by

244 The Journal of Mormon History

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 10.

+++

Romney, Affidavit, 33–36. Among the men guarding the women

and children was Thomas C. Romney, then age thirty-six.

++++

Joseph C. Bentley, “An Account of the Exodus from the Mormon

Mormon men, traveled to Pearson by wagon, then took the daily train

toElPaso.ByAugust1,somethreethousandwomen,children,and

men accompanying them had left from all of the Chihuahua colo-

nies.

96*

This was the first stage of the actual exodus.

On July 30 Romney called for a conference of representatives of

all the colonies except Diaz (which was too far away) to meet in

Colonia Juarez. Representatives from the mountain colonies were

gathered from among those waiting for the train in Pearson with their

women and children. Meeting in Bentley’s home the group heard re-

ports that the rebels at Pearson and Dublan were using insulting and

offensive language and looting in Dublan. “It was clear to everyone

present at this conference that the removal of the women and chil-

dren had not solved our problem with the rebels,” Romney recalled.

He asked whether the stake presidency should continue to lead the

colonists, explaining: “I was neither seeking a continuance of respon-

sibilitynorwasIrunningawayfromit....Itwasunanimouslyvoted

that the direction of affairs should continue in the future as in the

past and that the members of the various colonies should look to me

for their directions whenever anycrises should arise in the future.”

97**

On the evening of July 30, Romney received a letter from Ivins

which described the very difficult conditions that the refugees were

encountering in El Paso. He suggested that Romney join him there,

but Romney opted not to do so. He wrote Ivins that he had instructed

the bishops to organize their ward members into groups of eight to

ten families, each under a competent man. In addition he was “send-

ing out Bro. Wilson and a numberof strong helpers to take up the bur-

denforthepeopleunderyourdirection.”HefeltunabletogotoEl

Paso since he was continuing to seek assurances of protection from

Salazar. He expressed little confidence that Salazar could provide a

guarantee “that would be considered as worth anything” and contin-

ued candidly: “At times it has looked as though a massacre was pend-

ing” and “I feel at times as though I would break down under” the re-

sponsibility. But at more optimistic moments, “it seems that the men

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 245

Colonies,” 5, photocopy, Nelle S. Hatch Papers, L. Tom Perry Special Col-

lections and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young Univer-

sity, Provo, Utah.

Romney, Affidavit, 32–37; Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,”

15–18; Bentley, “An Account of the Exodus,” 3–7.

Romney, Affidavit, 41–42.

will be able to remain.” He had spent “the whole evening till mid

night” negotiating with Ponce and had succeeded in reducing the

number of horses the rebel had been commanded to take from each

colony. He had also succeeded in explaining to Ponce’s satisfaction

whythequalityoftheconfiscatedweaponswasnotveryhigh.

Concluding his letter, Romney pled for assistance. “I wish you

could tell me how to close up successfully the last chapter of my ad-

ministration,itseemsthatIcannottellwhattodonextbutIsupposeI

will simply have to continue to the end the best that I can under the

circumstances.Kindlyletmehearfromyoubyreturnofthetrainasto

how the people are getting along and what arrangements have been

made for their care.”

98***

On August 1, Ivins wrote a long response, concluding: “I can of-

fer no advice relative to the men coming out. The Presidency have

made no recommendations whatever except to tell us to do the best

we can under the circumstances. You who are on the ground will have

to be the judge as to whether it is safe to remain. I cannot conceive

that men are going to kill people who are their friends just for the lust

of killing. If we resist them in the demands made they become violent

but I have faith that they will not kill anyone. Do the best you can, no

one can do more.”

99****

EVACUATING THE MEN

The leading men and Romney in Mexico now needed to con-

siderwhattodowiththemaleSaintsstillinthecolonies.Beforere-

ceiving Ivins’s August 1 letter, Romney wrote instructions to bishops

about the men remaining both in the mountain colonies and in Diaz.

The letters to each colony were generally the same, but he gave spe-

cial instructions to Diaz which was located considerably closer to the

U.S. border than the other colonies: “The general policy will be to

stay at least till it seems certain that it is unsafe for us to do anything

elsesincewecannotaffordatanypricetodoanythingthatwewillbe

ashamedofwhenwegetout.Ofcoursethepreservationoflifeisthe

thingofprimeimportance....Butitappearstomethatitwillnowbe-

come necessary and wise to make a separate issue in the case of your

ward”—meaning Diaz, which he asked to leave immediately. “We do

not know but we are strongly in hopes that it is in the Providences [sic]

246 The Journal of Mormon History

***

Romney to Ivins, July 31, 1912, photocopy.

****

Ivins to Romney, August 1, 1912.

of the Lord that we should get through this thing without losing our

homes and belongings but if we must lose all such things we sincerely

trustthatwewillnotbecalledupontolosethelifeofasingleoneof

the brethren.”

100+

The arrival of some new rebels in Colonia Juarez prompted

some of the men to get together on the afternoon of August 2. They

decided to meet that night at a ranch north of town to consider this

new situation. A man was sent to each side of the Piedras Verdes

River, which divides the town, to notify all of the men about the meet-

ing plan. Both groups had a designated rendezvous point where they

were to gather at 10:00

P.M., then move to the ranch where they would

join together. But confusion led those on the west side to go directly

to the Stairs, a rocky stairlike site in the mountains some seven miles

to the west of Colonia Juarez, rather than to their rendezvous point.

Earlier, anticipating a possible need, the colonists had deposited ra-

tions and weapons at that location. When Junius and his brother Park

arrived at the rendezvous site designated for those on the west side,

they learned what had happened. This confusion left the Juarez men

about equally divided between those in Juarezand those at the Stairs.

Rather than being a mistake, as it seemed to be at the time,

Romney later recognized it as part of the divine plan, since it “left me

no recourse except to rely on the Lord in deciding on what should be

done....Noonewastoblameforwhattheydidordidnotdointhis

great drama which I feel the Lord planned and carried out in His own

way.”

101++

At the time, though, Romney was startled and dismayed. He

guessed that Salazar, learning that the Mormons had gone into the

mountains, would conclude that they were joining the federals en

route from Sonora and would then “attack, as federals,” any of the col-

onists within his reach. Romney also realized that he was unable to

contact either Ivins or any of the other Juarez Stake leaders. “Quickly,

I appraised the situation and a feeling of assurance came over me,” he

wrote. “I seemed to see with perfect clarity what was necessary to be

done and the order in which it must receive attention.” Taking a lan-

tern and writing materials, he sat down at McDonald’s Spring in a

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 247

100

Romney, Letter to Colonias Diaz, Pacheco, Garcia, and Chui-

chupa, August 1, 1912.

101

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 31–35; Romney, “Special

Tributes,” 22–23.

wash on the western upland. He then wrote letters instructing the

men in Colonias Dublan, Pacheco, Garcia, and Chuichupa to gather

at the Stairs. This action launched the process of removing the final

group of Chihuahua colonists from Mexico.

Junius wrote: “I had no one to turn to but the Lord. Putting my

trust in Him I calmly proceeded to put into operation the only plan

which it seemed to me any sane man could regard as sound under the

circumstances....Ireceived no suggestion, guidance or direction

from any man in making the decisions which I did. If I received any

guidance or direction, I received it from the Lord through the inspi-

ration of His Holy Spirit.”

102+++

Significantly, this was the only com-

pletely unilateral decision Romney made—the only time when he did

not consult with other leaders or attempt to consult with his file lead-

ers.

103++++

ATTHESTAIRS

On August 3 after Romney had written and sent the letters by

courier, he met Ernest Hatch from Colonia Juarez who said that the

men on the east side of the river had returned to their homes. Rom-

neywasdismayed:“Iwouldhavewelcomeddeath....Icouldbutwon-

der if after all that which I had planned and put into execution for the

complete evacuation of the Colonies with the calm assurance that the

Lord was prompting me had been done as a mistake on my part with-

out the guidance of the Lord. I was terrified at the thought and I envi-

sioned a massacre of those men in Juarez as a result of a tragic mistake

Ihadmade.”

104*

Romney tried to rescind the earlier message to Col-

onia Dublan, but the Dublan men had already gone toward the Stairs.

Some rebels, who discovered them departing, shot at them, and the

colonists returned fire with the long-range rifles they had earlier

smuggled in from the United States. The rebels quickly abandoned

the skirmish. Romney encountered these Dublan men near Juarez

248 The Journal of Mormon History

+++

102

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 31–35. Concluding this

portion of his history, Romney wrote: “I presume that what I have already

written will make it clear to any reader that I regard this ‘Exodus’ as the

work of the Lord or of Providence and not of man. I make no apology for

this conclusion” (35).

++++

103

Romney, Affidavit, 43–46; Taylor, “Record of the Exodus of the

Mormon Colonies in Mexico, 1912,” 141.

104

Romney, “Exit of the Men,” 2.

andfollowedthemuptotheStairs.

105**

Several days later, after the arrival and departure of several rebel

groups in their area and after communicating with Romney, the men

remaining in Colonia Juarez also headed for the Stairs. By August 5,

all of the men from Colonias Dublan, Juarez, Pacheco, and Garcia

were gathered at the Stairs. The men from Colonia Chuichupa did

not reach the Stairs until the others had left for the border, and the

men from Colonia Diaz had already gone directly from their town to

the United States.

On August 5, Romney conducted a meeting of the men at the

Stairs. In the preceding few days, the men had argued about two alter-

natives available to them—whether to return to the colonies or to con-

tinue to the United States. Romney wrote, “In this discussion which

grew a little heated I am told that I again said some rather harsh things

which wounded the feelings of some of the opposition. This I have no

reason to question as it seems to be one of my weaknesses to speak

rather sharply at times. Again I wish I might have brought about the

necessary unity to carry out the program which I proposed without giv-

ing offense to anyone.”

106***

Despite his later regrets about his communication style, Romney

was both forceful and persuasive in presenting four reasons why the

men should travelat once to the United States: (1) the desire to not have

any fatalities, (2) the necessity of demonstrating their neutrality to the

various rebel factions and the federals, (3) the need to conceal the fact

that they had smuggled arms into Mexico in violation of the embargo,

and (4) the wisdom of not calling attention to the continuing practice

of both pre- and post-Manifesto polygamous families.

107****

After presenting his views, Romney asked for responses from

those present. Among those who responded was Bishop Joseph C.

Bentley who, representing the position of some others, argued that

they could no doubt return safely to their homes.

108+

Generally those

from Juarez and Dublan who had been in the midst of the fighting

could see more reason for going to the United States. Those in Pach-

eco, Garcia, and Chuichupa saw less reason to go out. After a thor-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 249

105

Ibid.

***

106

Ibid., 3.

****

107

Ibid., 4–5.

