John C. Bennett was the Lucifer of early Mormonism

John Cook Bennett: most Mormons probably know him from LDS Church Almanacs as “assistant president of the LDS Church” for a year or so during the Nauvoo era. Those who know a bit more about church history know him as a proclaimed “Judas,” or “Lucifer,” who slithered into Nauvoo, deceived the Prophet Joseph Smith, seduced several women, married and single, was cast out, then made considerably more than 30 pieces of silver vilely blasting Smith at lectures and in a best-selling book. 

Bennett was so anathema to LDS Church leaders that in response to his death in 1867, an LDS Church publication released a scathing, false obituary which read, in part, “… He dragged out a miserable existence, without a person scarcely to take the least interest in his fate, and died a few months ago without a person to mourn his departure. …”

In reality, Bennett died in Polk City, Iowa, a fairly well off and respected man. He had recently served as surgeon in the Third U.S. Infantry during the Civil War. Yet, the Mormons’ loathing of Bennett was not without cause. Despite Bennett’s many talents and skills, he was often a scoundrel during his life. He was a serial adulterer and grifter at times, selling “diplomas” from a medicine school diploma mill. He may have even been a sociopath, albeit one who could remain fairly prosperous even after alienating many. 

I was surprised to discover a biography of Bennett’s life, “The SaintlyScoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John C. Bennett,” by Andrew F. Smith, published in 1997 by University of Illinois Press. It’s an interesting read. Bennett, born in 1804, grew up in southeastern Ohio and became a doctor in the early 1820s, learning medicine from his uncle, a prominent doctor and scientist. After marrying, Bennett practiced in several different areas and also was a lay preacher, favoring the reformist Campbellite doctrines. In fact, he had already met many prominent Mormons long before moving to Nauvoo.

Bennett enjoyed teaching and lecturing in medicine, and he tried setting up colleges and medical schools in several frontier states. This is also where much of his grifting began. At one college, Christian College, Bennett was hounded out by peers for blatantly selling diplomas. In fact, as author Smith surmises, Bennett may have been the first man to ever set up a diploma mill.

In the early 1830s, Bennett gained some prominence by touting the supposed health benefits of tomatoes, a fruit that many Americans didn’t eat at that time. Although Bennett’s and others’ claims about the healing powers of tomatoes were wildly overstated, for scores of years tomato pills, etc., were popular. Bennett also was an early advocate of Chloroform as a sedative for operations, although ether would prove to be a better alternative. During the 1830s, Bennett’s marriage collapsed due to his infidelity and allegations of spousal abuse.

His tenure as a Mormon leader, and its aftermath, is what Bennett is best known for. He ingratiated himself with Joseph Smith and into the highest levels of the Mormon Church, serving as mayor of Nauvoo, leader in the military Nauvoo Legion, town doctor, lobbyist for the city, and assistant president of the LDS Church. Like much of Bennett’s life, though, it was a short rise and fall. By his own admission, Bennett engaged in several affairs with Nauvoo woman. Whether the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was a participant with Bennett in this behavior is debated. At the time, the Mormon doctrine on polygamy was being taught in secret. Did Bennett try to convince women to marry Smith? Given his past, it’s likely Bennett exploited the issue for his carnal pleasure. Whatever the circumstances, the scandals roiled the Mormon Church. 

Among the women reviled for their charges against Smith and Bennett were Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton. LDS leaders Sidney Rigdon, George Robinson and Orson Pratt publicly opposed Smith amid the charges of adultery, fornication, “spiritual wifery” and abortion.

What’s clear is that after Bennett was kicked out of Nauvoo, he was angry enough to turn his claimed betrayal by Smith and Mormon leaders into a cottage industry where he lectured against the Mormons in major cities, wrote articles for newspapers calling for Smith’s arrest, and penned a best-selling novel, “The History of the Saints.” As a professional anti-Mormon, author Smith recounts that Bennett was often greeted with skepticism even by enemies of the church. Derided was his claim that he had never embraced Mormonism, but had infiltrated Nauvoo to expose the wickedness of “Joe Smith” and the church.

