New biography of Joseph Smith a worthy effort but lacks passion

John G. Turner, who wrote an excellent biography of Brigham Young a decade ago, has returned with “Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet.” It’s a worthy, above-average book.

 

The George Mason University professor of religious studies and history had access to historical documents that previous biographers of Smith, Richard Bushman and Fawn Brodie did not  enjoy. Nevertheless, I place those two previous biographies of Smith a little higher than Turner's good-faith effort.

 

Turner provides new nuggets of information. However it seems an economical effort despite its 400-plus page length. It’s a fair account, but with little passion. Turner makes a deliberate attempt early to assure readers the Golden Plates, of which the church founder Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon, was a fantasy of Smith’s, a fabrication.

 

No one wants Turner, who is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to tub-thump The Book of Mormon, or the LDS church, or even Smith. But a sheer declaration that claims are flat-out wrong non-plused me. Why not a disinterested, neutral stance where the author simply states what Smith presented during his lifetime, recording acceptance of, and opposition to; and consequences thereof?

 

I do not believe that Turner carries a grudge against Smith. I think he’s presented a generally balanced, fair account of Smith’s life. He regards Smith as a charismatic, persuasive man prone to risks that led to setbacks largely caused by his inability to foresee adverse, destructive consequences to rash decisions. Events in early church history, through Ohio, Missouri and the years in Nauvoo, are effectively presented by the author.

 

Turner appropriately notes the many mistakes made by the rash young prophet, who frequently admitted to misinterpreting situations and often behaving in a less-than prophetic manner. Turner covers his subject's polygamy life in great detail. Some was new information to me. This should put to rest current attempts to deny the practice occurred. In fact, reading the books I was amazed that Community of Christ Church members in the 19th century could deny Smith’s involvement in polygamy without laughing.

 

I enjoyed Turner’s accounts of Smith and others journeying to our nation’s Capitol to lobby on behalf the young church, unsuccessfully. Another strong history nugget was an account of a trip to Massachusetts to find some alleged treasure – unsuccessful. 

 

Turner does an effective job of detailing the tightly knit Smith family, and their mostly successful attempts to maintain solidarity despite conflict, particularly between Joseph and his brother William.

 

The final days prior to the murders of Smith and his brother Hyrum in Carthage are related in detail by Turner. The barbarity of the acts underscore how savage life was in 1844 central United States. I appreciated reading Turner’s account of murderers, such as newspaperman Thomas Sharpe, excusing his blood lust with a lame claim that he prevented more deaths. Turner’s account also reveals Illinois Gov. Thomas Ford’s behavior before and after the martyrdom as both feckless and weak.

 

A final note: A reason I think Turner lacks passion in his biography is that he never effectively shows how Joseph Smith, despite all the setbacks, managed to draw tens of thousands of followers to believe his message, follow The Book of Mormon, stay in the church, and embrace the idea of eternal life as family units. This strong faith and devotion endured many setbacks – culminating in Smith’s death – that threatened the embryonic faith's existence.

 

Some insight into Smith’s appeal comes from Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling,” which notes reasons why Smith’s message was so appealing to religious seekers. One, Smith didn’t allow himself to be the subject of his message. And Smith's doctrine of temples and eternal marriages and gathering of families appealed to people’s desire of a life -- and purpose -- after death beyond a stereotypical heaven or hell.

 

In fairness, perhaps no scholarly book can explain Mormonism and its followers devotion. 

You can buy Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of an American Prophet, Yale University Press, 2025 here on its Amazon page. Searching online, I could not find this worthy biography at Deseret Book. That’s a shame.

 

– Doug Gibson

Review: Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath

 

Review by Doug Gibson

In “Vengeance is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath” (Oxford University Press, 2023), authors Richard E. Turley Jr., and Barbara Jones Brown relate, 19 years after the massacre, the second trial of John D. Lee, the only man convicted.

It was a quick trial. One that easily garnered a conviction from a jury comprised entirely of Mormon men. As the book relates, this was in direct contrast to an earlier trial of Lee – before a jury of Mormons and non-Mormons – that resulted in a hung jury.

The reason for Lee’s conviction was simple. In this second trial, prosecutor Sumner Howard focused solely on the evidence against Lee, and did not waste time, and taxpayer dollars, attempting to convict LDS leaders Brigham Young, George A. Smith, and the faith itself. The first trial was a semi farce, with prosecutors, a newspaper (the Salt Lake Tribune), and a Utah political party hoping that failure to secure a conviction would lead to federal action that would crush the Mormon faith and its political power.

To get a hung jury, prosecutors in the first trial openly insulted the faith of the Mormon jurors during the trial. With a more mature prosecutor, Howard, actively working with Mormon cooperation -- something the previous prosecution had refused to do – testimony against Lee from participants and observers clearly established Lee’s guilt of truly horrible crimes.

There is truth that Lee, executed on the site of the massacre, was a scapegoat. The slaughter of 100-plus emigrants involved dozens of conspirators. William Higbee, Nephi Johnson, Philip Klingensmith, Isaac Haight, are examples of those who escaped court justice. But Lee was guilty. He deserved to be shot for his crimes.