108

For Bentley’s view and actions, see Hatch, Colonia Juarez, 197–99,

and Bentley, Life and Letters of Joseph C. Bentley, 143–44.

ough discussion, “a large majority” adopted Romney’s plan to go out

to the United States. He later “acknowledged with gratitude that . . .

the opposition joined in making its adoption unanimous, thus open-

ingthewayforthesuccessfuloutcomeofthismovesovitaltothewel-

fare of all.”

109++

Joel H. Martineau, a man from Colonia Juarez, who

was present at that meeting, corroborated: “One circumstance that

impressed me most of all occurred when the men of the other colo-

nieshadjoinedusinthemountainsabovethe‘Stairs.’...Thedeci-

sion to go out was not merely the will of the Stake Authorities, but was

alsothepopularwillofthecoloniststhereassembled....Thegeneral

attitude of the colonists, except some from Dublan where depreda-

tions had been severe, were in favor of remaining in the hills a few

days or even weeks until the arrival of federal Generals Blanco and

Sanjinez, but somehow we had voted contrary to our intentions.”

110+++

Again a surprisingly united group of colonists had decided to imp-

lement a successful exodus.

Romney traveled to the U.S. border with the 235 men and boys

of the group but did not play a leadership role during their journey.

On August 10 they crossed the border into the United States at Dog

Springs, New Mexico, where they narrowly escaped being shot at by

nervous U.S. soldiers. It was, in Romney’s view, yet another blessing

of divine mercy. Had they been attacked, “I could not have recorded

with thanksgiving, as I now proudly do, that the evacuation of all

these people from their homes and their removal to safety in the

UnitedStateswasaccomplishedwithoutthedeathofasinglesoul....

We all came through unscathed thanks to a kind Providence.”

111++++

“COURT MARTIAL” IN EL PASO

With the arrival in the United States of the men from Chihua-

hua, the physical process of the evacuation in Chihuahua came to an

end. That arrival marked the accomplishment of the four goals Junius

250 The Journal of Mormon History

109

Romney, “Exit of the Men,” 6; David P. Black, Affidavit, August 8,

1958, 5.

+++

110

Joel H. Martineau, “Mormon Colonies in Mexico, 1876–1929,”

section titled “The Exodus,” 2–3, microfilm of typescript, Utah State His-

torical Society. Later, in a letter to Junius, Martineau, affirmed that Junius’s

advice“tofleetotheUnitedStates....wasinspired by the Lord.”

Martineau, Letter to Romney, September 6, 1948.

++++

111

Romney, “Exit of the Men,” 6–9.

had in mind when, at the Stairs, he urged the movement of the men to

the United States: no fatalities, a demonstration of neutrality, con-

cealment of smuggled arms, and no attention being called to the

practice of polygamy.

Twochallengesremained.Onewasthewindingupoftheleft-

over aspects of the physical evacuation, including getting the Saints

outofSonoraand evaluating theprocess oftheevacuation.Theother

was determining what was to be done to assist all of the refugees to

move on to the next stage of their lives.

The necessity of meeting those two challenges did not relieve

Junius of his responsibility as stake president, a responsibility that

would continue until the stake was dissolved early in October. He con-

tinued to try as best as circumstances permitted to assist with adminis-

trative activities, such as signing temple recommends and counseling

Saints to help them plan for their future. His ecclesiastical role is illus-

trated by his action on August 10, the same day that he crossed the

border. He sent a telegram from Hatchita, New Mexico, to President

JosephF.SmithinSaltLakeCity:“Iarrivedhere10p.m.today,com-

pany of two hundred thirty five men four hundred horses will arrive

tomorrow from Alamo Hueco. Shall the people scatter in search of

work? Will these people be expected to return to Mexico or shall they

consider themselves free to go where they please?” President Smith’s

answer arrived on August 11: “Congratulate you on reaching Hachita

Evans leaving for Hachita today consult him refugees at liberty to go

where wisdom suggests or necessity requires government is providing

transportation. First Presidency.”

112*

Winding up aspects of the physical evacuation of the Saints

from Chihuahua took place with the arrival of the men from Chui-

chupa into the United States on August 11. The removal to the United

States of approximately 1,000 Sonora colonists was accomplished by

September 9, 1912, under the direction of a Relief Committee.

113**

This Relief Committee was organized to attend to the needs of

the refugees soon after they arrived in El Paso on July 27. Henry E.

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 251

112

Romney’s message is a holograph copy. The return message is the

telegram itself.

113

Romney, “Affidavit,” 70. The Relief Committee decided “that the

Colonies of Sonora be advised to get all the colonists to the line, who are

not prepared for quick flight, and that Hyrum S. Harris carry the word and

visit the Colonies there, leaving at once.” Relief Committee, Minutes, Au-

Bowman was appointed and sustained as the chairman. Other mem-

bers of the committee at that time were Orson Pratt Brown, Guy C.

Wilson, Joseph E. Robinson, president of the California Mission

whom President Joseph F. Smith had sent to El Paso, and Ivins, “who

by virtue of his appointment,[had] general supervision over all.”

114***

On August 13 just three days after Romney and others from the

Chihuahua colonies had crossed the border into the United States,

the committee met, as explained by Ivins “to get from the leading

brethren their feelings toward the evacuating of the L.D.S. Colonies

in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico.”

115****

Romney’s evaluation of the

proceedings is suggested by the fact that he termed it his “court mar-

tial.

116+

The use of the term “court martial” may have been suggested to

Junius because the meeting occurred soon afterthe march of the men

to the border which was made under a military organization. Albert

D. Thurber was the general, Gaskell Romney (Junius’s brother) was

Quartermaster General, Anson B. Call was Chief Sanitary Officer,

and companies of ten men each were led by captains. Junius had no

military leadership responsibility, although he demonstrated his ec-

clesiastical responsibility as the “shepherd” by being the last to cross

the border.

117++

At the first meeting of the committee on August 13, thirty-five

priesthood leaders of the Chihuahua wards and Juarez Stake and

other “leading brethren” attended. Elder Ivins presided and explain-

ed that the question about the evacuation “had been discussed in the

252 The Journal of Mormon History

gust 14, 1912. On August 19, Harris, Romney’s counselor, reported on his

trip. Apparently he had advised a more urgent departure than the commit-

tee intended, since the bishop in Colonia Morelos queried Ivins by tele-

gram; Ivins telephoned his reply, telling the colonists “not to stampede, but

touse their own judgment.” Relief Committee, Minutes,August 19, 1912.

***

114

Relief Committee, Minutes, 1912, first page. Junius put these min-

utes in an envelope, on which he had written in ink: “Contents Minutes of

Refugee Committee in El Paso Tex. Last half of year 1912 Make & return ex-

act copy in full and ask Pres Clark to whom I should deliver this original J

Romney.” Although on the envelope Junius used the title “Refugee” for the

committee, the minutes themselves call it the Relief Committee.

****

115

Relief Committee, Minutes, 1.

116

Romney, “Exit of the Men,” 13.

117

Romney, “Affidavit, 48; Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?” 2.

[news]papers, pro and con, as well as on the street corners by our own

people and strangers and that the actions of the leading Brethren in

the Stake in bringing the people out had been questioned and desig-

nated by many, as unwise.” He mentioned several aspects of their cur-

rent situation and then urged a feeling of “kindness, consideration

and the spirit of conciliation.” He concluded his introductory re-

marks saying that “he had confidence in the ability, integrity, and

judgment of the Presiding authorities of the Juarez Stake and felt

therefore that they had done the right thing and no man should ques-

tion it.”

118+++

Following Ivins’s opening comments Junius spoke and also

spokeagainthenextday,August14.Inthosetwosetsofremarks,

Junius emphasized several themes which were important to him. The

first one was that he felt he had not received the instructions he had

hoped for. This theme particularly concerned Ivins. The minutes re-

cord that “President Romney said he had felt that the gravity of the

situation in Mexico had not been realized and the dangers thereof

minimized....Whenhehadaskedforadvice,theresponsibilityofad-

vising the people had been put upon his shoulders by the authority

overhim....Idonotfeelthepresidingauthoritieshaveunderstood

conditions there.” This problem was exemplified in Mexico when

Ivins said that Junius was “unduly exercised” over the situation. How-

ever, in this meeting Ivins seemed to have changed his mind. He said

he “had confidence in the ability, integrity and judgment of the Pre-

siding Authorities of the Juarez Stake and felt therefore that they had

done the right thing and no man should question it.”

119++++

The second theme focused on Henry E. Bowman. The minutes

record Junius’s “interview in Mexico with Salazar at which Elder H. E.

Bowman was present.” That was the time when Junius thought Bow-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 253

+++

118

Relief Committee, Minutes, August 13, 1912.

++++

119

In an even stronger personal statement included in a letter to the

Mexican Consul in El Paso, Ivins explained: “But two courses were open to

us, either to comply with the demand made and surrender our arms, or

fight. We knew that to adopt the latter policy would be to bring on a race

war which would result in very serious consequences and might easily result

in international complications, a thing which we desired to avoid. We sur-

rendered our arms. . . . Our safety was in flight, so we came to the border

and took refuge in the United States.” Ivins et al., Letter to Hon. E. C.

Llorente, August 6, 1912, Ivins Collection, Box 11, fd. 2, no. 21, photocopy.

man had displayed “the most beautiful display of manly humility I

have everwitnessed.” And then in El Paso the impact of Bowman’s hu-

mility is exemplified by the fact that he was chairman of the Relief

Committee demonstrating, as Junius said, that the “Lord brought the

indispensable unity which none of us could have achieved.”

A third theme had to do with Joseph C. Bentley. The minutes re-

cord that Bentley “felt that he might have remained with his family at

Juarezwithouttrouble”;butasdemonstratedattheStairs,“hebore

testimony to the fact that the only thing for the Colonists as a whole to

do was to come out and uphold the Stake Presidency in this move-

ment.” That decision by Bentley was crucial to the effective process of

the exodus.

A fourth theme had to do with the Saints in general. Junius

clearly had to deal with individual differences of opinion when deci-

sionsweremadetohavethemgiveuptheirguns,toleavetheir

homes,ortoleavetheStairstogototheUnitedStates.Andlikelyhe

heard of those who disagreed with him such as those who had talked

“pro and con” in El Paso prior to the formation of the Relief Commit-

tee.Hehadalsolistenedtoviews“proandcon”duringthecommittee

meetings. He said to the committee that when he had not received the

instructions he hoped for, “he appealed to the people, and they had

‘rolled it back’ upon him.” His Special Tributes are a good example of

his attitude toward those with whom he had differences. Junius said:

Idonotfeelthat...BrotherIvinsdidanythingheshouldnothave

doneorthathefailedtodoanythingheshouldhavedone....

Brother Ivins had put much of his mature life and energies to the

building up of these ten fine Colonies and now if conditions had de-

veloped where the [rebels] had to be placated then it might be easier

for someone else to bear the responsibility of evacuating the people

rather than expect the man to do so who had put his whole heart into

their establishment. If, as I firmly believe, the Lord brought us out of

Mexico then it matters little just what part He assigned to A. W.