Smith recounts a final episode in Nauvoo — after Bennett had turned anti-Mormon — where Bennett went to Joseph Smith’s store and paid a longstanding debt. It’s an interesting anecdote that invites speculation that Bennett may have asked Smith for another chance. In any cases, neither the Mormon prophet or Bennett left a written record of the encounter.

Not many know that Bennett, a few years later, rejoined an offshoot of Mormonism, entering the hierarchy of James J. Strang’s church in Wisconsin. Not surprisingly, Bennett was eventually kicked out of Strang’s church but later, Strang — who was eventually assassinated — embraced polygamy. It’s possible that Bennett, tomcatting as usual, swayed Strang toward polygamy. With Strang, Bennett also helped set up a secret “Order of the Illuminati” within that church.

In his post-Nauvoo years, Bennett married a second time and as he got older, his life became less controversial and more sedate. He gravitated toward Iowa and gained a measure of fame for his work breeding chickens. He wrote a well-received book, “The Poultry Book,” that was very popular. Bennett was fortunate, as he developed this interest in breeding during a “poultry craze” that swept the U.S. a decade prior to the Civil War. As Smith relates, Bennett gave a copy of the book to U.S. President Zachary Taylor, who thanked him for the gift.

Although a military surgeon for the North during the Civil War, Bennett’s health prevented him from full activity. His health failed rapidly in the middle 1860s and he died in August of 1867, soon after having a stroke, Smith surmises. A large, prominent grave in Polk City marks his final resting spot.

-- Doug Gibson

Originally published at StandardBlogs

Willard Bean, Mormonism’s ‘Fighting Parson,’ did have an admirable pro boxing career

A lot of Mormon lore has surrounded Willard Bean, a professional boxer  around the turn of the 20th century who, in 1915, was called with his new wife, Rebecca, and his two children by a previous marriage, Paul and Phyllis, to a mission to Palmyra, N.Y. Although the area, which includes the Hill Cumorah, is prominent in Mormon history, it was accurately described in 1915 as very hostile to the Mormons. Bean and his family lived in the Joseph Smith Sr. farm, which had been purchased by the church.

As an article by David F. Boone, in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, notes, it was a tough but ultimately successful mission that lasted 24 years. Bean was no stranger to missions. He had served a southern states mission, another area hostile, and at times dangerous, for LDS missionaries of that era. One major success was Bean’s purchase, for the church, of the Hill Cumorah.

Bean was known as the Fighting Parson,” as well as the “Mormon Cyclone,” and much lore has been related about his success as a professional boxer. In a 1985 Ensign article, “Willard Bean: Palmyra’s Fighting Parson,” author Vicki Bean Zimmerman claims that Bean was the U.S. middleweight boxing champion. I cannot verify that information, and it seems very unlikely, as Bean, in his late 40s, was long retired when he and his family accepted the Palmyra mission call.

That Bean may have used his fists occasionally to get respect in Palmyra is plausible. Boone, in his JBMS article, records an incident where Bean, after being drenched with a neighbor’s hose, beat up the man. According to Boone, who cites Bean’s wife as a second-hand source, the two men later became friends. Bean Zimmerman, in the Ensign article, claims that Bean arranged a boxing exhibition in Palmyra and fought seven men in one day, knocking out all seven opponents. Because the author is a granddaughter of Bean, one has to assume that at least elements of it are accurate, as it likely has been passed down through the family. (There is also a biography of Bean, written by another granddaughter, out of print but a copy can be purchased here.)