“Vengeance is Mine …” is a follow-up to the 2008 book “Massacre at Mountain Meadows,” of which Turley was one of the authors. The follow up provides a thorough recap of the years after the massacre, including how the Civil War put the issue aside for a while.

The book describes a period of rhetorical “fire-and-brimstone” eras leading to the massacre – the Mormon Reformation of the mid 1850s, the assassination of apostle Parley P. Pratt, and the movement of federal troops to Utah. Speeches from Young, Smith and others promised violence -- and alliance with Native Americans -- if the federal government threatened the Mormon faith. It’s not difficult to imagine a gross over-response to a perceived threat to settlers, given the harsh rhetoric from ecclesiastical leaders.

I’ve read just about every book published on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. For some reason the horrors of the massacre hit hardest while reading “Vengeance is Mine ...”. Perhaps it’s the book’s narrative approach. The authors are very effective in conveying the horror of what occurred.

Offered a white flag of truce from Lee, the emigrants surrendered their weapons, with a promise of being led to safety. Shortly into the march, the men were shot – most in the head – by the supposed Mormon protectors.

As awful as that is, there was a worse fate for woman, infirm men, and nearly all children 7 or over. They were knifed and clubbed to death by Native Americans and settlers. Seventeen children were spared, only because Lee and other conspirators felt they wouldn’t be able to remember. There was a very young survivor, about 1, being brought to a home with her arm essentially hanging by a thread; a bone was shattered. The descriptions of the aftermath are sickening. They include Mormon participants laughing hysterically as they (unsuccessfully) tried to bury massacre victims. There’s an account of Lee – during an LDS church address – saying the massacre was the fulfilment of a revelation from God that he had received in a dream. I can’t get that out of my head – fast and testimony thanksgiving for killing.

An iconic presence through the book are bones, hair, and clothing littering the once-beautiful  site of the massacre. Repeatedly, wolves and other predators uncover meager efforts to bury the massacred. Even 19 years later, as Lee meets his fate, bones still litter the site.

The historian Hannah Arendt described evil as banal. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was banal evil. It was so stupid. Vicious men, full of prejudices and hate – motivated by unwise speeches -- tried to get Paiute Indians to kill emigrants from Arkansas.  That failed. When Mormon settlers shot at two emigrants, with one killed and the other fleeing to the wagons, the fate of the entire party was sealed. Lee and others were worried that survivors would relate their crimes once they arrived in California. It was ridiculous to think that killing 100-plus more people would hide a crime.

So, everyone had to die. No one waited for a messenger dispatched to Salt Lake City to get Brigham Young’s advice. He said to let the emigrants pass through. But it was too late. The cover up began. “It was all the Paiute’s fault.” … “Those emigrants killed were comprised of prostitutes and former tormenters of the faith in Missouri.” “They poisoned a cow and killed Indians and a young settler boy.” All lies; the ringleaders knew it.

But these false rationalizations endured for scores of years.

As mentioned, Lee – while guilty – served as a scapegoat for the massacres. It’s a compliment to the authors’ writing skills that one can feel a small measure of sympathy for Lee as over time he is abandoned by his faith, many of his wives, most of his church colleagues, and even the man he arguably loved most in the world, Brigham Young.

However, those most culpable did suffer, as the authors relate. Isaac Haight lived a nomadic, rough life. Every time he tried to settle into conventional Mormon life, outrage eventually sent him fleeing. He died of pneumonia. William Stewart  had a lonely, nomadic, running-away life. He died in Mexico due to gangrene in his leg. John Higbee eventually became insane before his death. His life “was a living hell,” a former Mormon is quoted as saying.

Philip Klingensmith became a loner, trying to avoid the stigma of his mere existence. Reports seem to indicate that he died in the same manner as Loyal Blood, the character on the run in E. Annie Proulx’s novel, “Postcards.”

And Nephi Johnson, while living a long life, never escaped the personal hell that his participation in the massacre brought him. Prior to his death, trying to speak to a young Juanita Leavitt (Brooks), all he could utter was “Blood! BLOOD! BLOOD!”

This is an excellent, well-researched history book by two talented historians. Both “Vengeance is Mine …” and “Massacre at Mountain Meadows” belong together as must-reads to learn the story, beginning to end, of the 1859 atrocity in Southern Utah.

Review: Convicting the Mormons: The Mountain Meadows Massacre in American Culture

 

Review by Doug Gibson

The Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 was a horrific atrocity. It was unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence in the western United States. Slaughters of innocents and the defenseless happened. Often the victims were Native Americans, or foreigners.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was distinct. It involved white Americans orchestrating the slaughter of other white Americans. The guilty attempted to recruit Native Americans, but with limited success. A plot to blame the massacre on a tribe was unsuccessful.

The killers were located in southern Utah. Youngsters deemed too young to be murdered were kidnapped and assimilated among residents. Eventually, they were freed and returned to relatives. Yet despite many investigations, massive media and popular culture coverage of the massacre, it took nearly 20 years for only one man, John D. Lee, an active participant in the massacre, to be tried -- twice -- and executed. Why did it take so long? 

