Review: The Mormon Menace: Violence and Anti-Mormonism in the Postbellum South

In “The Mormon Menace: Violence and Anti-Mormonism in the Postbellum South,” (Oxford University Press, 2011), author Patrick Q. Mason discovers a unique irony to the persistent abuse, violent and otherwise, that Mormons faced in the southern United States the last quarter of the 19th century. It is that the shared animosity toward the LDS Church between the U.S. government and the deep South helped restore southern allegiance to the federal government.


As Mason explains, that wasn’t always the case. A score of years earlier, the South, headed for a Civil War, had sympathized with the exiled Saints’ grudge against the feds and secular government in general. The cause of the South’s animosity was the Mormons’ admittance that polygamy was practiced and its subsequent defense of a practice that appalled the rest of the nation. 

Add Reconstruction, and cultural mores that included tolerance — and even acceptance — of vigilantism if it was deemed to uphold decency and respect for womanhood, and the result was persecution, sometimes deadly, of missionaries in the Southern States Mission.

Examples of violence in “The Mormon Menace” include the murder of Elder Joseph Standing, shot to death by mobsters who assaulted Standing and his companion, future LDS apostle Rudger Clawson, in Varnell, Ga., on July 21, 1879. It’s possible Standing might have avoided being killed had he not grabbed a rifle from one of his guards. That led to subsequent gunfire. In any event, no one was convicted of the murder, a common result that deserves more explanation.

As evil as it is to murder, rob, vandalize and drive persons forcibly from their homes, the Southern mobsters, Mason writes, saw themselves as a local law enforcement that needed to protect communities when other government entities, not bound to enforcing moral law, failed to offer protection. The Southern code of womanhood, which saw them as a weaker sex to be protected, was outraged by the LDS practice of polygamy, which was depicted nationwide — except in LDS periodicals — as virtual forced sexual slavery for women and teenage girls. 

While newspapers in larger Southern cities and more sophisticated communities might decry violence against Mormons, they loathed the LDS Church as much as the mobsters did. This is important to understand because so few Mormons today are aware of how unpopular the church was in the last two-fifths of the 19th century. The LDS Church was an easy target for media and pols to whip into a frenzy of righteous indignation. The church also suffered a string of legislative and court losses in regards to polygamy that eventually forced it to abandon the practice, “officially” in 1890, and effectively 15 years later.

Another major violent attack against the Mormons was the Cane Creek Massacre in Cane Creek, Tenn. On Aug. 10, 1884. At a church service at the home of a church member, a mob attacked the services. Two elders and two members were killed; one member of the mob was killed. The Cane Creek killings didn’t even lead to a trial, and not long after the massacre, the remaining Mormons, as well as non-LDS sympathizers, were hounded from the area. Mason adds that post-massacre danger was so high that Mormon general authority, B.H. Roberts, recruited to bring back the bodies of slain missionaries, John Gibbs and William Berry, entered Cane Creek disguised as a hobo.

In other words, the violence that stemmed from this religious persecution did not lead to remorse or a cooling of passions. The code behind it — whether theological, protecting women, or both — only served to animate the mobs. Protestant ministers, particularly in rural parishes, as well as small newspapers, overtly egged the mobsters on.

There is another irony to the LDS Church’s efforts in the South that led to more danger for missionaries. The most dangerous areas for LDS missionaries were rural, backwoods areas and small towns; however, those areas were also where the missionaries had the most success. Larger towns and southern cities were more tolerant of the missionaries but mostly ignored their message. The missionaries literally had to enter the danger zone to baptize.

Whipping, expulsions, vandalism, threats were preferred forms of intimidation. Summer, with its heat, logged the highest amounts of violence and abuse; winter the lowest. Mason notes that the summer, winter variance also occurred with vigilante violence on blacks. Also, times of economic distress that reached the South also saw increases in violence.

Mason points out that the persecution did not stop the growth of the LDS Church in the South. This frustrated other sects, particularly protestant evangelicals. What the mobs failed to understand is that the violence suffered by missionaries and members helped solidify a persecution narrative that the Utah LDS Church had been building for generations, since its members were expelled from Missouri, and Illinois. Those killed in Southern missions were hailed as martyrs alongside Joseph Smith and even Jesus Christ. The Saints were assured that a just God would harshly punish those who avoided earthly consequences. The church-owned Deseret News published reports from returned missionaries. Those who had suffered persecution were provided far more news space than those returned missionaries who had more tranquil missions.