Ivins, Junius Romney, Henry E. Bowman, Bishops Albert D. Thur-

ber and Joseph C. Bentley, Gaskell Romney or any of the many other

fine men who assisted in the impressive job which was accom-

plished.

120*

In addition to getting “from the leading brethren their feelings

toward the evacuation” the committee passed several important reso-

254 The Journal of Mormon History

120

Romney, “Special Tributes,” 4. These paragraphs about themes

lutions and motions. One was that “it is the sense of this meeting of

the representatives from the Mormon Colonies in the State of Chi-

huahua, Mexico, that the abandonment of the Colonies from which

we came was the only course that could have been pursued to have

avoided open war with the rebel forces, which are in full control of the

sectionofcountrywherethecoloniesarelocated....We,therefore,

endorse the policy which has been pursued in the abandonment of

the colonies and in bringing the people to the United States for

safety.”Anotherwas“thatallthemalerefugees...whocanleavetheir

families and who desire to return to said Colonies for the purpose of

regaining possession of our properties and protecting same, do so at

theearliestpossibledatethatitcanbedoneinsafety.”Yetanotherwas

“that the Colonists return to their homes in the Colonies as soon as

possible under proper conditions.”

121**

To implement the resolutions it was necessary to know about

the conditions in Mexico. To find out what was going on, several men

returned to Mexico and reported back to the committee. Junius was

one who returned to Mexico from August 25 to September 3. He

wrote a report to the Relief Committee on eight single-spaced, le-

gal-sized sheets which appear in the Relief Committee minutes for

September 4. His report consists mostly of a seven and one-half page

letter to the First Presidency.

122***

AnumberofcolonistsquicklyreturnedtoMexicotolookafter

their cattle and other property. In due time approximately a thousand

colonists returned to make their permanent home there. Junius had

told the Relief Committee, “I have grown old in five years since the

timePres.IvinsleftMexico....Idonotwanttogoback.”

123****

Junius

andhisfamilydidnotreturntoliveinMexico.

INDICATION

Romney traveled to Salt Lake City for the October 1912 general

conference. Before conference, he met with the First Presidency (Jo-

seph F. Smith, president, and counselors Anton H. Lund and John

Henry Smith), Francis M. Lyman, president of the Quorum of the

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 255

come from Relief Committee, Minutes, 1–2, 4–5, August 13–14, 1912.

121

All of these resolutions or motions are from Relief Committee,

Minutes, 3–[5], August 14, 1912.

***

122

Ibid., September 4, 1912.

****

123

Ibid.

Twelve, and some other General Authorities. They asked Rey L.

Pratt, president of the Mexican Mission, “to explain his version of the

story” which differed from Junius’s about present conditions in the

colonies

124+

and made the same request of other leaders from the

colonies. Junius wrote:

I stood opposite President Smith across a table from the venera-

ble Prophet and President and was asked by him to explain what im-

pelled me or justified me in making such a drastic move. ...Icando

no better than to quote, as nearly as I possibly can, the exact words

which I spoke to that august body of men.

Brethren, I received no revelation or vision as I understand the

meaning of the terms. I assume, however, that I did act under the in-

spiration of God to which I believe I was entitled. This I assume be-

cause under the hands of Apostles John Henry Smith, George F. Rich-

ards and Anthony W. Ivins I was set apart to preside over the Juarez

Stake of Zion. I assume further that I was entitled to the inspiration of

the Lord because I had done nothing so far as I know to disqualify me

as to receive His guidance for which I was praying constantly. I have

every reason to think that the saints were also praying for me that I

might receive the necessary guidance to be able to measure up to the

grave responsibilities which I had to bear under such circumstances. I

cannot think the Lord would be unconcerned about the welfare of ap-

proximately forty five hundred of His choicest saints which I know the

people of the Juarez Stake to be. I can only tell you that the course I

followed seemed to me as clear as day and when I thought of any

other alternative the way seemed dark and unrealistic. It seemed to

me that what I did was what any intelligent man would have to do un-

der the same circumstances. In other words it seemed to me that I

made use of the intelligence with which God had endowed me.

The testimony which I bear to you brethren is simply this: I did

not violate any light God gave me. If He inspired me I lived up to His

instructions to the best of my ability. If He did not give me the light of

His Holy Spirit the responsibility is His and not mine.

One more thing I wish to testify to and that is that every man who

left those Colonies except Junius Romney did so under the direction of

the Priesthood that presided over him if I hold that Priesthood and au-

thority which I assume I did. Many hearts have been broken for coura-

geous men who stood firm and did only what they were instructed to

do by the Priesthood that presided over them, for I instructed them to

leave. I brought them to the United States and was the last to cross over

the line.

125

256 The Journal of Mormon History

124

Romney, “Autobiography I,” 21, 22.

In general

conference President Smith talked at length about

the colonies and the difficult circumstances of the colonists. He knew

that they would find it difficult “to see how the hand of the Lord could

ever be made manifest for their good.” He compared their situation

to that of earlier Saints in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, and asked,

“Which of us will now contend that the overruling providence which

broughtustothisplacewasamistake?Noneofus!Whenwelook

back to it we see clearly, beyond any possible doubt, that the hand of

God was in it.” If the colonists would cultivate the “spirit of the gospel

...andacknowledgethehandofGodinthatwhichhasoccurred,by

andby,ifnotnow,theywillseeit.TheywillseethattheLordAl-

mighty has delivered them perhaps from death and perhaps from

something worse than death, if they had been permitted to re-

main.”

126+++

After conference on October 11, 1912, the First Presidency is-

sued a general statement honorably releasing all Juarez Stake and

ward officers and telling the colonists that they were free to return to

their homes in Mexico or choose to settle elsewhere.

127++++

In 1914 or 1915 Junius and Gertrude Romney attended a Bene-

ficial Life Insurance Company dinner. Romney was the company’s su-

JOSEPH BARNARD ROMNEY/JUNIUS ROMNEY 257

Junius and Ger-

trude Romney’s

home in Colonia

Juarez with chil-

dren: left, Junius

S., Kathleen, and

Olive and baby

Margaret.

125

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 1–2; holographic notes by

Junius, “Memo written May 9, 1954.”

+++

126

Report of the Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints, October 4, 1912 (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints), 6, 7.

++++

127

James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus

perintendent of agencies, and President Joseph F. Smith was its presi-

dent and a director. As Romney recorded, the men and their wives

were leaving the event when President Smith commented warmly,

“President Romney, I am so happy to see you here. I am so happy you

are not in Mexico. Neither life nor property is safe in that country nor

can it be until some strong hand restores order and it may yet be that

the United States will have to intervene.”

128*

While President Smith’s comments in his conference address and

after this dinner must have been welcome words, they neither added to

nor detracted from what Romney had said earlier, and probably most

significantly, tothe “august body” of General Authorities in early Octo-

ber 1912. “I did act under the inspiration of God.”

129**

Or as he later af-

firmed, “the Lord, God of Israel, brought us out of Mexico.”

130***

258 The Journal of Mormon History

Left: Junius Romney, ca. 1910; Anthony W. Ivins, and Joseph C. Bentley.

Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75),

4:276–77.

128

Romney, “Was the Exodus Necessary?,” 2.

129

Ibid.

***

130

Romney, “Garden Park Ward Remarks,” 6. Romney worked for

Beneficial Life Insurance Company for several years, tried several other

businesses, and in 1927 became part-owner and manager of State Building

and Loan Association (later State Savings and Loan Association) which be-

came one of the major savings and loan businesses in Utah. At the same

time, he wrote insurance for Kansas City Life Insurance Company in which

he became one of the company’s top U.S. producers. He died in 1971 at age

ninety-three.

REVIEWS

S. J. Wolfe with Robert Singerman. Mummies in Nineteenth-Century Amer-

ica: Ancient Egyptians as Artifacts. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Company,

2009. xii, 292 pp. Photographs, appendices, notes, bibliography, index.

Paper: $35.00. ISBN 978–0–7864–3941–6

Reviewed by H. Michael Marquardt

Mummies in Nineteenth-Century America is a detailed history of the arrival

of Egyptian mummies in America and their various usages by S. J. Wolfe,

a senior cataloger and serials specialist at the American Antiquarian Soci-

ety in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Robert Singerman, the emeritus

Jewish bibliographer at the University of Florida Libraries, Gainesville.

The book contains seven chapters and cites hard-to-find newspaper arti-

cles, broadsides, and catalogues to trace the movement and exhibition of

these exotic human remains across the United States. Wolfe and Singer-

man date the introduction of mummies to the United States to 1767

when Benjamin West “presented to the Library Company of Philadel-

phia” a mummified hand and arm (7; photograph, p. 8).

This book is certainly a labor of love, tracing each of the individuals

known to have been associated with the transportation and exhibition of

these mysterious mummified bodies to paying viewers. Exhibitors began

their activities with incomplete mummies. At Boston in 1818, Ward Nicho-

las Boylston imported the first complete adult mummy from Europe (9). By

1822 the Western Museum of Cincinnati mentioned a number of papyri as-

sociated with the head of a mummy (12). Other period articles mention

mummies and their sarcophagi (coffins).

Information new in Mummies in Nineteenth-Century America includes the

fact that mummies (real or imitation) were displayed in clothing stores to at-

tract business (89–91).

Although I had earlier reviewed the pre-publication chapter dealing with

Egyptianmummies intheMormonworld,I stillfoundthedescription oftheir

history a moving experience. As Wolfe and Singerman point out, the mum-

mies associated with Antonio Lebolo (died 1830) were “the largest collection

259

of mummies to have as yet [been] exhibited in America, all at one place, at the

same time” (101). These artifacts still have mysteries, such as where in Egypt

they came from and when Michael Chandler first exhibited them before

reaching Cleveland in 1835. The book does not, however, shed much new

light on the intriguing papyrus scrolls purchased with the four mummies. The

transporting of these mummies from Kirtland, to northern Missouri, and

then to Nauvoo is fairly well documented. At Nauvoo, Joseph Smith and his

mother, Lucy Mack Smith, kept and exhibited the Egyptian mummies.

Lucy kept them until her death in 1856; then the mummies and papyri

were sold to Abel Combs. Combs sold two mummies and some pieces of pa-

pyri to the St. Louis Museum, but what became of the other two mummies is

not known. To date, researchers have failed to locate them. They may no lon-

ger exist, or, at least, may not exist as complete mummies.