In "Convicting the Mormons: The Mountain Meadows Massacre in American Culture" 2023 The University of North Carolina Press (Amazon link here), Brigham Young University lecturer and historian Janiece Johnson argues that popular culture defined the massacre as an atrocity committed by the Mormons, and later the church's leadership, rather than by a group of individuals in southern Utah.

This near-complete focus of Mormonism as the villain, and guilty party in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, hampered the quality and success of the investigations. It was easier, and sold more print, to cast a religion, and a people, as the guilty, rather than to keep the focus secular and on the actual suspects.

Johnson has dug deep into 18th century archives and includes about two dozen reprints of then-contemporary media treatment of the LDS faith. The church was already unpopular due to its embrace of polygamy. The massacre was used to provide evidence that polygamy, and other Mormon mores -- including its "king-like" leadership, encouraged atrocities.

After news of the massacre was heard in California, Johnson notes, newspapers were quickly casting Mormons as the killers. Calls were made for the Mormons to be expelled from their territory. The suggested use of military force, or vigilantism, were met with approval. Going beyond periodicals, the Mountain Meadows Massacre was used to vilify Mormons in penny novels, more "respectable" literature, wild west shows, and "non-fiction" exposes of authors who claimed life experience among the Mormons, or had "witnessed" the massacre.

Few people today truly comprehend the power of print in the 19th century. It moved slowly but with a longer and deeper reach than digital has today.

Lest I give the wrong impression, Johnson is no apologist for the massacre. It is chilling that 120 innocents were slain, most after a white flag of truce was offered them in desperate straits. It was an evil act.

What makes this book so interesting is learning how the Mormon church became the de-facto defendant after the massacre, rather than the killers. Johnson explains how all Mormons were placed as failing 18th century conceptions of civilized behavior, citizenship, savagery, masculinity, manhood, and even whiteness. These assumptions, some recognized today as steeped in racism and misogyny, guided conventional thought, or respectability. Mormons failed to meet respectable mores, and the massacre provided the public evidence.

Mormons failed tests of citizenship; they were considered savage; this savagery was enhanced by the racist ideal that Mormons, being white, chose to be savage. There were even risible theories that the breeding of Mormons contributed to a deterioration in their physical and cognitive states.

Johnson writes how popular culture defined Mormons as failing the manhood, or masculinity, test. There were two preferred types of masculinity; the more violent "martial" southern version, or a more "restrained" "home and hearth" type of masculinity. Mormons failed both, because they allowed polygamy, and also because they failed to protect women and children killed at the massacre.

The focus through this 18th-century media was not to accuse just the actual killers of lacking masculinity, but the members of an entire religion. An interesting irony is included in which the killer of defenseless Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt was widely lauded as a virtuous example of masculinity. The key to the killer's virtuous "masculinity" was that Pratt has married his wife. He was entitled to kill him any way he preferred.

Johnson points out the contradictions of masculinity assumptions and how they were fostered in bigotry. One example is boxer Jack Johnson deemed a savage, but his white challenger James J. Jeffries deemed noble. Another example was Chinese men in 1870s California having their masculinity maligned due to the number of Chinese women prostitutes.

As the popular culture obsession with Mormonism continued, the actual legal machinations of the Mountain Meadows Massacre moved very slowly. John D. Lee's first trial ended in a hung jury. As Johnson notes from the transcript, prosecutors acted as if the defendant was the Mormon Church, more than Lee. LDS jurors were fed a long litany of supposed Mormon evil, many of the "evidence" gathered from popular media offerings. The Mormon jury members were essentially told they could redeem their "sins" with a conviction.

In a smaller, more subdued second trial, Lee was convicted and later executed. The iconic pictures of him sitting on his coffin just prior to being shot are powerful. As Johnson notes, by this time, prosecutors and media had moved toward wanting Mormon leader Brigham Young punished for the massacre. The evidence wasn't there, and Lee, to his credit, did not falsely implicate Young, despite heavy pressure: this despite Lee being thoroughly disillusioned with his one-time adopted father.

Yet, the idea that Young was the mastermind behind the massacre is one assumption that still lingers. Books and films published within the past generation push this theory.

In "Convicting the Mormons," Johnson notes predictions that the Mormon Church would eventually wither away. Some thought the extinction of Mormonism would occur as children rejected their parents' faith. Others thought the death of Brigham Young -- soon after Lee's execution -- would hasten the church's demise. It did not happen. Once the church officially ended polygamy, it soon became a state. As the book notes, this could be construed as Mormons ironically benefitting from white privilege. Mass violence, or expulsions did not occur. Establishment avenues were available for the church to gain respectability.

From Juanita Brooks on, there are several excellent books on the massacre. Even though I disagree with the late Will Bagley's contention Brigham Young was involved, his "Blood of the Prophets" is a valuable read. A new book on the massacre is being released. I'll be reading it with interest, eager to learn more. Transparency is always the best solution.