In short, Mason explains another irony: that the persecution suffered in the South by the LDS Church, far from harming the church, instead strengthened it and prepared it for a 20th century in which it would grow into a multi-million-member, powerful, non-polygamous institution.

Notes

Perhaps the first major example of Southern violence directed against the LDS Church was the antebellum murder of Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt by a cuckolded husband, Hector McLean, who literally chased Pratt across the nation before catching him in Arkansas and killing him. 

McLean, who made no secret of his intention to kill Pratt, was driven to murder as a form of vigilante retaliation for Pratt taking his wife as a plural bride. History has shown McLean was a drunkard and a wife-beater, but his method of retribution against Pratt was normal for those times, and condoned by many in the media.

According to Mason, there were three strategies to combat Mormonism used by Southerners opposed to the church’s influence. The first was vigilante violence. The second was fierce condemnation from other churches’ pulpits. A few southern pastors wrote best-selling, very hyperbolic tomes against Mormonism. The third tactic, used mostly by more sophisticated southerners, was to rely on legislation, both state and national, that would prevent LDS influence. In some southern states, attempts were made to stop missionaries who promoted polygamy. That usually didn’t work as Mormon missionaries, with few exceptions, were the opposite of the lewd, women-hungry lechers that anti-Mormons regularly portrayed them as.

--- Doug Gibson

Originally published at StandardNET.

Slim book ‘Talking with Mormons’ makes a lot of sense

On page 38 of theologian Richard J. Mouw’s book, “Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals” (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), the author recounts a telephone call from an LDS man who, 10 years after his baptism, was questioning whether he was a Christian.

Mouw asked the following questions , quoted from the book:

How many Gods are there, I asked.

Well, there is one Godhead, made up from three divine Persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he responded.

Will you ever become a god like them?

Oh no. I hope I’m becoming more Christ-like, but only the three Persons of Godhood are worthy of worship. More like God — yes. To be a God — no way!

What is the basis for your salvation? Do you earn it by your good works?

No, my good works can’t save me. I’m saved by grace, through the atoning work of Christ on the Cross. My good works — those I perform in gratitude to what He has done for me.

Mouw assured the caller he was a Christian, and he also told the man to remain a Mormon, so long as he can give those answers without reproach to his LDS leaders. That anecdote, delivered in this slim, valuable volume, shows the wisdom of the author. There is nothing untruthful in what that man told Mouw.

There are Latter-day Saints who would chastise the man for choosing to become more like God rather than deciding to be like God. And there are evangelicals who will jump all over the man’s statement that the Godhood is comprised of three divine persons. Mouw offers the rational response — why diminish that man’s beautiful testimony of Christ’s atonement?

Mouw, who has angered some evangelicals, is not an apologist for Mormon doctrines that he disagrees with. the book contains, for example, his strong defense of the Nicene Creed. Mormonism’s rejection of that, and its substitution of three separate personages, two with limited form, comprising a Godhood, is the foundation of claims that Mormons are not Christians. Mouw tosses aside this contention by quoting the 19th century scholar Charles Hodge, a prominent Calvinist. Hodge disagreed fervently with an earlier scholar, Friedrich Schleiermacher, who rejected the Bible as infallible and divine. Nevertheless, and this is the important point, Hodge was convinced that the deceased Schleiermacher, who in his lifetime had admired and adored Christ, was with the Savior. Mouw writes: And then Hodge adds this tribute to Schleiermacher: “Can we doubt that he is singing those praises now? To whomever Christ is God, St. John assures us, Christ is a Savior.”

The idea, from any religion that believes in Christ, that one persons’ faith in Christ’s atonement is invalid due to doctrinal disputes, is noxious. Mouw understands that. He’s a remarkable example of religious tolerance, willing to debate long-disputed doctrinal points with Latter-day Saints but willing to concede spiritual equanimity.

Frankly, “Talking with Mormons” should be required reading for LDS missionaries, both full-time and local.

Moux easily dismisses the LDS-is-a-cult argument by pointing out the wide variety of organizations and media that daily engage in debate over Mormon doctrine, as well as the many efforts by LDS leadership to engage in dialogues, whether with other religions or the media. The book contains an account of evangelical apologist Ravi Zacharias, and Mouw, speaking in the Salt Lake City tabernacle, the result of a 2004 invitation from LDS church leaders.