Though several pieces of the papyri were preserved at the Metropolitan

Museum of Art in New York City, Latter-day Saints are most intrigued by them

in terms of Joseph Smith’s interest in them. He considered that one scroll told

about Joseph of Egypt and another dealt with the patriarch Abraham. He

briefly worked on part of the papyri from which he created the sacred writings

ofAbrahamandtheEgyptianAlphabet.Thebookdoesnotdiscussthepapy-

rus used for the book of Abraham. It is important to point out that the funer-

ary papyrus used for the Abraham text has been translated and is the oldest of

its type, a “book of breathings” attributed to the goddess Isis.

Wolfe and Singerman’s narrative includes many interesting anecdotes re-

lated to the actual unwrapping of mummies. One embarrassing incident oc-

curred in 1850 in Boston when George Robins Gliddon, a lecturer of Egyp-

tian archeology, told his paying audience that he would unwrap a female

mummy—in fact, a princess, before their very eyes; but when the mummy

was finally released from its many wrappings, it turned out to be male (143–

60). A wag promptly commemorated the event in verse:

When Gliddon from the mummy case

The wrappings did untwine

No priestess was revealed, but la!

The manly form divine.

Ah!saidawit,who’dpaidtosee

A priestess there unrolled,

“He keeps his word, this surely is

A dam-sel, for I’m sold.” (159)

260 The Journal of Mormon History

Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary

(Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), 21, 23,

25, 27–28.

The book does not shy away from the controversial topic of plundering

tombs formummies and valuables. Chapter 6, which deals with the commer-

cial exploitation of mummies in Victorian America, comments: “From the

time of thefirst Pharaohs tothe present day, theburial places oftherichand

famous (and often as not, the poor and not-so-famous) had been exploited

for their treasures. There was a continuous ready market for the gold and

jewels, the aromatics and spices, and other items which could be procured

from the resting places of deceased Egyptians” (173–74).

The use of mummies in the nineteenth century included medicine

(“mummy powder”) and paint known as “Mummy brown.” Mummy wrap-

ping was also used for making paper (178–97). The Daily Standard of Syra-

cuse, New York, boasted in 1856, that the newspaper was made “from rags

imported directly from the land of the Pharaohs” (186). Some mummies

were ground up for use as fertilizer (194).

I noticed some typographical errors. For example, Adam “Chase” (39) is

actually Adam “Clarke” (identified correctly on p. 56). A book on the history

of the Mormon mummies is H. Donl Peterson, The Story of the Book of Abra-

ham: Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism, but in the chapter notes and

Appendix 2, his first name is misspelled “Donal” (238–39, 249).

IfoundMummies in Nineteenth-Century America very interesting. For those

who enjoy learning something new about the culture of the nineteenth cen-

tury and its deep fascination with ancient Egypt, this book will be a worth-

while addition.

H. MICHAEL MARQUARDT {[email protected]}, an independ-

ent historian and research consultant, is the compiler of Early Patriarchal

Blessings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City:

Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2007) and author of The Joseph Smith Revela-

tions: Text and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999).

William B. Smart. Mormonism’s Last Colonizer: The Life and Times of Wil-

liam H. Smart. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2008. x + 347 pp. Pho-

tographs,table,notes,bibliography,appendices,CD,index.Cloth:

$44.95. ISBN: 978–0–87421–722–3

Reviewed by Brian Q. Cannon

In this prizewinning biography (Handcart Prize from Utah State Univer-

sity’s MountainWest Center for 2008), William B. Smart, former editor

of the Deseret News, traces the fascinating life story of his ambitious and

eccentric grandfather William H. Smart. The author admires his ancestor

REVIEWS 261

but is appropriately critical in acknowledging lapses of judgment, faults,

and character flaws. Accompanying this richly detailed biography is a CD

with transcripts of all fifty volumes of Smart’s diary—a valuable historical

resource.

Smart was the most prominent and powerful resident of the Uinta Basin

of his era, serving as president of the Uintah, Duchesne, and Roosevelt LDS

stakes (1906–22) and for five years before that as president of the Wasatch

Stake. He owned most of the basin’s newspapers; developed banks, real es-

tate companies and stores; selected the sites and chose the names for many

towns; donated land for a high school in Roosevelt; and oversaw the comple-

tion of the Uintah Stake Tabernacle in Vernal. He also played a key role in

displacing Native Americans from their former lands, although he appar-

ently had few regrets about this facet of western community building. An in-

defatigable colonizer and often reckless investor, he dissipated his substan-

tial fortune and exhausted his physical strength in promoting the Mormon

settlement and economic and religious development of eastern Utah.

The author concludes that, in the short run, Smart succeeded in his goal

of populating the former Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation with more

than 6,800 Latter-day Saints organized into wards and stakes. During the

Great Depression, many who had settled there, including Smart himself, left

the basin. Moreover, the region never became as productive agriculturally

as Smart had envisioned. In this sense, Smart’s aspirations for the region

failed to materialize. But the author argues convincingly that Smart’s ulti-

mate objective was “to build up the church and its members”; thus “commu-

nity building was only a means to [that] end” (319). Smart succeeded in his

overarching goal.

The book tells an engaging story, drawing on Smart’s journals and corre-

spondence, the memoirs of relatives, LDS mission and stake records, and

the diaries of some of Smart’s associates. In his research, the author con-

sulted scholarly monographs along with reference works like the Encyclope-

dia of Mormonism and the Utah History Encyclopedia for background and con-

textual information. Steering around Mormon and western historians’ inter-

pretive arguments and debates, the author opted instead for a more

popular, narrative approach. The underlying research is careful and sound,

though, and easy to trace through the numerous footnotes.

Born in 1862 in Franklin, Idaho, William H. Smart was educated in

schools in Franklin and Logan, taught for a time at Brigham Young College

and studied in the Normal Department at the University of Deseret for

nearly two years before quitting. Smart served for three months in England

with his father on a genealogical mission, studied for a semester at Cornell

before dropping out, and returned to Cache Valley where he married Anna

Haines in 1888. Just over six months later, he left on an unproductive and

262 The Journal of Mormon History

discouraging mission to Turkey. Almost immediately after arriving in Tur-

key, Smart requested permission to return home, a step that was unusual for

contemporary missionaries. Six months later he was on his way. Back in Lo-

gan, he taught for three years and then entered the sheep business. Within

four years, he and his partner owned twelve bands totaling 35,755 sheep

from which they made a substantial fortune.

Having struggled with an unrelenting addiction to tobacco for over a de-

cade and after numerous demoralizing attempts to quit, Smart requested a

priesthood blessing and finally kicked the habit in 1898 at age thirty-four.

Smart served as a missionary and then as president of the Eastern States Mis-

sion from 1898 to 1900. Shortly after Smart returned to Utah, the First Presi-

dency and Quorum of the Twelve called him to move to Heber in Wasatch

County and assume the presidency of the Wasatch Stake. He would devote

the next thirty-three years of his life to developing eastern Utah.

Becausehewrotecopiouslyandwithlittleinhibition,Smartleftadiary

that is a rich, detailed, and entertaining resource for researchers interested

in understanding not only Smart but his times. A few examples discussed in

the biography are illustrative. A voyeur of sorts, Smart as a young student

and missionary visited bawdy theaters and red-light districts to converse

with prostitutes and to advise them to repent. As a young college instructor,

he distributed an anonymous survey to his students about “self-abuse” and

learned thereby that at least three-quarters of the young men in his classes

had masturbated (36). At the same time that he was investigating sexual ta-

boos, he engaged in extended and frequent fasts—including a four-day fast

that spanned Thanksgiving Day in 1886 as he sought spiritual guidance in

selecting a wife. Smart’s diary reveals surprising guilt over what he called his

“monstrous” addiction to smoking in the 1880s and 1890s—surprising be-

cause, in that era, abstinence from tobacco was not strongly emphasized in

the Church (43). Prior to embarking on his mission, Smart and other re-

cently called missionaries were instructed by seven apostles. They were ad-

vised that “no saint goes wrong without having three distinct promptings of

his unrighteous course” and were counseled to “not advise a wife to leave her

husband to join the Church, nor even to baptize her without his consent un-

less she was faithfully moved to do so, and demands it at your hands” (55).

Following the Woodruff Manifesto Smart recorded that “many Saints” in-

cluding himself felt that “we are becoming faint-hearted” (78).

Smart’s diaries and this biography reveal much about the activities of a

stake president in a sprawling, turn-of-the-century rural stake. Many efforts

were aimed at building faith and reactivating lapsed members. Smart re-

corded that he and other stake presidents were instructed in 1901 to recom-

mend faithful members for their second anointings because “Abraham

never could have sacrificed his son had he not received such strength as is

REVIEWS 263

given by second annointings and all should strive to live worthy of same”

(124).

Stake presidents also exerted influence in temporal affairs. Smart

worked to develop economic and water resources for far-flung communities

and insure Mormon political dominance. He struggled unsuccessfully touse

his ecclesiastical influence to make Roosevelt, Utah, the seat for Duchesne

County. As a stake president and state senator in 1921 he read from Doctrine

and Covenants 89 (a warning about the last days) in a speech in the senate

chamber.

This biography is a welcome addition to Mormon historical writing. It il-

luminates the activities of a local Church leader rather than a General Au-

thority. Smart was one of a number of important second-tier leaders of the

Latter-day Saints, a group that deserves greater attention from biographers

and historians.

BRIAN Q. CANNON {[email protected]} is professor of history

and director of the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at Brigham

Young University. He is the author of two books and many articles about

Mormon, Utah, Western, and rural history.

Richard E. Turley Jr. and Ronald W. Walker, eds. Mountain Meadows Mas-

sacre: The Andrew Jenson and David H. Morris Collections. D

OCUMENTS IN

LATTER-DAY SAINT HISTORY. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University

Press, 2009, ix, 342 pp. Preface, editorial procedures, photographs,

notes, index, acknowledgments. Hardback: $44.95. ISBN 978–0–8425–

2723–1.

Reviewed by Robert H. Briggs

“Every Man His Own Historian,” Carl Becker famously declared in 1931

to the American Historical Association. Since controversy still reigns on

key issues concerning the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which occurred

in frontier Utah in the fall of 1857, must every reader be his or her own

historian? There is consensus about the general sequence of events in the

five-day stalemate at Mountain Meadows in September 1857 that led ulti-

mately to the atrocity. But several recent historical treatments are at con-

siderable variance over who planned and directed the massacre and who,

among the many planners and participants, should be judged most cul-

pable. Thus, each person who enters this swirling storm of controversy

must be prepared to be his or her own historian—to sift the evidence and

draw his or her own conclusions. Each one must weigh the controversies

to get at the truth.

264 The Journal of Mormon History

Two recent volumes have made more widely available key primary and

secondary sources. The task of sorting through the contradictory material is

not any easier. But the material is now more readily accessible than ever be-

fore. First to appear was David Bigler and Will Bagley, Innocent Blood: Essen-

tial Narratives of the Mountain Meadows Massacre,Vol.12inK

INGDOM IN THE

WEST:THE MORMONS AND THE AMERICAN FRONTIER SERIES (Norman: Ar-

thur H. Clark Company, an imprint of the University of Oklahoma, 2008).