I’m a huge boxing fan, and I needed to find out if the Willard Bean of LDS boxing lore was accurate. Was he a top fighter, or just one of many middling pugilists who traveled the West 110-plus years ago fighting? The answer is favorable to Bean. He was not a top contender, but he was a better-than-average fighter for his era. The boxing record site, www.boxrec.com, provides Bean a record of 5 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw, 1 no decision and 1 no contest (here). The time frame covers 1897 to 1902. While a 5-5 “record” may seem mediocre, boxrec only gathers the fights it has recorded. Like silent films, the results of many old fights are “lost.” Bean was born in 1872. Based on the caliber of his opposition, it’s clear that he must have had at least another 20-plus fights, of which he likely won most. Perhaps some day an energetic researcher (myself?) will spend weeks scanning through 19th century Utah newspapers to locate the lost fights.

Two opponents of Bean’s provide evidence that he was a well-regarded above-average boxer. On April 17, 1899, Bean fought a 10-round “no decision” bout with Joe Choynski, who is regarded as one of the elite fighters of that era.  Choynski was a former world light heavyweight champion before he fought Bean and later won the U.S. 170-pound championship. He fought a draw with future heavyweight champ, James J. Jeffries. In short, to fight Choynski, as Bean did, proved he was a good pro boxer.

The April 18, 1899 Salt Lake Tribune provides a long account of the Choynski, Bean fight. The article regards the match as relatively one-sided — in Choynski’s favor — but also compliments Bean. “In part, it reads above the small type: “Utah Man Gets Experience:  Choynski Allows the Local Fighter a Number of Liberties, and Apologizes When He Gives Him an Unexpectedly Hard Knock. Bean was in Good Form, and the Faith of His Admirers Has Been Strengthened — Gives a Giddy Whirl at the Close.”

In the article, Choynski, who clearly dominated the bout, calls Bean a good prospect, but adds that he’ll need to leave Utah to become a world-class boxer. Given Bean’s devotion to Mormonism, that was not to occur, although a year later he fought in San Francisco, Choynski’s home, against Phil Green on March 30, 1900. In the scheduled 20-round bout, Green stopped Bean in round 7.

The second most notable opponent on Bean’s record is Fireman Jim Flynn, a heavyweight contender during the first two decades of the 20th century. Flynn would fight heavyweight champ Jack Johnson for the world title on July 4, 2012, losing by a 9th round knockout. The “Fireman” is best known for scoring a first round KO over future heavyweight champ Jack Dempsey in Murray, on Feb. 13, 1917. The Salt Lake Telegram’s Feb. 14 headline on the bout was a laconic “J. Dempsey forgets to duck,” and noted that the fight lasted about 25 seconds. (A year and day later, Dempsey would get his revenge, destroying Flynn in the first round.)

However, when Bean met Flynn on April 7, 1902, in Salt Lake City, the “Fireman” was a highly regarded prospect who outpointed the “Fighting Parson” over 20 rounds. The April 8, 1902 Salt Lake Tribune provided a long article, with a photo of both fighters. The above-the-type recap makes it clear that Flynn was the better fighter. It reads in part: “Bean puts up a game battle, but is outclassed by heavier opponent. Flynn proves himself a “Comer.” The reporter notes that the fight was even for four rounds but after that, Flynn dominated with “Only Bean’s excellent boxing, clever head and footwork, his ability to stand punishment and wonderful recuperative powers prevented a knockout.“Boxrec tabs the Flynn loss as Bean’s final fight. Again, that may not be true.

Although I can’t prove this, it’s my hunch that the Choynski fight spurred Bean to try to make it to a higher echelon of boxing. He appeared on higher-level cards that were saved for history books, and fought tougher opponents with varying success. He may have retired after losing to Flynn, at the age of 30. Or he may have picked up some more wins against lesser opposition in “lost” fights.