The author takes the time to find related ground between doctrines, such as a latter-day prophet and latter-day scriptures, that are usually points of dispute. This effort to look toward similarities, rather than easily leap to long-repeated, well-rehearsed attacks, is admirable and should be reciprocated by Latter-day Saints when talking with people of other faith.

On the Joseph Smith question, Mouw compares him to other prophets who have allegedly spoke to God and provided scripture. His example is Mohammed. Also, Mouw invites evangelicals to think about Mormons, and others, not as “‘How do we keep them from taking over the world?’ to one that emerges when we ask ‘What is it about their teachings that speaks to what they understand to be their deepest human needs and yearnings?”

Framing the question in that manner invites shared knowledge and increased empathy, rather than the sour faux triumph of hurling a negative. However, it must be again stressed that Mouw’s advice is as much for Mormons and others as it is for evangelicals.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

Isaac Russell, New York Times journalist, PR specialist for the Mormon Church

(Originally published at StandardBlogs in 2012)

At this year’s Mormon History Association conference in Calgary, two contributors, Michael Harold Paulos and Kenneth L. Cannon II, continued an annual practice of producing a keepsake booklet for attendees. This year’s booklet provided an abridgement of the Reed Smoot U.S. Senate hearings from Feb. 20, 1907, as well as a short feature on essays and correspondence provided by newspaperman Isaac Russell, both a Mormon and leading journalist in the first 20 years of the 20th century. In the booklet, the authors recount how Russell used his influence to recruit former President Theodore Roosevelt to harshly criticize a much publicized “magazine crusade” against the Mormon Church.

As the authors mention, Russell, whose jobs included a stint at the New York Times, was frustrated enough to write letters to magazines such as “Pearson’s,” “McClure’s,” and “Everybody’s,” who engaged in muckraking against the Mormons. In 1911, Russell, in what proved to be a brilliant public relations stroke, recruited the still very popular former President Theodore Roosevelt to criticize the muckrakers. In a long letter to Roosevelt, Russell claimed that the attacks against Mormonism in the magazines, which largely dealt with allegations of polygamy and theological power, originated from older stories, promoted by the anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune, which had circulated the accusations that Roosevelt — while president — backed Sen. Reed Smoot’s continued tenure in the Senate in exchange for the Mormons delivering the electoral votes of Utah, Idaho and Wyoming to Republicans in 1908.

Russell’s letter, carefully crafted, was designed to strike nerves within Roosevelt that were still boiling. The former president had always been angered by the allegations that he had bartered Smoot’s tenure for votes. For Roosevelt, Smoot not being a polygamist was enough for him to stay in the Senate. He was not convinced by charges from the Salt Lake Tribune and others that Smoot would be a puppet for Mormon President Joseph F. Smith while in the Senate.

To add pepper to Roosevelt’s anger, Russell reminded the former president that the current round of muckraking against Mormons in 1911 derived largely from charges made by Frank J. Cannon, who edited the Salt Lake Tribune when the corruption charges against Roosevelt were aired. At the time, Cannon, an excommunicated Mormon from a very prominent church family, was the leading critic of Utah, Joseph F. Smith and the Mormon Church. His series of charges in “Everybody’s” magazine would become a best-selling book and later he would make a fortune as a traveling anti-Mormon lecturer.

Roosevelt was no fan of Cannon, so placement of his name worked well for Russell’s purposes. The former president penned two letters to Russell. One was eventually published, as a letter to Russell, in “Collier’s Weekly” magazine, edited by Russell’s “good friend and sometimes-mentor, Norman Hapgood,” quotes the keepsake.

In the letter, Roosevelt, fervently and with outrage denies the accusations made in the muckraking pieces, calls the writers slanderers and also writes, “The accusation is not merely false, but so ludicrous that it is difficult to discuss it seriously. Of course, it is always possible to find creatures vile enough to make accusations of this kind. The important thing to remember is that the men who give currency to this charge, whether editors of magazines or the presidents of colleges, show themselves in their turn unfit for association with decent men when they secure the repetition and encouragement of such scandals, which they perfectly well know to be false.”

In an explanatory note after Roosevelt’s letter, Russell was able to get some digs in at the Salt Lake Tribune, which he accused of being run by a small group of persons feeding defamatory information about the Mormons to muckraking magazines across the country.