"Convicting the Mormons" provides valuable context on how the massacre influenced the popular culture. It's a must read.

Samuel Brannan: the Mormon leader in California matched wits with Brigham Young

Samuel Brannan is unique among Mormon historical figures because his role goes beyond his contribution to Mormonism. Brannan (1818-1889) was trusted enough to lead a Mormon colony on a very long sail from the east coast to what is now San Francisco. The ship, The Brooklyn, stopped in Hawaii. While in California, gold was discovered, and Sam Brannan made a public announcement of the find.

It was gold which led to Brannan’s disassociation from the Mormon Church, and being officially severed from the church in 1851. Once gold was discovered, Brannan became very eager to collect tithes. (Until then, Brannan had overseen the colony of Mormons in a less than pious manner, without organizing a branch, causing one of his party to complain to church leaders that the colony was “acting in the same manner as their neighbors … speculating in land, drinking, gambling, and giving their daughters in marriage to non-Mormons.”

(I take a short break to note that the source of this post is from the April 1959 edition of the Utah Historical Quarterly, “The Apostasy of Samuel Brannan,” written by Eugene E. Campbell.)

Indeed, Brannan made sure the Mormon aspect of his colonization was underplayed. The move was successful to the extent that it made him a leading public figure in the early days of San Francisco. Brannan also became a big booster of the Latter-day Saints moving from Utah to California, telling members that would happen soon. Brannan’s deliberate policy of downplaying Mormonism — he published in the newspaper he started, “The California Star,” that the paper would “eschew with the greatest caution, everything that stands to the propagation of sectarian dogma” — put him at odds with Brigham Young and the Utah church leadership, which desired a propagation of Mormonism.

As a result, Brannan found himself in conflict with more traditional church members who sent messages to Salt Lake City unfavorable to the church’s San Francisco leader. Brannan, on the other hand, attempted to maintain a non-traditional manner of control over his branch of the  church while at the same time sending Brigham Young slavish, sycophantic notes professing his allegiance and desiring counsel on various matters from Young.

Anyone who has read John Turner’s definitive biography of “Brigham Young” can only imagine how the sardonic Young would react to Brannan’s attempts to mollify him. It all came to a head after Young learned of Brannan’s energetic attempts to gather “tithing” from gold being prospected in northern California. Using a very polite manner of snark, Young sent Brannan a letter that put his faith in Mormonism to an economic test.

In the letter, Young wrote, “The man who is always doing right has no occasion to fear any complaints that can be made against him, and I hope that you have no cause to fear. I am glad to hear you say that I may rely on your ‘pushing every nerve to assist me and sustain me to the last,’ for I do not doubt that you have been blessed abundantly and now shall have it in your power to render most essential service.” At this point, Young got to specifics, instructing Brannan to send $10,000 tithing to Apostle Amasa Lyman, as well as $20,000 to assist him, Brigham Young, and another $20,000 to assist “Brothers Kimball and Richards.”

At the end of his letter, Young wrote, “Now, Brother Brannan, if you will deal justly with your fellows, and deal out with a liberal heart and open hands, making a righteous use of your money, the Lord is willing that you should accumulate the treasures of the earth and good things in times of abundance, but should you withhold when the Lord says give, your hope and pleasing prospects will be blasted in an hour you think not, and no arm to save. But I am pursuaded (sic) better things of Brother Brannan. I expect all that I have asked when Brother Lyman returns and may God bless you to this end is the prayer of your brother in the new covenant.”

I doubt very seriously that Brigham Young expected to get $10,000, or $50,000 from Samuel Brannan when the apostle Lyman arrived. But the Mormon prophet did know how to get rid of a leader he wanted out. Faced with the prospect of remaining a leader in the California LDS Church or parting with tens of thousands of dollars, Brannan found it an easy decision to leave Mormonism. When Lyman arrived, he and his companion were given $500 by Brannan as well as some books. Lyman’s companion, Charles C. Rich, wrote “We paid Mr. Samuel Brannan a visit and learned from him that he stood alone and knew no one only himself and his family. …”

Thus ended the tenure of Samuel Brannan as a Mormon leader. He stayed busy, becoming California’s first millionaire and a leading citizen of early San Francisco. There he became a leader of the crime-fighting group, The Vigilantes. It was that association which finally led to his excommunication from the Mormon Church. The church branch disciplined him via unanimous vote for “a general course of unchristianlike conduct, neglect of duty, and for combining with lawless assemblies to commit murder and other crimes.”

That was the official reason. But Brannan’s fate in the Mormon Church was sealed when he chose to ignore Young’s sly, ironic request for a share of the gold that had been discovered in California.

Ironically, although Brannan became a millionaire, he eventually lost his fortune and died in poverty. According to Campbell’s UHQ piece, his body was unclaimed in San Diego for a year before a friend donated a gravesite.