As I mentioned earlier, there’s no evidence that Bean was U.S. middleweight champ, as the Ensign magazine claims. However, he did fight Jack Christy on March 21, 1902 (18 days prior to Flynn) for the Utah middleweight boxing championship, in Provo. However Bean lost that bout via a disqualification in the 12th round for hitting Christy on the break. It must have been a frustrating loss for Bean, as news reports say he was on the verge of knocking out his opponent when the bout ended. From the March 22, 1902 Deseret News: “In all probability the blow that lost the fight was the result of carelessness on the part of Bean, in his anxiety to finish Christie, (sic) who was helpless from the head blows …” Here’s a newspaper reports of one of Bean’s wins. On May 6, 1897, the Tribune reported on Bean’s win in Provo over Salt Lake City boxer Sam Clark. In “Provo Glove Contest,” the Tribune, noting that Bean was a Brigham Young Academy athlete, wrote that “Bean demonstrated his superiority” over Clark, adding that “in the ninth round Bean floored Clark with a stiff punch with his right …” (It’s worth noting that Bean, according to boxrec, was also a frequent boxing referee in the first 15 years of the 20th century. He refereed three fights involving Flynn, by the way. He also refereed a fight with Battling Nelson, a world lightweight champion.)

So that’s a part of the pugilistic history of Mormon boxer Willard Bean. There’s likely much more to be unearthed. He was certainly a colorful character, and the perfect man to restore the LDS Church to respect in Palmyra, with his preaching skills backed up by a good left hook and fair straight right hand.

A final note: The newspaper accounts are located at Utah Digital Newspapers, (here), a valuable tool for historians.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs.

The Bishop's Wife tears at facade of normalcy

“The Bishop’s Wife,” Soho Crime, 2014, (buy it here) stands alone as a fine addition to crime fiction. It has a strong main plot, an almost-as-compelling chief secondary plot, the requisite twists and turns and an exciting climax. As a Mormon-themed novel, penned by active Mormon wife and mother Mette Ivie Harrison, the novel is unique for two reasons: It has a Mormon, stay-at-home mom as its narrator and protagonist, and it deals frankly and provocatively with discrimination, subtle and frank, that is part of a church with a male hierarchy.

The book is a great mystery read, and only the fact that I had to work the next morning kept me from finishing it with an all-night read. In a Draper LDS ward, Bishop Kurt Wallheim, and the bishop’s wife, Linda, receive an early-morning visit from ward member Jared Helm, and his daughter, Kelly, 5. Jared reports that his wife, Carrie, has abandoned the family. Jared is an immature young man, struggling with his marriage. As the author has noted, the story is inspired by the disappearance of Susan Powell several years ago. However, the developing plot does not mimic the turns of the Powell case. As Carrie Helm seems to virtually disappear, Linda Wallheim, a mother of sons, becomes protective of toddler Kelly, who seems a substitute for the daughter she lost to a stillbirth years earlier. She also becomes sympathetic to Carrie Helm’s parents, who use the media to try to indict Jared and his family as culpable in Carrie’s disappearance.

The main subplot involves the illness and death of ward member, Tobias Torstensen, who has been married 30 years to his second wife, Anna. The experience brings Linda and Anna into a close friendship. As Tobias nears death, questions about his first wife’s death — there is no grave and no one seems to know how she died, even her two sons — arise. Through a series of incriminating discoveries, Linda, Anna and even the police are convinced that mild-mannered Tobias murdered his first wife long ago and never told anyone. However, as is a theme in this novel, the story is more complex, providing new answers as layers of long-held secrets are unveiled.

The deepest relationship in the novel is between Kurt and Linda Wallheim. The author makes their relationship one of mostly mutual value, with the usual frustrations, disagreements and trials supported by the loyalty and love that binds the pair together. Linda, the bishop’s wife, is a liberal Mormon; a former atheist tempered by her husband’s more conventional beliefs. She forgives his occasional patriarchal biases, understanding that she has softened him over the years. Ivie Harrison does a good job of presenting a diverse collection of Wallheim sons, all with distinct personalities on life and spirituality. Linda is closest to the youngest, Samuel, who is a lot like his mother, with the novel having him react to many of the events.