It was a brilliant feat of public relations produced by Russell, a very public limited approval of the Mormons by a popular former president and a public slap in the face to major magazines as well as to Cannon and other opponents of Russell’s church. As the authors of the keepsake write, it wasn’t all true. “Although Reed Smoot worried that Colonel Roosevelt would turn on the Mormons if he knew the truth about the continuation of polygamy, almost all other church leaders embraced” the Roosevelt letter.

The reaction from the muckrakers were less cordial. In Collier’s Weekly,” Harvey J. O’Higgins, who co-wrote Cannon’s anti-Mormon book, “Under the Prophet in Utah,” wrote a response to Roosevelt. It includes, “The machinery and discipline of the Mormon Church make the most perfect and autocratic church control of which we have any exact record. Because of this perfection of control, the new polygamy has been successfully hidden for these many years,” wrote O’Higgins.

With Roosevelt as an ally, however, Russell, and the Mormons had scored a battle victory over their adversaries. Church leaders were so pleased with Russell’s contacts and influence that he became, as the authors put it, a “secret press bureau” for the LDS Church in New York City, all while a full-time reporter for the New York Times. The keepsake provides examples of Russell’s Mormon press duties, including a couple of letters to his own newspaper, the Times, that he ghosted under the names of Eastern States LDS Mission presidents Ben E. Rich and Walter P. Monson.

In 1915, Russell received a personal letter from Joseph F. Smith, where the prophet tells Russell, “It is my sincere desire that you should continue as you are doing in defense of the truth and justice and the honor of your people, and always remember from whence you came while mingling with men who know not the truth but are given to following the customs and sins of the world.”

What a fascinating bit of history. Paulos and Cannon merit credit for bringing these candid tales, warts and all, of history, theology, journalism, spin and otherwise to interested readers.

The booklet keepsake, “Mormonism and the Politics of the Progressive Era,” is privately published by DMT Publishing, Salt Lake City. Copies are being provided to university libraries in Utah and other parts of the nation as well as to the LDS Church Historical Department.

--Doug Gibson

In anti-Mormon literature’s ‘golden age,’ even phrenology, or the Mormon skull, was examined

Terryl L. Givens’ “The Viper of the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy” (Oxford University Press) is perhaps the best work detailing how the evolution of an inexpensive press — and a consistent popular yen for scandal — led to a “golden age” in “anti-” books in religion, notably literature that attacked the Catholics and the Mormons. As Givens explains, the public taste was not geared to theological debates, so these literary attacks on Catholicism, and to an extent Mormonism, were political in nature. The faiths were cast as acting contrary to U.S. patriotism or various ideals. Both faiths were also guilty of crimes of the salacious sort, usually against women. “Danites,” the Mormon defense group that assisted Joseph Smith, were also features in many of the books, usually as a paramilitary group that assisted Brigham Young and other Mormons in murder, kidnapping, or activities against the U.S. government.

There is no end to the fascinating library of anti-Mormon literature — from long Victorian-type novels, to action serials, to detective works, to western novellas. Frankly, the output was ubiquitous. Givens provides a list of titles, “The Courage of Captain Plum,” “The Mormoness; or, the Trials of Mary Maverick,” “Elder Northfield’s Home, “The Mormon Prophet and His Harem” … and many, many more. It’s a fascinating genre, and the majority of these books can be accessed and read on the Internet. The term “Harem” is significant. In his book, Givens argues that “Orientalism,” the effort by Western persons to define Middle East or Asian culture — was a prominent feature in anti-Mormonism of the 19th century. For example, the word “harem” to describe Young or other polygamists, and the use of “Danites” to prop up the leader of the “harem.” In one novel, the antagonist is referred to as the “Attila of the Mormon Kingdom.” (While a polygamous lifestyle can be applied to Middle Eastern culture, as Givens notes, the analogy falls apart as life in Utah and within Mormon polygamy is studied. One example — divorce for a Mormon women in Utah was easy to achieve.)

Like the “sinister china-man” of nativist literature, Mormon men were alleged in many of the literature of having the mystic talents to mesmerize or hypnotize their victims, usually female, with an intense glare. Givens relates one piece of literature that allows the dastardly Mormon men to even hypnotize the fathers of the girls cast into polygamy.