A devout Mormon might cite Young’s words, “but should you withhold when the Lord says give, your hope and pleasing prospects will be blasted in an hour you think not, and no arm to save” as being a fulfilled prophecy. Others just might think that this Mr. Brannan was the victim of bad financial luck in the latter decades of his life.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

Mormons, Catholics both have to deal with dark side of their histories

 

There’s an interesting article in the Fall 2013 issue of The Journal of Mormon History. “Evil in the Family: Mormons and Catholics Struggling with the Dark Side of Their Histories,” by Father Daniel P. Dwyer, notes that both the Catholic and Mormon faiths claim their church as the one established by Jesus Christ. Yet, he adds, both faiths share atrocities committed by the most seemingly devout members of the respective faiths.

A lot of Mormons may take offense at their church being adversely compared to Catholicism’s long history of misdeeds. But compare these two accounts of atrocities, offered by Dwyer. Here is the first:

“Enrico and the rest of the band held a council and, after sunrise, attacked the Jews in the hall with arrows and lances. Breaking the bolts and the doors, they killed the Jews, about seven hundred in number, who in vain resisted the force and attack of so many thousands. They killed the women also, and with their swords pierced tender children of whatever age and sex. The Jews seeing that their Christian enemies were attacking them and their children, and they were sparing no age, likewise fell upon one another, brothers, children, wives and sisters, and thus they perished at each other’s hands. Horrible to say, mothers cut the throats of nursing children with knives and stabbed others, preferring them to perish thus by their own hands rather than to be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised.”

Here’s the other example:

“I saw several bones of what must have been very small children. Dr. Brewer says from what he saw he thinks some of the infants were butchered. The mothers doubtless had these in their arms, and the same shot or blow may have deprived both of life.

“The scene of the massacre, even at this late day, was horrible to look upon. Women’s hair, in detached locks and masses, hung to (sic) the sage brushes and was strewn over the ground in many places. Parts of little children’s dresses and of female costume dangled from the shrubbery or lay scattered about; and among these, here and there, on every hand, for at least a mile in the direction of the road, by two miles east and west. there gleamed, bleached white by the weather, the skulls and other bones of those who had suffered. A glance into the wagon when all these had been collected revealed a sight which can never be forgotten.”

The former is an account of Catholic crusaders in 1096 killing Jews trapped in a hall, put there by a bishop for their “protection.” The latter is an 1859 account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Two years earlier Mormon “crusaders” had massacred non-Mormon settlers traveling to California. The massacre occurred as the settlers were being led to “safety.”

These are acts of pure evil, encouraged by Satan, if one is a believer. How does one square these massacres with belief in a faith? Dwyer offers three options: “we can try to rationalize the evil and explain it away; we can abandon our respective faiths and deal with, or ignore evil, from the perspective of outsiders; or we can try to admit and understand the evil and look for ways our traditions can help us cope with the aftermath and prevent recurrences.”

The third option is often attempted — at least in part — on a singular basis. The LDS Church, for example, has expressed regret for the massacre, among other gestures. The Catholic Church has attempted apologies for much of its sordid history and the priest sexual abuse scandals of the past several decades. However, to fully attempt to live the third option requires consistency. Example: the first option — rationalize and explain away — more or less still defines the LDS Church’s reaction to its “Jim Crow” policies toward blacks in the church, which lasted until 1978.

And, as Dwyer notes, the third option, to be consistent, must apply to all members of a faith, even the most powerful. Compare these two declaration, both from the same era. The first, from Pope Pius IX, in 1864, the Syllabus of Errors (NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING WAS URGED NOT TO BE BELIEVED BY CATHOLICS):

“Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.”

“Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion.”

“The church is not a true and perfect society.”

“The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.”

“Catholics may approve of the system of educating youths unconnected with the Catholic faith and the power of the Church.”

“The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”

“In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the state.”

“The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

And, in early 1857, several months prior to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, LDS Church leaders Brigham Young shared this with the Saints in Salt Lake City, relates Dwyer:

“I have known a great many men who have left this church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle’s being in full force.

“This is loving your neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.”

Both statements, from Pius IX and Brigham Young, are repugnant, and remind of the theology of radical Islam today. While Young’s words are more violent, the state theology espoused by the late pope would have likely led to violence. Yet, I’m glad Dwyer chose these two examples, precisely because both Pius IX and Young are beloved, often-honored figures within their faiths. Nevertheless, they made statements that no sensible Catholic, or Mormon, would adhere to today.

As Dwyer notes, there are contexts to the above statements. Both faced challenges by hostile powers. Both wanted to consolidate power for what they felt was a good cause. When looking at these examples, it’s best to understand that doctrine and practices for both faiths, Catholic and Mormon, is dynamic, in fact more dynamic than many members or leaders might see or admit to. That’s a good thing. A failure for any religion to change many of its practices or beliefs would nearly always lead to, at least, social ostracism, or at worst, violence and tragedy.