Second is this compilation by Richard Turley and Ronald Walker.

In 2002, officials in the LDS Church Historical Department announced

that they had been researching and acquiring documents concerning the

massacre at Mountain Meadows. Once their history was published, they

pledged that all of the source material would be made available. Turley,

Walker, and their coauthor, Glen Leonard, published Massacre at Mountain

Meadows in 2008. The current publication is a supplement to that volume

and helps fulfill the pledge to make their source material more readily avail-

able. “While the massacre continues to shock and distress,” they state, “we

hope that the publication of these documents will be a further step in facili-

tating understanding, sharing sorrows,and promoting reconciliation” (viii).

In 1892, President Wilford Woodruff invited Andrew Jenson, an em-

ployee in the Church Historian’s Office and later the assistant Church histo-

rian, to undertake a special mission. President Woodruff assigned him to in-

terview massacre participants and other witnesses in southern Utah and

gather additional information about the massacre. Jenson’s immediate pur-

pose was to assist Orson F. Whitney with portions of his history of Utah.

President Woodruff and his counselors, George Q. Cannnon and Joseph F.

Smith, provided a letter of introduction to help Jenson gain the cooperation

of witnesses (3–4). His usual procedure was to interview the witness and pre-

pare “field notes” of his interview. However, in some cases he collected let-

ters, affidavits, or other first-person statements. Back in Salt Lake City, he

prepared more polished “reports” from these notes (6).

Among other things, the Jenson Collection contains Elias Morris’s signif-

icant statement describing the raw nerves in southern Utah because of the

war environment. Settlers fully expected U.S. troops to enter their valley

through the eastern mountains. Morris also described the altercation be-

tween some travelers and some Cedar City inhabitants (244–47, 252–53). In

contrast is Jenson’s interview with John Chatterley who described “the in-

sane...religiousfanaticism”exhibitedbysomeresidents(283).

The collection also includes Ellott Willden’s only written statements

about the massacre. Militia major and Cedar City stake president Isaac C.

Haight sent Willden and his two companions to Mountain Meadows to ob-

serve the encamped emigrants and find a reason for the Indians to be “let

loose upon” them (211–12, 221). Significantly, the emigrants received the

REVIEWS 265

three Mormons civilly (204, 211–12). Willden also recorded that the attack

was originally planned for Santa Clara Canyon, some miles south of Moun-

tain Meadows. However, for reasons still not fully understood, John D. Lee

initiated the first attack at Mountain Meadows (191, 198, 214–15, 221–22).

According to Willden, before the attack, Tennessean William Aden and

another emigrant backtracked from the Meadows toward Cedar City in

search of stray cattle. Mormon militiaman William Stewart and his compan-

ions approached them, and Stewart asked to borrow a cup to get a drink of

water. When Aden complied, Stewart shot him in the head, killing him in-

stantly. Aden’s companion fled back to the emigrant camp, unwounded de-

spite the hail of bullets from the Mormon pickets (206, 216–17, 223) Be-

cause of this critical episode, the emigrants knew that Mormons were be-

hind the attacks on their train, a realization that gnawed at Mormon militia

leaders. When they met in council Thursday night, a compelling argument

for the attack was the absolute need to prevent the emigrants from spread-

ing this story in California. In fact, Willden attributes to this murder “more

than anything else, the decision to destroy the whole company” (217, 221).

Willden describes a similar episode, perhaps on Wednesday, September

9, when Stewart, Phillip Klingensmith, and other patrolling militia encoun-

tered two other emigrants who had left their defensive encampment to seek

aid. The Mormons killed both of them (209, 223).

The Jenson collection contains many other significant accounts, includ-

ingstatementsfromChristopherJ.Arthur,WilliamBarton,MaryS.Camp-

bell, John Chatterley, Joseph T. Clews, Samuel Knight, Daniel S. Macfarlane,

Wilson G. Nowers, Richard S. Robinson, Jesse N. Smith (journal), David W.

Tullis, and Mary H. White.

Thesecond,smallercollectionbearsthenameofDavidH.Morris

(1858–1937), an attorney, judge, and notary public in St. George, Utah. He

lived forty miles from the massacre site and had family connections to some

participants. His collection contains letters from the 1890s dealing with le-

gal efforts to officially terminate the then-moribund federal prosecution of

certain southern Utah militia and affidavits from several aging massacre

participants who had entrusted them to Morris. Because these documents

did not truly belong in Morris’s personal estate, early in 1938, Helen Forsha

Hafen, Morris’s foster daughter, delivered them to the office of the Church

Historian in Salt Lake City. Juanita Brooks knew they existed but was denied

permission to review them while researching her landmark history, The

Mountain Meadows Massacre (292–94).

In addition to the letters are affidavits from Nephi Johnson and Samuel

Knight, who had testified at John D. Lee’s 1876 trial; Jenson also inter-

viewed Knight in the 1890s. When the Johnson and Knight statements in

both collections (and elsewhere) are combined with those of Klingensmith

266 The Journal of Mormon History

and Lee, a reasonably complete account of the massacre emerges, although

naturallytheycontradictoneanotheroncertainkeypoints.

These first- or third-person accounts are, on their face, vitally important

records from witnesses to the massacre. However, an obvious concern is

their reliability. First, they come from the “murderers,” and second, they

date between thirty-five and fifty years after the massacre.

The first concern focuses on the very strong interest or bias that massacre

participants would be expected to have. It is hardly surprising that criminals

lie about their crimes. Assuming their accounts contain some reliable de-

tails, how can the reliable details be distinguished from the unreliable? Obvi-

ously, denials and blame shifting are especially vulnerable to charges of spe-

cial pleading. But what about statements confessing guilty involvement in

the massacre in the first place? And what about incidental details in the ac-

counts? Since the interviewees had no reason to lie about such details, are

they reliable? How can they be verified?

“When a statement is prejudicial to a witness, his dear ones, or his

causes,” historian Louis Gottschalk observed many years ago, “it is likely to

be truthful.”

1**

Or as historian Wood Gray said elsewhere, “an admission

against self-interest, other things being equal, is most convincing.”

2***

Apply-

ing this principle to the Mormon militia encourages a focus on elements of

their accounts that confess their personal involvement in key events. In other

words, if an individual confessed to participation in these events, his or her

statements are most likely true, especially when they can be independently

verified.

But common sense dictates a degree of skepticism about statements from

criminal suspects that involve excuses, denials, or blame-shifting accusa-

tions against others. “The danger is,” Lord Abinger, a nineteenth-century

Englishjudge,cautioned,“thatwhenaman...knowsthathisownguiltis

detected, he purchases immunity by falsely accusing others.”

3****

As noted, the militia statements also contain “incidental details”—ele-

ments in the narrative that are neither part of the defense nor the confes-

sionsandaboutwhichthenarratorwouldhavenoreasontolie.Wheninde-

REVIEWS 267

Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Meth-

od, 2d ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1969), 161.

***

Wood Gray, Historian’s Handbook: A Key to the Study and Writing of

History, rev. ed. (1964; rpt., Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press, 2001),

58.

****

Lord Abinger, quoted in John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at

Common Law, 10 vols. 1904; revised by James H. Chadbourn (N.p.: Aspen

Law & Business, 1970), 7:417.

pendently verified from other sources, these elements can also be consid-

ered reliable.

According to the principles outlined above, each militia statement con-

tains elements of varying reliability. Most reliable are the narrator’s confes-

sion of involvement in the crime or descriptions of “incidental details,” par-

ticularly where these two elements can be independently verified. Least reli-

able are defensive statements—excuses, evasions, denials, and accusations

against his fellow conspirators.

What about the reliability of reminiscences many years after the events

they recount? It is true that such reminiscences may be plagued by faded or

falsememories;butitisalsowellrecognizedthattraumaticmemoriescanre-

main intact and relatively accurate for decades. The more frequent problem in

reminiscent accounts is the tendency to scramble chronological details. For

example, many militiamen recall being ordered to muster in Cedar City and

ride to Mountain Meadows; they provide convincing details about their jour-

ney.ButseveraldetachmentstraveledtotheMeadowsondifferentdays,some

early in the week of September 7 and others later. Because of cloudy memo-

ries of the chronology, combined with ambiguity in some accounts, it is some-

times difficult to determine if a given man reached the Meadows on Tuesday,

Wednesday, or Thursday. The editorial notes/apparatus do not identify and

attempt to reconcile these problems, providing only historical background

about how Jenson and Morris acquired the documents.

These documents present a series of very challenging historiographical

problems. Yet because most of the accounts are generally consistent on the

key sequence of massacre events, these problems can be surmounted. Ulti-

mately, the test of any historical narrative is coherence. From these and

other sources, we have an essentially coherent account of the key events in

southern Utah.

The remaining major cache of historical documents concerning the mas-

sacre is the transcript of the John D. Lee trials in 1875–76, which I hope can

be published in the near future. Concerning the perennially controversial

massacre at Mountain Meadows, every reader who so desires can now fulfill

in a sense Carl Becker’s famous dictum to be his or her own historian.

ROBERT H. BRIGGS {[email protected]} an attorney, re-

sides in Fullerton, California. His current research interests include Mor-

mon-Indian relations in early Utah, violence in the early Utah frontier,

and the John D. Lee trials of 1875–76.

Edward Leo Lyman, Susan Ward Payne, and S. George Ellsworth, eds.

No Place to Call Home: The 1807–1857 Life Writings of Caroline Barnes

268 The Journal of Mormon History

Crosby, Chronicler of Outlying Mormon Communities. Logan: Utah State Uni-

versity Press, 2005. xviii, 574 pp. Maps and illustrations, foreword by

Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, editors’ notes, introduction, notes, bibliog-

raphy, index. Cloth: $29.95. ISBN 0–87421–601–X

Reviewed by Konden R. Smith

As Volume 7 in the

LIFE WRITINGS OF FRONTIER WOMEN series, No Place

to Call Home is the first of two volumes of the “life writings” of Caroline

Barnes Crosby, a Mormon convert, pioneer, and missionary. Volume 2 is

not listed as a publication on the Utah State University’s website. Caro-

line’s diaries start in January 1851, when she joined her husband, Jona-

than, as a missionary at Tubuai in the Society Islands (Tahiti) and con-

clude in January 1858 as they returned to Utah amid the Utah War crisis.

This volume also includes her memoirs, narrating her life up to 1851.

No Place to Call Home portrays the intimate reality of early Mormon devo-

tion and the high expectations imposed on its young and willing members.

Though this work is an exceptional narrative of personal sacrifice, Caroline

Crosby is representative of a larger phenomenon that demonstrates the

unique power behind the Mormon system—the willingness of its early mem-

bers to become homeless, time and again, for the sake of their religion.