Active Mormons will appreciate how well the usual life of a bishop and his wife are outlined. Kurt is an accountant who barely sees his family between church and tax season, as well as Sunday afternoons and evenings. Linda, as a bishop’s wife, struggles to deal with being the “ward mother” and the listening and action that requires. He deals with the ward’s secrets. While his job necessitates discreetness, he trusts his wife enough to request she visit specific families to offer friendship, kind words and baked goodies. In one scene a troubled ward member, understanding that Linda is a better ear than the bishop for his problem, confides in her.

There is another strong scene early that captures Mormon culture. Linda, helping prepare for a wedding at the ward chapel, consoles the bride’s mom over her disappointment that the wedding is not in the temple. It’s an interesting passage because there’s no scandal attached to the wedding; the pair simply want to get married as soon as possible. Active Mormon parents place a high priority on a temple wedding, and its inclusion adds authenticity. (In the years after I wrote this review I have gained more empathy with this scene.)

The disappearance of Carrie Helm carries the novel, as Linda struggles to maintain a relationship with little Kelly after the arrival of her paternal grandfather, a controlling, truly repellent character with obsolete Mormon beliefs. A strength of her character is despite her impetuous nature — which leads her to make wrong assumptions — she’s able to embrace the truth when it’s revealed. And it’s several twists, and a key discovery, that makes Linda again question her ability to discern what’s righteous and what’s evil.

And the truth doesn’t come easy in “The Bishop’s Wife.” The “normalcy” of an LDS ward is taken apart layer by layer as serious injuries and dysfunctions are revealed. And these layers can’t be peeled back in a nice manner. They are torn off the facade of the ward, with the requisite pain, bleeding and adverse consequences.

If there’s a quibble with “The Bishop’s Wife,” it’s Linda’s specific action that leads to the climax. I’m not sure Ivie Harrison’ character, while impulsive, would willingly put herself into such certain danger. But it’s an exciting scene nevertheless, and wraps up a novel that’s well worth reading, either all night long or during a particularly boring Sacrament meeting.

- Doug Gibson

Originally published at StandardNET.

After First Manifesto, LDS internal debate over polygamy raged for a generation

In Official Declaration No. 1, found in the LDS scripture “Doctrine and Covenants,” then-Prophet Wilford W. Woodruff says, “…  I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.” (Read) It’s taught today that the 1890 Manifesto ended polygamy within the LDS Church. That, however, is a pleasant fantasy. The debate over polygamy raged within the LDS Church’s hierarchy for another generation, and polygamous marriages were conducted, and sanctioned, within the church. The polygamy debate wasn’t settled until well into the 20th century, when two prominent apostles were harshly disciplined for not ceasing the practice.

The 1890 Manifesto was necessary as a means to end the federal government’s efforts to harm the church. In fact, for a while the church did not have control of its own funds, and it’s third prophet, John Taylor, had spent much of his tenure in hiding. As historian Kenneth L. Cannon notes in his excellent Sunstone of 1983, a majority of the 12 Apostles, including President Woodruff, intended polygamy to continue. What the First Manifesto meant to most LDS Church leaders through much of the 1890s was that the primacy of United States law took precedence over the church’s mandate to have plural marriage. To Woodruff and others, particularly his First Counselor George Q. Cannon, polygamy could continue outside the United States.

An example of post-First Manifesto plural marriage at the highest degree of the church hierarchy involves LDS Apostle Abraham H. Cannon, a son of George Q. Cannon. Abraham Cannon, already a polygamist, married at least one more plural wife in the mid-1890s, and probably two. One of his marriages, to Lillian Hamlin in 1896, was followed shortly by his death. Nevertheless, Lillian managed to conceive, bearing a daughter named Marba, which is Abram spelled backwards. In an interesting footnote, Lillian, a future teacher at the Brigham Young Academy, would marry and become a polygamous wife to Lewis M. Cannon, one of Abraham’s cousins. (This information is gleaned from the introduction to the published diaries of Abraham Cannon, which is fascinating reading. Abraham Cannon was a remarkable man, who in his relatively short life was an energetic apostle, hustling church duties with journalism responsibilities, business dealings, both personal and church, and maintaining relationships with his plural families with the threat of federal arrest and prosecution always around.)