Later in the JMH essay, Dwyer compares the doctrine of papal infallibility with the role of a Mormon prophet. What happens when a pope, or an LDS prophet, spouts something that isn’t true? One example is Young’s failed effort to institute the “Adam-God Doctrine.” Dwyer offers these explanations:

“... even some of our own people misunderstand the doctrine of papal infallibility. It does not mean that a pope is always correct — even when he teaches doctrine. His teaching is infallible only under severely limited conditions. … So if Pope Francis told me the sky was green, it would still be blue.” Later, Dwyer answers the confusion Mormons may feel over Young’s insistence that Adam was God by writing, “If he was wrong, how could he have been a prophet, seer and revelator? Or, as in Catholicism, is the exercise of of the prophetic ministry something that happens only in very defined situations?”

These are interesting topics, and Dwyer’s article explores even more similarities and conflicts between Catholicism and Mormonism. What’s most beneficial is the advice that both faiths acknowledge a sometimes adverse, and wicked, past and that practical dynamism, and human fallibility, will create leaders who make mistakes, even in a church that proclaims itself THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

As Dwyer notes, in Romans 3:23, it reads “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” The late Mormon scholar Eugene England extolled the strength of the church, its structure, its fellowship, and its role as a place to gain strength and learn to be a more godly individual; all of that occurs, of course, in the present and the future.

--- Doug Gibson

--- Originally published at StandardBlogs in 2013.

Darryl F. Zanuck brought Brigham Young to the big screen

 

This review originally ran in StandardBlogs.

By Doug Gibson

Just watched the 1940 film, “Brigham Young”: Two major observations; It was a pleasant surprise to see how favorably a major Hollywood studio would treat the Mormons less than 20 years after “Trapped by the Mormons” scared British audiences. The anti-Mormon mob characters were as evil as any bad guy in an action film.

Second, the film is a bland, sugar and spice look at the LDS’s Church’s second prophet — it’s chock full of historical inaccuracies. But celluloid license was not unusual in that era. Better films, including “The Good Earth,” “Pride and Prejudice,” and “Of Mice and Men” were harmed by irresponsible changes by directors. Examples: Joseph Smith is convicted of insurrection just prior to being murdered; The Saints abandon Nauvoo, more or less entirely, in just a few hours!; the prophet Young doubts his calling through most of the film; polygamy is barely discussed, most notably in playful dialogue between romantic leads Tyrone Power (a young Mormon man) and Linda Darnell (a non-Mormon woman accompanying his family to the Salt Lake Valley).

The film entertains at times, although Henry Hathaway’s direction is sluggish and overwrought. The plot is derivative, and Mormonism’s historical eccentricities and religious uniqueness are not explored. Though in black and white, producer Darryl F. Zanuck used many film strategies that were used in “Gone With the Wind,” such as large text with grave music to transfer scenes and settings, melodramatic characters, such as a Mormon grandma who dies on the plains, and there are impressive high-budget special effects, such as the burning of Nauvoo, framed beyond a freezing lake the Saints use to escape, and the miracle of the seagulls eating grasshoppers threatening Mormon crops in the Salt Lake valley. The latter scene is particularly effective.

The cast is great, even cultish. A young Vincent Price plays Joseph Smith, a wild-looking John Carradine is great as Mormon vigilante Porter Rockwell. Dean Jagger not only plays Brigham Young well, he looks a lot like him as well. Mary Astor is great as Young’s first wife, Mary Ann. Another interesting cast member is Brian Donlevy as “villain” Angus Duncan. Those familiar with Mormon history will notice that “Duncan” actually is a composite of three real characters: John C. Bennett, who turned against the church for financial and prurient reasons; Sidney Rigdon, who left the church after losing a power struggle to Young after Smith’s death; and finally, “Duncan” is also Samuel Brannan, an early church leader who apostasized after failing to convince Young to move the Saints to California.

The film is easy to find on VHS or DVD, but I have not seen it on TV. It seems a natural to be scheduled on Turner Classic Movies. According to the book, “The Hollywood Hall of Shame,” written by the Medved brothers,, Harry and Michael. the film was a financial flop at the box office. However, Medved-authored film books have not always been completely reliable. Moroni Olsen, an Ogden-born actor who played “Doc Richards,” was a faithful Mormon. Jagger, by the way, was so impressed by then-LDS Church President Heber J. Grant’s praise of his performance that he began a long interest in Mormonism that resulted in his baptism to the church in 1972. A recent DVD release of “Brigham Young” includes newsreel footage of the film’s premiere in Salt Lake City.

A Variety review published on Dec. 31, 1939, included this paragraph: “Jagger brings to the character of the Mormon leader a personable humaness and sympathy. Astor turns in one of the finest performances of her career. Power and Darnell are overshadowed by the above twain.”

First John D. Lee trial waged in the court of public opinion

----

In the Winter 2013 “Journal of Mormon History,” there’s an interesting article from Robert H. Briggs, a lawyer and historian from California. “A Seething Cauldron of Controversy: The First Trial of John D. Lee, 1875,” reminds us that lawyer’s spin and arguments designed more to convince the public than the jury box are not recent inventions; such practices were popular 138 years ago in cases argued in locations as obscure as Beaver, Utah.