The section in Givens’ book on the how the pseudoscience of phrenology factored into anti-Mormonism was fascinating primarily because it required a deliberate disassociation of the U.S. and British roots of most members of the young, 19th century Mormon faith. It’s an extension of “Orientalism,” applying a sinister tinge to the unpopular Utah-based religion.

A paper was presented at the New Orleans Academy of Sciences in 1861 titled, “Effects and Tendencies of Mormon Polygamy in the Territory of Utah.” In Givens’ book, we read the findings of U.S. Army assistant surgeon Roberts Bartholow, who argues that a “new race” is being created in Utah.

Bartholow writes: “… there is, nevertheless, and expression of countenance and style of feature, which may be styled the Mormon expression and style; an expression compounded of sensuality, cunning, suspicion, and a smirking self-conceit. The yellow, sunken, cadaverous visage; the greenish-colored eyes; the thick protuberant lips; the low forehead; the light, yellowish hair, and the lank, angular person, constitute an appearance so characteristic of the new race, the production of the polygamy, as to distinguish them at a glance. …”

Such pseudoscience dissipated somewhat after the railroad linked Utah with the rest of the nation, and visitors to Salt Lake City failed to see the “differences” that Bartholow noted. Depictions of Mormon countenances were left to satires, such as Mark Twain’s riffs on Mormon women in “Roughing It,” or to Oscar Wilde, who as Givens notes, said of Mormons, “They are … very, very ugly.”

Yet, the condescension and bigotry that allowed phrenology a place at the table in anti-Mormonism is not completely gone. Later in “Vipers …,” Givens notes with contempt this claim by acclaimed Harold Bloom, who Givens writes, had “learned to tell the difference between certain Mormons and most Gentiles at first sight.” Bloom, Givens adds, noted “something organized about the expressions on many Mormon faces as they go by in the street.”

Givens’ book is well worth reading for those interested in the cultural perceptions of Mormonism as well as the growth of the press, as well as books and novels, in the 19th century. Even as technological changes moved much of the propaganda and exploitation press to other venues — film, the Internet, cable TV “reality” series and documentaries — what makes these “exposes” of Catholicism, Mormonism, or any other currently unpopular “-isms” is the public’s fascination with that which is considered criminal, anti-social or at odds with American values. The arguments, be they religious or some other topic, are less important than the “sizzle” which sells the steak, which allows the consumer to be properly outraged, titilated or most important, allowed to feel superior to a subject and persons they know virtually nothing about.

In “Viper …,”  Givens quotes Catholic sociologist Thomas F. O’Dea’s wry observation that “‘The Book of Mormon’ has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it.”

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs.

The first anti-Mormon book gets a reprint with commentary

More than 180 years after its publication, “Mormonism Unvailed,” generally considered the very first anti-Mormon book, remains of interest to historians and students of Mormonism and 19th century religious history. The book, published in 1834 by newspaper editor Eber D. Howe, promised an expose of the new religion founded by “Joe Smith.” Howe had a personal reason for his animus; persons very close to him in his family had converted to the new church. “Mormonism Unvailed” is considered the first book critical of Mormonism to address The Book of Mormon. Howe also included many affidavits from individuals who criticized Joseph Smith and Mormonism. 

Signature Books has published “Mormonism Unvailed” (here) with critical commentary from scholar Dan Vogel, author of a biography of Joseph Smith. I had the opportunity to ask Vogel some questions about the new edition of “Mormonism Unvailed.” Our discussion follows:

Why did you and Signature Books reprint Mormonism Unvailed?

Vogel: “We felt that it deserved a scholarly edition because it was the first book-length response to Joseph Smith and still has significance to historians largely because it contains the affidavits of Smith’s former neighbors and acquaintances in New York and Pennsylvania as well as his father-in-law and other relatives.”

What is with the misspelling in the title of Howe's book?

Vogel: “Unvailed” was the preferred spelling in that day.“

What did Howe do for a living?

Vogel: ”Howe was the editor of the “Painesville Telegraph,” located about ten miles east of Kirtland, Ohio.“

Who did Howe know who joined the Mormon Church?

Vogel: ”The conversion of hundreds in the area made Mormonism an unavoidable subject for newspaperman Howe, but it became quite personal when his wife and sister joined.“

What is the Spaulding theory talked about in ”Mormonism Unvailed?“

Vogel: ”Howe included affidavits that accused Joseph Smith of plagiarizing the Book of Mormon from a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding before his death in 1816. This theory is not regarded as credible by most scholars.“

E D Howe sounds angry in the books. Was this book personal?