Intheintroduction,theeditorsemphasizetwoimportantthemes:(1)the

repeated relocations juxtaposed against brief seasons of stability and com-

fort, and (2) Caroline’s personal stoicism despite serious and constant hard-

ship. These two themes contrast Caroline’s experiences against more ro-

mantic views of western settlement. Unlike adventurers, male missionaries

(often), or settlers, Caroline Crosby neither sought out nor desired a life of

travel and continual change. Rather, her diary communicates a sustained

nostalgia for familiar society and home stability. After having been up-

rooted and having sacrificed the comforts of society and friends several

times, Crosby’s reaction to being called with Jonathan to go to French Poly-

nesia only a year after entering the Salt Lake Valley is telling: “But accus-

tomed as I have been for many years to disappointments and hardships of

variouskindsittookbutfewmomentsreflectiontoreconcilemymindtoan-

othersacrificeofhousehomeandfriendsforthesakeofthegospel”(91).

This would hardly be her last disappointment or sacrifice of home and

friends to which her new religion called her. On her forty-ninth birthday, she

reflected that her life as a Mormon had been a “life of wandering for 21

years;butprevioustothattimeIlivedintheonetown,scarcelyknowinga

change” (381). Though longing for a religion that enabled its members to

“bear each others burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (284), Caroline

had to be content with a religion that called her to a “state of banishment” or

“perfect seclusion from the world, as well as from the saints, neither doing

REVIEWS 269

any good or receiving any” (323). Working through these internal tensions,

Crosby’s recollections demonstrates the complex nature of the Mormon re-

ligion that was surely shared by many of those who defined their lives

throughthesenseofdivineguidanceitgaveitsadherents.“TheLordhas

comforted me in my travels,” she wrote as she contemplated those twenty-

one years of wanderings, “and I have realized his guardianship in thousands

of instances” (381). What “are a few of the luxuries of life,” she pondered, “in

comparison” to such insight? (286–87).

Caroline’s memoirs fill in her background. Born on January 5, 1807, of

Scotch and English ancestry, in Massachusetts to Willard Barnes and Dolly

Stevens Barnes, she was the seventh of their ten children. Her early life

seems typical of New England/lower Canada. Like many during the revival

fires of the 1820s and 1830s, Caroline “became quite seriously impressed

with a sense of religion” in her late teens (23). So powerful had been the local

Methodist preacher’s exposition on God’s wrath against sinners that she was

“almost afraid to sleep at night fearing I might be suddenly seized with it

[death and the judgments of God]” (28). Joining the Church of England in

1825 or 1826, Caroline became a zealous student and finally schoolteacher

in a society that prized the schoolhouse as an extension of church.

Her October 26, 1834, marriage to Mormon convert Jonathan Crosby of

Massachusetts uprooted her from both the Episcopal Church and her home

in lower Canada. Following her baptism on January 18, 1835, Caroline and

Jonathan joined the larger body of Mormons in Kirtland, Ohio, on January

9, 1836. With traveling companion Warren Smith (later killed at Haun’s

Mill), Jonathan was sent on a mission to Pennsylvania on January 7, 1838.

Immediately upon his return in September that year, Caroline and Jonathan

set out for “the land of Zion” (Missouri) with their two-year-old son Alma,

but learned en route that Mormons had been driven from the state. Conse-

quently, in the early winter months of 1839, they found themselves in Indi-

ana “in a land of strangers” with “little more than one dollar in money, very

few clothes, one horse, and an old one-horse wagon. But we trusted in God,

and were not confounded” (53).

In June 1842 Caroline and Jonathan left their home and business and

moved to Nauvoo. In the Mormon attempt to make a beautiful city out of a

swamp, with its widespread “sickness, fleas, bugs, and musketoes [sic],”

Caroline remarked that “death became so frequent a visitor in Nauvoo that

we were perfectly familiar with it” (65–66). With the assassination of Joseph

and Hyrum in June 1844 and Nauvoo spiraling into a state of civil war (a Mis-

sourian leveled a gun at Caroline in her own home), she and Jonathan left

Nauvoo for Ohio in February 1846 impoverished, with Caroline so sick she

“was just able to walk about.” Staying in Ohio for a few years, Caroline and

family left to join the main body of Mormons under Brigham Young. Reach-

270 The Journal of Mormon History

ing the Salt Lake Valley on October 12, 1848, Jonathan set up his cabinet

shop and they both hoped to make the Salt Lake Valley their new home. But

one year later, Brigham Young asked them to settle their business affairs, sell

their possessions, and go on a mission to the South Pacific (where Caroline’s

sister Louisa and husband Addison Pratt were preaching) with their now

twelve-year-old son Alma. “We therefore feel ourselves still in an unsettled

state. After laboring and toiling so long to get to a place where we could feel

ourselves at home, we have now got to take another and even more tedious

journey and take up our abode among the wild sons of nature perhaps for

several years, but its all for the gospels sake, therefore we do not wish to mur-

mur,butkeepoureyesupontherecompenceofreward,thatrestwhichre-

mains for this people of God” (87).

After a summer in San Francisco, they made the long voyage to French

Polynesia, arriving in Tubuai on October 19, 1850. Following this mission,

they returned to California on September 6, 1852. They settled in San Jose,

San Francisco, and finally San Bernardino, only to be called back to Utah by

Brigham Young in the fall of 1857 where Volume 1 ends. Though at times

fighting off deep feelings of depression and loneliness, Caroline remained

positive, writing poetically about one particular “moonlight evening”—“The

heart must be sad indeed that cannot rejoice when all nature smiles around”

(211, 311).

Although their stay in Tahiti was relatively short, Caroline’s reflections

and experiences are an interesting contribution to Christian missiology in

the mid-nineteenth century. France and England shared similar aspirations

for colonial occupation and territorial expansion and exploitation, at times

leading to conflict and contests of military supremacy. Brief mentions of

this conflict come out in Caroline’s narrative; but the endnotes, disappoint-

ingly, provide little background for this important historical moment that so

affected the success and failure of these island missions. French governors,

for example, were extremely concerned that non-French/non-Catholic mis-

sionaries came to promote feelings of discontent among the natives and that

American missionaries might excite rebellion in their dominions. As Caro-

line’s narrative shows, Catholic priests did not hesitate to challenge the Mor-

mon-American presence. Addison Pratt, husband of Caroline’s older sister

Louisa,who was also in French Polynesia at the time, proved an effective mis-

sionary and emissary to the island’s French governor.

The endnotes briefly mention the curious incident of James S. Brown, a

former Mormon Battalion captain, who built his own local government in

defiance of the “French yoke” on Ana’a and appointed Mormon converts to

run this district and display the American flag, symbolizing Church loyalty

and French resistance (524, 526). As was common among many Americans

atthetime,Brown’sAmericanismwassynonymouswithhisconceptionsof

REVIEWS 271

the gospel of Christ. Brown was arrested for his subversion, and the

Church’s presence in the Society Islands was seriously damaged. Other con-

flations of Mormonism and American culture were less obvious to these

missionaries (though perhaps not to the French), such as the idea that the

English language and American customs were synonymous with the Mor-

mon message.

Caroline, upon leaving the islands, lamented that the child to whom she

had taught the English language and “habits of civilized living” would inevi-

tably lapse “back again into heathenism” (157). With sentiments fornative is-

landers typical of other white American missionaries, Caroline found her

patience challenged as islanders proved slow to mimic their cultural styles

and habits, particularly habits that protected boundaries of perceived per-

sonal space. For example, Caroline expressed annoyance as islanders watch-

ed her through her window and occasionally made themselves at home in

her house and kitchen without invitation, “thinking I suppose that he had

paid me quite a compliment” (145).

Despite her many travels and various experiences, Caroline’s life was

painfully tedious and often lonely. In an era of domesticity, her residence in

California (1852–57) seemed typical, filled with cleaning, washing, ironing,

cooking, tending the sick, entertaining and housing travelers, etc. Her jour-

nal reflects this domestic monotony. “Nothing worth noticing. I made a fine

sack. Times quite dull, nothing seems very encouraging” (199). On other

days, her entries required less effort: “I washed” (182).

Caroline longed for reunion with the larger body of Saints, particularly af-

ter hearing that the property she had sold to Brigham Young had become

very valuable. Like many Saints in California, Caroline sometimes felt that

theSpiritofGodwasstrongerinSaltLakeCity.InalettertoElizaR.Snow,

Caroline noted that “many complain that they cannot, or do not, enjoy as

much of the Spirit of God here as they did at headquarter[s], but where the

faultliesisdifficulttodetermine.Perhapsitisreasonablethatweshouldnot,

as we are certainly deprived of many privileges which are there enjoyed. But

if I am capable of judging there are many good kind people here, who appar-

ently enjoy the Holy Spirit” (414). Visits by Church leaders from Utah, such

as Amasa Lyman and Parley Pratt, proved an important bridge between

these two Mormon worlds, linking outlying individuals and communities to

the larger Mormon community and its attendant “Holy Spirit.” She eagerly

attended meetings where they preached and noted approvingly following a

semiannual conference that Lyman “spoke to the people with much power

and spirit” (433). In looking at the several Mormon communities and the

ties that connected them, it is clear that this “power and spirit” represented

an essential component in helping to unify these geographically separated

communities.

272 The Journal of Mormon History

The book is thoughtfully edited; but as a reader, I was not uniformly sat-

isfied. The chapter breaks are helpful in dividing up the different periods

of Caroline’s wanderings and are outlined with numerous subheadings.

There are also helpful inserts that help weave together Caroline’s diaries

with her memoir. The endnotes clarify errors in Caroline Crosby’s diaries,

such as a genealogical misstatement (541 note 40), and provide additional

insight to the narrative. The notes seem primarily directed toward those

unfamiliar with the LDS Church and its basic history, which may not be an

adequate description of the book’s audience. The explanatory notes are

largely limited to Mormon authors and Mormon publications, with rela-

tively little connection to outside resources and insight. Even explanations

of larger national phenomena, such as spiritualism, are narrowed largely

to Mormon people and places. Though fairly successful in making the tran-

sition from family history to a national classic of American missiology and

a chronicle of a woman’s role in settling the western frontier, this volume

remains typically parochial about Mormon works in its editorial work, ref-

erences, and vision.

In her foreword, Maureen Ursenbach Beecher correctly recognizes that

works like this “are much, much more than mere sources of historical evi-

dence; they are a literature of their own” (ix). Coupled with several other

published diaries from close family members, Caroline’s diaries provide an

important window on the American and Mormon experience. An explicit

goaloftheeditorswastoreproducetheCarolinediarieswithaslittleinter-

ruption and editorial intrusion as possible. In my opinion, they succeeded,

providing readers with the next best thing to the actual diaries. By the work’s

conclusion, I was impressed with the intriguing complexity of Mormonism’s

aspirations in the West, which brought women like Caroline into an environ-

ment foreign to her comfort zone and temperament. Her courage and en-

durancedemonstratetheimportanceofherreligiousfaithindealingwith

those circumstances.