Lee, an “adopted”child of the Mormon prophet Brigham Young, was the only person on trial for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which occurred in 1857. The crime was horrific; women, children and families slaughtered by men who had promised the victims safety. Other than the practice of polygamy, it was the main source of national hatred and disgust for the latter 19th century Mormons of Utah.

Yet, as the first trial approached, the prosecution was well aware that a conviction of Lee was going to be impossible to obtain. The majority of the jurors would be Utah Mormons, and they would acquit Lee, who still enjoyed Young’s support and was consequently seen by most Utah Mormons as a symbol of the federal government’s persecution of their faith.

As Briggs relates in his article, “Knowing the power of the federal onslaught that was to descend upon Mormon Utah in the 1880s, it is surprising to consider just how weak, frustrated, and marginalized the Liberals (anti-Mormons) felt in the mid-1870s.” The only success so far for the anti-Mormons had been preventing Utah from becoming a state. In terms of amending the territory’s leadership, state capitol, state constitution, state boundaries, taking away Mormons’ property, and so on, most had been failures. As Briggs relates, some reasons were overzealous crusading officials, including a judge, who were recalled by federal officials, and a split between the Utah Liberals themselves over how to combat polygamy.

With that track record, it was no surprise that so much time had passed before a trial for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or that the one scapegoat to be tried, Lee, was unlikely to be convicted. As Briggs notes, the one insider prosecution witness was former LDS Bishop Philip Klingensmith, once of Cedar City. While he had insider knowledge of the massacre, he had long been hounded out of the Mormon Church, and was considered a traitor by Utah Mormons.

Instead of winning a conviction being the prosecution’s chief objective, Briggs notes that the architects of the Lee prosecution, William C. Carey, U.S. Attorney in Utah Territory, and his assistant prosecutor, Robert N. Baskin, de-emphasized the usual focus of a trial — “the guilt or innocence of the accused” — for a broader initiative that focused on the actions of militia commands stretching throughout Utah. The initial target, opines Briggs, was George A. Smith, a counselor in the church’s First Presidency as well as an apostle. As Briggs notes, “If they could implicate Smith, it would be but a short step to implicate Brigham Young himself.”

History records that neither Smith nor Young ever paid a legal price for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but it wasn’t for lack of effort by Carey and Baskin, two fervent “Liberal” anti-Mormons of that period. Both prosecutors were fully aware of the national interest in the Lee trial, and they argued their case with an eye toward the press coverage that accusations would garner. Baskin even had the good fortune to be lodging with Frederic Lockley, editor of the Mormon-hostile Salt Lake Tribune, who covered the trial.

As Briggs writes, “They (Carey and Baskin) foresaw the political capital they would gain if the evidence revealed the horrors of the massacre, even if the jury failed to convict Lee. The proceeding, as they conceived of it, would be a political show trial. The prosecutors’ specific strategy was to make the Lee trial into a referendum on the tyranny and corruption of the Mormon hierarchy and the fanaticism of its deluded followers.”

And the newspapers rewarded the prosecution for its effort. Here are some news articles accounts from the trial: “Mountain Meadows — The Sickening Story Coming Out … Hints as to the Real Criminal,” Decatur (Ill.) Daily Republican; “If those Mormon witnesses keep telling the truth about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, old Brigham Young may have occasion to wish he had died naturally, when he was sick last winter,” Steubenville (Ohio) Daily Herald; The Morning Oregonian, of Portland, Ore., had banner coverage of Klingensmith’s testimony. The trial gained media steam as it continued.

Baskin’s summary argument for the prosecution was a masterpiece of rhetoric. He ignored the shaky evidence that while Lee was certainly at the massacre, it was by no means proven he was the leader, and instead attacked every male member of the Mormon Church as lacking the manhood to stand up and do what was right. Baskin was arguing that Mormon men were not free agents and would do whatever their church leaders told them to do.

As Briggs recounts, “Later Baskin asked rhetorically why none of the militiamen involved in the massacre had prevented or even protested the killings. Answering his own question, Baskin argued that it was because ‘when they became a member of the (Mormon) Church … they laid down their manhood; they laid down their individuality.”

He was right, of course, but how could the eight Mormon men on the jury accept that rebuke? By voting to acquit, of course.

But an acquittal had been neutralized by the prosecution’s successful media strategy. The winner of John D. Lee’s first trial was the prosecution, with its attack on the Mormon hierarchy in which the massacre had occurred.

It can be argued that the first trial not only sealed Lee’s fate, it paved the way for the taming of the Mormon polygamous empire in Utah by the federal government. A year later, Lee was executed. Abandoned by Brigham Young, without the implied protection of Utah’s leaders, he was quickly convicted and condemned. Not long afterward, Brigham Young died. His successor, John Taylor, spent much of his tenure as Mormon prophet hiding from law enforcement. In little more than 15 years, the LDS Church, facing financial ruin, would make its first renunciation of polygamy with The Manifesto, signed by then-prophet Wilford W. Woodruff.