Vogel: ”The tone of Howe’s prose was present before the conversion of his wife and sister. It was his general style with most other topics as well. He was also similarly opposed Andrew Jackson and Freemasons.“

Are Howe’s arguments about the Book of Mormon convincing?

Vogel: ”Howe’s critique of the Book of Mormon was influenced by Alexander Campbell’s 1831 review, which argued that Joseph Smith was the author and that it tried to resolve the leading political and religious issues of the day. This is the favored view of non-Mormon scholars today.“

Who is this Doctor Hurlburt, who is mentioned in the book?

Vogel: ”Doctor Philastus Hurlbut (Doctor was his given name), a former Mormon, was hired by interested parties in the Kirtland area to collect affidavits in Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. He turned over the results of his researches to Howe to publish.“

How reliable are the affidavits?

Vogel: ”Much of what was reported by Smith’s New York neighbors and Pennsylvania relatives regarding his money digging, practice of folk magic, and use of seer stones is corroborated by others, including by some of his early followers.“

How much legitimacy today does "Mormonism Unvailed" have as a critique of Mormonism? Do its arguments carry weight? Or is it only of historical interest?

Vogel: ”We are still debating many of the subjects Howe brought up in his book — issues surrounding Joseph Smith’s character and the true origin of the Book of Mormon. What is the significance of Joseph Smith’s early money digging, particularly his use of folk magic and seer stones? Was the Book of Mormon plagiarized from Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript or merely a reflection of nineteenth-century theology and American politics? It began with Howe.“

What is the chief benefit of reading the book today, particularly for a church member? Does it provide additional insight on the church's history, or more knowledge of Joseph Smith's life, or more insight into LDS Church doctrine?

Vogel: ”Perhaps they might be curious to see how Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon were viewed by non-believers at an early date. Howe provides many insights into Joseph Smith’s character, both before and after he became the Mormon prophet, that helps fill out and balance the usual saintly prophet image held by believers — his excessive drinking and swearing in early life, his hot and sometimes violent temper, his sometimes demanding and dictatorial leadership style, among others. Howe’s affidavits make clear that Joseph Smith’s early involvement in treasure seeking was much more extensive than he wanted to admit in his official history. Howe helps fill that gap.“

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNET

Frank J. Cannon a thorn in Mormonism's side 100-plus years ago

Frank J. Cannon, son of the LDS leader, George Q. Cannon, Mormonism’s most famous apostate, led the Salt Lake Tribune’s editorial assault on the LDS Church, Sen. Reed Smoot, and particularly President Joseph F. Smith from the years 1904 to 1907.

Historians Michael Harold Paulos and Kenneth L. Cannon II have done a great job preserving Cannon’s contributions. Even those Latter-day Saints who agree with his most fervent critics should acknowledge FJC’s many contributions to LDS history.

He was more than a writer and editor. FJC was a paradox: An educated, accomplished advocate and diplomat, editor and founder at the Ogden Standard, missionary to the Sandwich Islands, LDS Church authorities utilized his many talents to negotiate statehood for Utah. Later, FJC served as the Utah territory’s U.S. senator.

However, FJC also was a man of many personal weaknesses. His vices included drinking and patronizing brothels. These weaknesses in following LDS Church laws were tolerated, or at least partially forgiven, while his dad, George Q. Cannon lived. But after his father died, FJC saw his influence within the church’s hierarchy wane quickly. The result was an antipathy toward his longtime faith’s leaders that would last the rest of his life. In fact, his anger, while always eloquent, would sometimes be so over the top as to backfire and generate sympathy for his targets.

FJC’s editorials during the Smoot hearings, between 1904 and 1907, are masterful polemics, designed to amuse, humiliate, sneer, attack, moralize and infuriate LDS Church supporters. One who was very often infuriated was then-LDS Prophet Joseph F. Smith, who not surprisingly, seethed at the savage pen of FJC, which accused the LDS leader of being a traitor to the United States, a traitor to the original LDS Church, a dictator in Utah, and an unrepentant polygamist. In public, Smith mostly avoided mentioning FJC. In private, he called him many names, including a “son of Perdition,” which is an LDS term for those consigned to hell.