Despite its fairly narrow focus, interest in this volume surpasses the Mor-

mon story, representing an important addition to scholars of American reli-

gion and the American West as well as to more general enthusiasts of both

the West and Mormonism.

KONDEN R. SMITH {[email protected]} is a Ph.D. candidate at

Arizona State University in the Religious Studies Department.

Richard S. Van Wagoner, ed. The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young.

Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, distributed by Signature Books,

REVIEWS 273

2009. 5 vols., 3,185 pp. Sources, index. Cloth: $500; ISBN: 1–56085–

206–2

Reviewed by Joseph Geisner

Richard S. Van Wagoner and the Smith-Pettit Foundation have provided

an indispensable “resource for students of LDS history and biography”

(1:vii). with the publication of this massive five-volume set, The Complete

Discourses of Brigham Young. In the preface, Van Wagoner writes: “The

present compilation makes available in chronological order the complete

available texts of every known published and previously unpublished dis-

course, speech, and teaching of Brigham Young” (1:vii).

The volumes average around 600 pages each and are large quarto in size.

Each volume has a table of contents and a list of sources with the accompany-

ing abbreviation. Volume 5 contains a twenty-six-page index that took Van

Wagoner six months to compile. The physical appearance of the volumes is

described in the colophon at the end of Volume 5: “The font is Bembo, a

classic-revival typeface named for Pietro Bembo (1470–1547), a Venetian

scholar, poet, literary theorist, and cardinal. The volumes were printed on

Accent opaque vellum, an acid-free, archival quality paper; and were bound

and Smythe sewn in Arrestox linen. The five-volume series is limited to 325

sets.”

Van Wagoner acknowledges that, by “complete,” he means all of the ad-

dresses that he found in his research are found in these five volumes. Some

of the Thomas Bullock transcriptions from the 1847–51 period were “es-

pecially difficult” to decipher, and Van Wagoner provides a location where

an electronic scan of the original document can be found (1:vii). The dis-

course of August 25, 1844, is an example of an address not included but for

which he cites a location with an electronic scan (1:48). Van Wagoner also

explains that the John V. Long papers, held in a private collection, also con-

tain addresses not included in this compilation.

Apparently Van Wagoner

was also unaware of some George Watt transcriptions of Young addresses

housed in the LDS Church History Library. Three addresses not found in

the Van Wagoner volumes have recently been published in Mark Lyman

Staker, Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting of Joseph Smith’s Ohio Reve-

lations (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2009 [sic; actually 2010]).

Staker also provides the complete text of two additional Young sermons

274 The Journal of Mormon History

Beginning on November 5, 1854, John V. Long worked as one of

Brigham Young’s secretaries and busiest clerks. The last address of Young’s

that he recorded in Complete Discourses is dated June 13, 1864 (4:2198–99)

My thanks to Will Bagley for this information.

that were “significantly edited and shortened” before their publication in

the Journal of Discourse (561–91).

Van Wagoner describes the “guidelines” he used in preparing the collec-

tion. Each discourse bears the date, location, time of day, and source of the

discourse. When multiple sources appear for one discourse, he reproduces

the first source. The additional source citations are “usually the same or

nearlythesametext,unlessotherwiseindicated.”Ifthecitationincludes

“multiple secondary sources, such as journal entries, then they are located

below the primary source” (1: vii).

Volume 1 begins with an entry from the Manuscript History of Brigham

Young describing his baptism and ordination as an elder with the date of

April 14, 1832. Volume 5 ends with two entries: (1) a letter by Daniel H. Wells

and John W. Young, two of Young’s counselors (John W. was also Brigham’s

son), announcing Brigham’s death; and (2) a second-hand account of a

Young prophecy about Utah’s future published in Robert W. Smith, The

“Last Days”: A Compilation of Prophecies Pertinent to the Present, Gathered from

Secular and Religious Sources, Embracing George Washington’s Vision and Others

of a Prophetic Nature. with Excerpts from Prophetic Writings of Joseph Smith, Jr.,

Floyd Gibbons, Gus McKey, Christabel Pankhurst, and Others (Salt Lake City:

Pyramid Press, 1931). This last speech was supposed to have been witnessed

by Benjamin Kimball Bullock (1821–1901), who was mayor of Provo from

1855 and 1860, and was recorded by his son, Ben H. Bullock “before his fa-

ther’s death.”

There is a marked difference between the addresses in Volume 1 and

those in the other four. Those in Volume 1 come from a wider range of

sources and are usually less complete than the later addresses. In Volume 1,

sourcesforYoung’saddressesvaryfromJosephSmithJr.etal.,History of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts, 2d ed. rev.

(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1902–12, 1932), the Kirtland Council Minute

Book,QuorumoftheTwelveMinutes,EldenJ.Watson’stwovolumes(Man-

uscript History of Brigham Young, 1801–1844 [Salt Lake City: Smith Secre-

tarial Service, 1968], Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 1846–1847 [Salt

Lake City: Smith Secretarial Service, 1971], and William S. Harwell, ed.,

Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 1847–1850 [Salt Lake City: Collier’s

Publishing, 1997]); the Times and Seasons, Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Wood-

ruff’s Journal, 9 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1983–85), and a vari-

ety of other records.

Then, on January 29, 1845, Thomas Bullock, a former Joseph Smith

clerk, began recording Young’s addresses, the completeness of which

promptly improved. Jerald F. Simon, “Thomas Bullock as an Early Mormon

Historian,” BYU Studies 30, no. 1 (Winter 1990): 81, writes that Bullock had

studied but not mastered Pitman shorthand so he used a modified version.

REVIEWS 275

Four months later at the April 1845 conference, George D. Watt, who was

“fully developed [in] the skills and techniques” of Pitman shorthand, began

recording Young’s addresses, though sporadically at first. Watt recorded

three Young addresses in Nauvoo: April 6 (1:76–80), June 1 (1:85–87), and

August 3, 1845 (1:90–96). The detail of Watt’s transcriptions, compared

with those of the earlier addresses, is quite dramatic.

The next dramatic change occurred on December 25, 1851, when Watt

began recording Young’s addresses full time, a major occupation until he

left Young’s employ on May 15, 1868. In early May 1853, Watt received First

Presidency permission to begin publishing a magazine containing ad-

dresses by Young and other Church leaders. This publication, the Journal of

Discourses, published about 389 of Young’s addresses.

2++

Van Wagoner’s

compilation reproduces all 389 of these Journal of Discourses addresses. I

believe their inclusion is essential in understanding Young’s developing

ideas.

John V. Long’s service as clerk covered from November 5, 1854, until

June 15, 1865, when the Deseret News announced that Long “has been re-

leased from his additional labors upon the News and Elder E. L. Sloan has

kindly consented to act as assistant editor.” David W. Evans, who worked as

an associate editor of the Deseret News under George Q. Cannon and was

the first violinist in the Salt Lake Theatre Orchestra, succeeded Watt as the

main reporter for Young’s addresses from 1867 to 1876. George F. Gibbs

who served as secretary to the First Presidency under Wilford Woodruff,

Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and Heber J. Grant, recorded Young’s dis-

courses from August 27, 1876 (5:3083–87) to his last fully recorded address

August 19, 1877 (5:3153–58), ten days before Young’s death.

When Leonard Arrington was Church Historian, he requested permis-

sion from the First Presidency for the Historical Department to write a

seven-volume biographical series about Young. The publication of these

five volumes brings us closer to realizing Arrington’s dream by providing

source material essential in researching and understanding Young and his

life.

Although understanding the scope and purpose of this project is criti-

cal, the true contributions and joy of discovery are the actual content of the

discourses and the ability provided by this collection to explore Young’s

thought freely. For example, Brigham Young referred to his baptism in

Mendon, New York, in six addresses. On January 8, 1845, he gave the exact

276 The Journal of Mormon History

Ronald G. Watt, The Mormon Passage of George D. Watt: First British

Convert, Scribe for Zion (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2009), 230,

133–34.

date of “April 9, 1832” (1:65) while on February 16, 1862, Young says: “It is

thirty years the 15th day of next April (though it has accidentally been re-

corded and printed the fourteenth) since I was baptized into this Church”

(4:1963). On August 31, 1856, he said, “I came into this Church in the

spring of 1832” (2:1157). The other three references are somewhat vague.

On April 6, 1860, he says “In about eight days it will be twenty-eight years

since I was baptized” (3:1562). On March 26, 1865, he said: “In a few days it

will be thirty-three years since I was baptized” (4:2262). The last reference,

on July 17, 1870, he refers only to “the Sunday morning on which I was bap-

tized” (5:2763). The first entry is from Watson’s edition of the Manuscript

History of Brigham Young, 1801–1844, 2–3, dated April 14, 1832, in which

Young supposedly wrote: “I was baptized by Eleazer Miller, who confirmed

me at the water’s edge” (1:3). However, Young did not write this account.

Secretaries and clerks drafted it in first person under the direction of assis-

tant Church Historian Wilford Woodruff beginning in January 1857. Both

Young’s membership/elder’s certificate and his first holograph diary give

the date of his baptism as April 9, 1832, which was a Monday, not a Sunday.

With this publication of the January 8, 1845, address and the other two

documents, this small but pesky controversy should be definitely resolved

in favor of April 9.

Historians have often discussed the prickly relationship between Young

and Emma Smith and her sons. These volumes provide plenty of material to

gauge Young’s feelings. On October 7, 1863, Young fumed:

Bro. George A. Smith saw Young Joseph a few years ago and judging

from what they and the other boys say they do not believe their father as

[sic] a prophet of God, but they think he was a consummate scoundrel in

religious matters. I know what Emma believes and have known it all the

day long, and yet there is not that woman on the earth that I would delight

to honor more with the whole family if they would let me do it. In Joseph’s

day she tried to throw me, Br. Heber, Br. Willard Richards and the twelve

apostles out of the church and tried to destroy the whole church and I

know it. Joseph himself testified before high heaven more than once that

she had administered poison to him. There are men and women present

today who can bear witness that more hell was never wrapped up in any

human being than there is in her. She gave him too heavy a dose and he

vomited it up and was saved by faith. (4:2159)

This particular address is a perfect example of the treasures these volumes

contain. This is the first time this address has been published in a form avail-

able to the general public. The address continues with Young’s equally un-

varnished feelings about the Strangites. Young brought up his contention

that Emma had poisoned Joseph in three more addresses (2:914, 3:1531,

4:2378) and mentioned her for the last time on August 9, 1874, by claiming:

“Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell

REVIEWS 277

for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her”

(5:3052).