So, as Kenneth Cannon writes, from 1890 to 1898, a significant majority of Apostles and members of the First Presidency had “an active part in post-Manifesto polygamy.” Plural marriages, those allowed, were usually conducted in Mexico or Canada. One reason for the perpetuity of the practice was, as mentioned, that a majority of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles still supported polygamy as a church practice. Cannon cites this as one reason that plural marriage increased during the tenure of LDS Prophet Lorenzo Snow from September 1898 to October 1901, even though Snow, Woodruff’s successor, opposed continuing polygamy. As Cannon writes, “… President Snow privately expressed the same sentiments to Apostle Brigham Young Jr., stating he had never given his consent for plural marriage and adding ‘God has removed this privilege from the people.’”

When Joseph F. Smith assumed responsibilities as LDS leader in 1901, he maintained an approval for some polygamous marriages. That was not a surprise, as Smith had not been a vocal opponent of polygamy. Nevertheless, Joseph F. Smith is the LDS Church leader who essentially enforced a ban on polygamy, and made its practice an offense that would lead to excommunication.  On April 6, 1904, at LDS General Conference, President Smith said the following:

“Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.”

This Second Manifesto was also published in the church’s official publication of that time, “The Improvement Era.” Even this manifesto did not come close to ending internal debate over the legitimacy of polygamy. It continued through the decade, with its two strongest adherents being apostles John W. Taylor and Matthias Cowley. They led a faction that interpreted the Second Manifesto, as the First Manifesto, as only respecting U.S. law.

Nevertheless, polygamy’s days were numbered within the LDS Church. By 1911 both Taylor and Cowley were not only dropped from the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, but Cowley was disfellowshipped, which means he lost his LDS priesthood standing, and Taylor excommunicated, which is the maximum church punishment. (In 1936 Cowley’s priesthood was re-established. He died in 1940. In 1965, long after his death, Taylor was re-baptized posthumously and had his priesthood standing restored.)

So, what led to the eventual crackdown of polygamy in the LDS Church? As Kenneth Cannon notes in his article, attrition played a role. During the first decade of the 20th century, apostles who supported polygamy died, and Smith chose as replacements opponents of polygamy. By the end of the decade, the LDS Church hierarchy was strongly anti-polygamy.

But there was a bigger reason for President Joseph F. Smith to end polygamy. As Kenneth Cannon relates, LDS Apostle Reed Smoot, a monogamist, had been selected as U.S. senator from Utah. Polygamy threatened Smoot’s assumption of the Senate seat, which was considered of vital importance to Smith and other LDS leaders. Smoot was asking Smith and others to unseat Cowley and Taylor, and by mid-1906 they were gone from the Quorum. By 1907, and the death of apostle George Teasdale, there were no polygamy advocates left in the hierarchy.

Smoot’s ascension to the U.S. Senate was of such importance that President Joseph F. Smith, speaking to the U.S. Senate, provided testimony he must have known to be false, claiming that since the Woodruff Manifesto, “… there has never been, to my knowledge, a plural marriage performed with the understanding, instruction, connivance, counsel, or permission of the presiding authorities of the church, in any shape or form; and I know whereof I speak, gentlemen, in relation to that matter.” Such testimony, although skeptically received, helped Smoot survive efforts to deny him his senatorial seat. He would serve in the U.S. Senate until 1933.

In retrospect, it would have been impossible for polygamy, a practice entrenched in the Mormon church for nearly half-a-century, to have been instantly ended in 1890. It required a generation for attrition, changing times and church priorities to finally eradicate the principle.

-Doug Gibson

This post originally was published at StandardBlogs.