Besides attacking Senator Smoot, FJC also enjoyed taunting Deseret News editor — and LDS apostle — Charles W. Penrose, as a toady for the LDS Church. An example: “Probably the only person in Utah who doesn’t know the Mormon Church is in politics up to its very eyebrows, is Apostle [Charles W.] Penrose, of the Deseret News. The Church has to keep things secret from Penrose. He is a new apostle, and, like President Smith blats out everything he knows. … Penrose ought to wash windows. He takes to soapsuds.”

But FJC saved his harshest criticism for the prophet. He mocked the LDS leader’s claim on Capitol Hill that he had never received revelation and later called him “God’s Appointed Liar” after Smith justified his testimony to many perplexed Latter-day Saints as a way to avoid being trapped by hostile questioners. For example, FJC editorialized: “Gentiles and Mormons, you are front to front with the proposition. Either you must accept Joseph F. Smith as the prophet of God, ordained to speak falsehoods or truth at his pleasure, ratified by God as a liar or a truth teller to meet the prophet’s needs; or, you must consider him a false, deceiving, lying, hypocritical old man, who clings to his power with selfish hands, and who fain would live out the balance of his life with his five wives …”

Why FJC hated Joseph F. Smith so fiercely is still debated by historians. FJC’s father, George Q. Cannon, whom Frank loved, had a long in-depth business relationship with the prophet. Historians opine that JC may have blamed President Smith for cutting him off from the church’s hierarchy after his dad’s death.

I favor the theory that FJC blamed President Smith for the death of his brother, apostle Abraham H. Cannon, who died in the mid-1890s shortly after marrying another wife, years after polygamy was abolished. In FJC’s opinion, stress from the secret marriage harmed his brother’s health.

Cannon was excommunicated by the LDS Church long before the Smoot hearings concluded. His barbed editorials continued until Smoot was eventually cleared by the U.S. Senate. Soon afterwards, Cannon left Salt Lake City and worked at the Post and the Rocky Mountain News.

His sabbatical as an anti-Mormon crusader would resume soon, and “Round 2″ would continue for a generation, both as author of a best-selling “expose” on Mormonism and his longstanding gig at chautauquas, a series of lectures, dances, debates, plays and music offerings then popular across the country that Paulos and Cannon describe as the forefront to modern adult education. At one chautauqua event where Cannon lectured, he was confronted by a group of outraged LDS priesthood holders.  (To read more about FJC's editorials, read this Journal of Mormon History article by Paulos).

-- Doug Gibson

This essay was originally published at StandardBlogs.

The 1917 anti-Mormon penny dreadful film that was a hit

"A Mormon Maid" is an intensely fascinating time-capsule silent melodrama. It is very. anti-Mormon, a filmed polemic against the unpopular religion. Remember its era: Professional anti-Mormon apostate Frank J, Cannon was peddling his book to magazine installments and big sales; he was also a draw on the Chautauqua circuit.

Even that more famous anti-Mormon silent, "Trapped By the Mormons," was still several years away. "Trapped ..." had played in SLC as an historical novelty. I saw it about 25 years ago at the Tower Theater. Frankly, "A Mormon Maid," -- a link to watch it is at the end of this post -- merits more ink than "Trapped ..." which was peddled more or less as an independent (meaning it was not a major release).

"A Mormon Maid" was a bigger release, with a major company of the time, Lasky. It has name stars in Noah Beery Sr. and then-popular starlet Mae Murray, who takes the title role. Murray's the type of silent star who prompted tens of thousands of teenage girls to dream about moving to Hollywood and being discovered.

"A Mormon Maid" jabs at the church are more personal and cutting. Some church avengers are styled after the Ku Klux Klan ("Birth of a Nation" seems to have been an influence.) The avengers, and faithful Mormons, wear garb that is distantly related to temple garb that Mormons consider sacred. Perhaps the most jarring sight is an apron with pictures of plants sown on the aprons. I'll leave things at that. The garb, though, also looks silly at times, with a large "all-seeing eye" in the middle and the men with cloaks over their heads.

Mormons who view this in 2016 will appreciate that the LDS Church 99 years ago was still very unpopular. The long 20th century effort to make Mormonism more palatable to the public, other churches and businesses, was in its early stages.

The church leadership did protest "A Mormon Maid" quite vigorously, and may have had some success. According to the AFI films page on "A Mormon Maid" it reads: "that Paramount decided not to distribute the film due to pressure from the Mormon Church. Papers in the Cecil B. DeMille Collection at Brigham Young University indicate that Lasky did not feel that the film was up to company standards." Also, AFI claims that its original 8-reel production was cut to six reels, which puts it a little over an hour.