All of Young’s theology is found within the volumes, both his controver-

sial teachings and those that are still accepted as orthodox by today’s Mor-

mons. I have always been interested in Young’s teachings on what he called

the “native element,” a doctrine of remarkable consistency that also cap-

tures Young’s practical side. On July 19, 1857, Young taught that “every

principlethatisopposedtoGod...willceasetoexist...foritwillbere-

turned to its native element.” (3:1299) On June 12, 1859, at the funeral of

his sister Fanny, Youngstatedthatthosewholive as they shouldinthe king-

domofGodwill”endureforeverandever;whileeveryothercreaturewill,

ere long, return to its native element” (3:1474). On January 14, 1861, in

Young’s third discourse on the same day, he instructed bishops to “make

everythingsubservienttothepriesthood[of]God....Everysonand

daughter of Adam that takes the opposite course will come to a final end,

return to their native element, to the small, particles that compose the ele-

ments of creation to be ready to be organized again” (3:1727). On Novem-

ber 23, 1862, Young explained that those who choose the “way of death

[sin]...willmeettheirdoomandtheparticlesofmotherearththatcom-

prise their bodies will molder away and many of them may never come to-

gether again. They will return to their native element and their spirits will

be swallowed up in the second death. Let the saints take a course to pre-

pare themselves eternal happiness here and not wait until death” (4:2081).

On July 19, 1863, Young summarized succinctly: “All that is not of God and

that does not exist to honor Him, will sooner or later return to native ele-

ment” (4:2147).

Unquestionably, theenduring contribution of this collection isthe signif-

icant new material that is now available to the student of Mormon history.

Possibly the most exciting development are the addresses from the Leonard

J. Arrington Historical Archive, Merrill-Cazier Library Special Collections,

Utah State University. One treasure found in this collection is the address of

January 24, 1866, in what I believe is Brigham Young’s raw address, unedited

by Watt or Long, to the Utah Legislature. This address is vigorously vernacu-

lar: “When our government shall come up to acknowledge that we have set

them the example in government hope till that day come. Ashamed of some

legislators they have a little pile they have gathered round themselves and its

all they can see cross eyed loop holes.”Or “Some men no more fit to legislate

than hell fit for a powder house” (4:2311–12).

Young’s February 3, 1867, address was published in the Journal of Dis-

courses, but more than a page of text was not included. It reads in part: “The

wickedprophecy[sic]almostasmuchastherighteous.Idonotknowbut

they do more. They are all the time prophesying, and telling this is coming

278 The Journal of Mormon History

and that is coming, and so on and so forth. It takes nothing more than a

foreteller of events to be a prophet” (4:2411). On January 23, 1865, Young

declaredto the Legislative Assembly: “There is persons in this room who will

no doubt tattle and tell what I have said here today, I care no more for them

than I do for the croaking of the crow that flies over my head. Here is a body

of men who holds the keys of the salvation of the world; they may tantalize

ourfeelings,buttheymaytalkasmuchastheypleaseandweasknooddsof

them just keep hands off us. I do not want it, I do not ask it, but it would not

require half the crook of the finger of the Almighty to whip them out of exis-

tence, but I do not want, and the Lord has said that He would fight our bat-

tles” (4:2257).

In addition to the subjects I have reviewed, Young dealt with a wide

range of ideas and subjects in his addresses. For example: Young believed

that Parley P. Pratt’s “blood was spilt for adultery” (4:2271), that the Saints

should refrain from “the use of beef, mutton, and pork” (4:2482), that “the

Lord has said in the last days kill nothing, waste nothing, bring their feel-

ings together—waste nothing—be prudent and the Lord will give us all

things that we need” (1:83), his plural wives had him stepping “as carefully

as if I were walking between bayonets as sharp as needles” (5:2662), that

“Sidney Rigdon know[s] that hell is his doom [and] he has murder in his

heart his garments are stained with innocent blood” (1:83), if Young were

to go “astray, give wrong counsel and lead this people astray, then is time

enough to put me down and their God will remove me as he has done all

others who has turned from the truth” (1:179), that “there ever was a

prophet on the Earth, (Jesus excepted) that cared less for the things of the

world except the Savior than he [Young] did” (4:1951), that it was a “mis-

take with regard to Joseph ever saying that Hyrum would be his successor”

(4:2383), and that the United States government was trying “to make the

Mormons drunkards, whore masters, thieves; [and] corrupt the women”

(4:1938).

The only problems I found with the volumes are few and far between, a

significant accomplishment in so massive a work. I found somewhat prob-

lematic the inclusion of an address on August 24, 1867, in the Provo Taber-

nacle (4: 2478–79), whose only source is Truth Magazine 1 (March 1, 1936):

135. In it, Young allegedly says: “Brethren, this Church will be led onto the

very brink of hell by the leaders of this people. Then God will raise the one

mighty and strong spoken of in the 85th Section of the Doctrine and Cove-

nants, to save and redeem this church.” It seems totally improbable to me

that Young ever said such a thing. Young does not mention “theone mighty

and strong” in any of his other talks, and Section 85 was added to the Doc-

trine and Covenants after Young’s death. A simpler solution seems to lie in

the internal politics surrounding Truth. In 1922, John Tanner Clark, a man

REVIEWS 279

whobelievedhewas“theOneMightyandStrong,”dictatedthemanu-

script of The One Mighty and Strong, including this alleged statement by

Young to Joseph Musser, editor of Truth Magazine and a polygamist at a

time when the mainstream Church was strenuously discouraging polyg-

amy and excommunicating its practitioners.

As another example, Young’s February 16, 1849 (1:320–21) address, cites

the Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 1847–1850, pp. 156–58, as its first

source, while Van Wagoner lists Thomas Bullock’s original transcription as

thethirdsource.ItseemstomethatBullock’soriginaltranscriptionwould

bethemostreliableandthereforeshouldhavebeenthefirstsource.

Wilford Woodruff recorded some of Young’s addresses in the “Histo-

rian’s Private Journal,” one on April 8, 1860, and another on August 22,

1862. Unfortunately Van Wagoner was either unaware of this source or did

not have access to it. Woodruff’s daily journal record of the August 22, 1862,

address (which Van Wagoner uses) is actually more complete than the “His-

torian’s Private Journal.” However, the reverse is true for the April 8, 1860,

address. Woodruff’s daily journal contains a synopsis (three paragraphs—

less than a half page) while Woodruff’s Private Journal entry is more than

three typed pages.

These five volumes not only provide us with the best collection of Brig-

hamYoungaddressesevergatheredtogether,butitalsoprovidesuswith

evidence of the most important development in Mormon record-keeping:

the conversion of George D. Watt and John V. Long and their introduction

of Pitman shorthand in keeping the history of the Mormon people in

Utah.

JOSEPH GEISNER {[email protected]} and his wife, Susan, provide

residential services for the developmentally disabled in California. He is

a lover of books and history. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: H. Michael Mar-

quardt was indispensable in helping me avoid historical pitfalls about the

dating of the “Manuscript History of Brigham Young,” Thomas Bullock’s

General Church minutes, the publication date of the Clark/Musser docu-

ment, the entries in the Historian’s Private Journal, and the additional

sources for Young’s baptism.

280 The Journal of Mormon History

BOOK NOTICE

D. L. Turner and Catherine H. Ellis.

Images of America: Latter-day Saints in

Mesa.Charleston,S.C.:ArcadiaPub-

lishing, 2009. 127 pp. Photographs,

maps. Paper: $21.99. ISBN: 0–

7385–5857–5

D. L. Turner and Catherine H. Ellis,

both descended from LDS settlers

of Arizona, have compiled a collec-

tion of 246 photographs and multi-

ple personal accounts documenting

the history of Latter-day Saints in

Mesa, Arizona, from the founding of

the city in 1877 to the present. The

introduction includes a brief history

about Brigham Young’s decision to

send companies of Saints to south-

ern Arizona.

“The first Mormon settlers along

the Salt River, later known as the Lehi

Company, arrived in 1877,” summa-

rizesthishistoricalintroduction.

“They crossed the Colorado River at

the west end of the Grand Canyon

andtraveledthroughtheMojave

Desert. The next year, other settlers

camefromBearLake,Idaho,andSalt

Lake City. They crossed at Lee’s Ferry

and became known as the Mesa Com-

pany. Additional groups arrived in

the ensuing years; some of the people

settled at Tempe (Nephi), others at

Alma, Lehi, or Mesa” (8).

The first chapter discusses these

initial companies, describes their

journey to reach Mesa and the sur-

rounding area, and the first years of

settlements. The narrative is brief,

but the photographs of individuals

and families document the impor-

tant activities, such as freighting,

mining, and farming during the de-

velopment period.

The second chapter focuses on

theriseofaneducationalsystemin

the town, illustrated by photographs

of students, schoolhouses, and many

school-sponsored activities such as

the “Return of Spring Pageant,”

“Pageant of the Superstitions,”

marching band and “Rabbette” per-

formances, and several sports teams.

The organization and growth of

the Maricopa Stake, Arizona’s first

LDS stake, organized in 1882, is the

subject of the third chapter. The

photographs in this section include

prominent individuals involved in

the stake such as Apostle Delbert L.

Stapley and Vida Brinton (Arizona’s

Woman of the Year in 1966), Boy

Scout activities, Relief Society and

Sunday School groups, meeting-

houses, and performances by the

Central Arizona Mormon Choir,

known today as the Deseret Chorale.

The community grew rapidly, and

281

Church activities played a prominent

role in encouraging service, love, and

unity.

“Early leaders such as Joseph

Smith Jr. and Brigham Young pro-

moted the power of positive play, ex-

tolling the virtues of wholesome rec-

reation and cultural pursuits as well

as civic and social interactions. Pro-

moting his personal motto of eight

hours work, eight hours sleep, and

eight hours recreation daily, Brigham

Yo u n g e n c o u r a g e d p r o g r a m s o f

dance, music, and drama” (87). The

Latter-day Saints of Mesa took this

counsel to heart and participated in a

variety of community recreational

and cultural activities, which are de-

picted in Chapter 4: basketball

games, stake dances, Daughters of

Utah Pioneers, city festivals and pa-

rades, and the city’s traditional Easter

pageant, which is still popular today.

The fifth and final chapter docu-

ments the construction, dedication,

and operation of the Mesa Tem-

ple—the ninth LDS temple—and the

many people who have worked

closely with these events. The tem-

ple’s renovation and rededication in

1975, attended by President Spencer

W. Kimball who had lived in the area

during its original dedication in

1927, was a highlight for the entire

LDS community in Mesa.

This book will be particularly use-

ful to historians interested in LDS

settlements outside of Utah and in

theChurch’sroleincommunityde-

velopment. Furthermore, its many

photographs and personalized ac-

counts would also be helpful for fam-

ily historians with a personal connec-

tion to Mesa or nearby LDS settle-

ments.

282 The Journal of Mormon History