One more thing is that the Director General of "A Mormon Maid" is Cecil B. DeMille. This was long before he became one of Hollywood's greatest directors. I'm not quite sure what a director general is, but his name is prominent in the credits. The director was Robert Z. Leonard.

A PENNY-DREADFUL MELODRAMA 

I'll provide a quick recap of the film: It's a classic "penny-dreadful" melodrama of the era, a dime novel translated to screen. There are virtually no characterizations; we don't get to know the characters beyond the faintest personalities. The only emotion effectively conveyed is lust, which Beery's evil apostle, Darius Burr, the power behind a surprisingly weak "Lion of the Lord, Brigham Young (Richard Cummings).

Burr lusts after the beautiful, non-Mormon tom-girl Dora Hogue (Murray). I'm digressing; the plot: We open with a faux book intro, accompanied by films of the Mormon pioneers. It's commendable at first, and there are some nice scenes of pioneer wagon teams. But eventually we learn the pioneers are exploited by Young (Cummings plays him as a constipated looking Puritan), the evil apostles, of which Burr is the most evil, and the avenging forces, which prevent any opposition and track down disillusioned members who want to leave.

In the middle of nowhere live the Hogue family, dad John (Hobart Bosworth), mom Nancy (Edythe Chapman) and Dora. A Mormon scout, Tom Rigdon (Frank Borzage) from Salt Lake City informs the Hogues, who are not members, that Indians are about to attack. Dad Hogue wants no help from the Mormons but after the Mormons save the family from an Indian attack (well filmed) they accept an offer to move to Salt Lake City.

Fast forward a couple of years. The Hogues are successful residents, and Dora and Tom are in love. But Apostle Burr wants Dora to be his polygamous bride, so oppression sets in. At a secret meeting with the avengers, family membership in the church is "offered" and Frank can either take a polygamous wife or Dora has to marry Apostle Burr. To save his daughter, Frank takes a second wife. A grief-stricken Nancy commits suicide (rather shockingly shown on screen).

Naturally, evil Burr still lusts for Dora and the remainder of the film involves the Hogues, and Tom, fleeing from, or fighting, the Mormon avengers and the leadership. I'll mention that in one scene Dora rather shrewdly avoids (for a time) coerced marriage with Burr by lying and saying she's not a virgin.

This is a fun film to watch because it shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a history lesson, a silent film polemic that focuses on an easy target. Church members should not be offended. It's a case of the film's theme revealing the vacuousness of its proponents. Because it's 1917, much of the film plays like a stage play; all of the action is comprised on a screen and the camera work is often static. However, there are impressive shots of wagon trains and the heroes trying to escape the Mormon avengers.

"A Mormon Maid" has not been ignored by recent scholars. LDS history blogger Ardis E. Parshall mentioned the film in the Keepapitchinin blog, Parshall writes: "1917’s A Mormon Maid was a rude introduction to popular motion pictures supposedly about Mormonism. Heavily advertised and extremely popular, it played for months in the United States, and was exported to Europe where it also played well."

Parshall's blog is worth a read. It includes newspaper ads for the film. I searched Google for similar ads and one is shared above this post. In 2009, Parshall also wrote about the film, and included a review of a 1987 scholarly appraisal of the film's propaganda value. It was titled "Commercial Propaganda in the Silent Film: A Case Study of 'A Mormon Maid,'" by Richard Alan Nelson, Film History, Vol. 1, No. 2.

A snippet: "The author examines why this particular film, of so many similar ones produced at approximately the same time, was even more successful than the rest and deserves special study. He describes the extremely high production values, the talents of the director, cinematographer, and editor – a powerhouse crew of early movie talent which included Cecil B. DeMille. The skillful direction, filming, and editing of A Mormon Maid created practically a new genre, the docu-drama, which made the tale it told especially believable to a national audience and especially distressing to the Saints. ..."

 So there's just about all you need to know about "A Mormon Maid." I'd like to learn more about it, what DeMille thought of the film, and it'd be fun to see it on the big screen; maybe Salt Lake Film Society or The Egyptian Theater might do that?


(This post by Doug Gibson was originally published at the Plan9Crunch film blog.)