There were of course many other reasons for the Utah Mormon Church’s slow subjection to the federal government during the last half of the 19th century, but Briggs’ interesting account of the first Lee trial provides evidence that a significant media salvo on the Mormon leaders was accomplished in a Beaver courthouse during July and August of 1875. In the court of public opinion, the Mormons were the big losers.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

In 1845, William Smith, Mormon apostles waged war in the LDS press

 

Originally published in 2013 at StandardBlogs

There’s an interesting article in the summer 2013 issue of the “Journal of Mormon History.” Christine Elyse Blythe has contributed a long article on the tenure of William Smith as church patriarch. William is generally considered in LDS history as a kind of “bad boy” of the Smiths, a “legacy apostle” who survived in the church while elder brother Joseph Smith was alive but was eventually kicked out of the church after he died.

There’s a lot of history in the article, “William Smith’s Patriarchal Blessings and Contested Authority in the Post-Martyrdom Church,” but what caught my interest was an intramural newspaper feud over who was best to lead the church a year after Joseph Smith had been murdered. William Smith, despite already shaky relationships with Brigham Young and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, was named Presiding Patriarch of the LDS Church. It was a lucrative gig for Smith. Besides the high authority of being the church patriarch, William earned a buck per patriarchal blessing, according to Blythe. That doesn’t sound like much, but after 300 blessings over six months, William had earned roughly what a full-time laborer of that era would earn over half a year.

(I digress here to tell readers that receiving a patriarchal blessing is a rite of passage for faithful Latter-day Saints. Those born into an active LDS family usually receive a blessing, from a local patriarch, at the age of 15 or 16. The blessings are considered revelation from God. Indeed, many blessings are described as part of blessings one received in the pre-existence prior to birth. The blessings also provide a relationship to the recipient of their place in the House of Israel.)

In Smith’s time, the presiding patriarch of the LDS Church was considered an elite leader, comparable in rank to an apostle or prophet. Hyrum Smith had preceded William Smith as patriarch. As Blythe recounts, a careful reading of many of William Smith’s patriarchal blessings include words from Smith that assigned him as the LDS leader with the highest authority. As Blythe writes, “… in a blessing given to William A. Beebe, the patriarch concluded: ‘by the highest authority in the church of God I seal thee up to eternal life ...’ This phrase, ‘highest authority in the church’ appeared six times in William’s patriarchal blessings in just over one month.”

Patriarchal blessings, while recorded, are considered personal, and — as Blythe notes — it’s possible the subtle hints in William Smith’s blessings did not get much notice. However, William Smith made his intentions public with an essay in the LDS Church newspaper “Times and Seasons.” In the essay, “Patriarchal,” Blythe notes that William Smith cast himself as “a living martyr,” worthy of continuing in the same high, prophetic place in the post-martyrdom church as his slain brothers, Joseph and Hyrum.

William Smith’s essay was boosted by a testimonial to his claims by W.W. Phelps, an assistant editor at “Times and Seasons.” Phelps, who eventually followed Brigham Young to Utah, wrote that William is “governed by the spirit of the living God.” As Blythe notes, that phrase suggested an autonomy for Smith as patriarch. That was not a trial balloon that the LDS church’s leadership wanted out there.

So, as Blythe notes, Apostle John Taylor penned a rebuttal in the very next issue in the “Times and Seasons.” What Taylor focused on was the debate over whether William Smith was the “patriarch over the church” or “patriarch to the church.” Taylor was direct and to the point in letting church members know the answer. He wrote: “We have been asked, ‘Does not patriarch over the whole church’ place Brother William Smith at the head of the whole church as president? Ans. No. Brother William is not patriarch over the whole church; but patriarch TO the church, and as such he was ordained. The expression ‘over the whole church,’ is a mistake made by W.W. Phelps.”

Taylor, who of course was speaking for Brigham Young and the rest of the Quorum, made it clear what pecking order William Smith had to follow to remain in the Mormon faith. Nevertheless, William Smith remained in the church a while longer. Blythe notes that he gave nine “second blessings” as patriarch, an indicator that the publicity in “Times and Seasons” had boosted his claim.

But it was a matter of time before William Smith and the LDS Church, under Young and the Apostles, would have a divorce. Blythe relates that later in 1845, William Smith trumpeted a claim from Lucy Mack Smith, his mother, that she had had a revelation, with God saying “Thy son William he shall have power over the Churches …” and “… The presidency of the Church belongs to William ...” Soon afterward, Lucy Mack Smith clarified the “revelation,” saying it was just for her family. Around that time, William Smith threatened to leave the Mormons and take all the Smiths with him, adds Blythe. Smith later retracted that threat as well. By August, as Blythe notes, William Smith was complaining that “There seems to be a severe influence working against me and the Smith family in this place.”

Smith left the Mormons, was excommunicated and, like many other Mormon leaders who didn’t go to Utah, hopscotched among different branches of Mormonism. He tried a position with the James J. Strang “Strangites,” and later started his own church for a while, and had an alliance with the Lyman Wight branch in Texas. All that ended and improbably, William Smith was rebaptized as a Mormon in 1860. That failed to last as well. Eventually, Smith became a member of the Reorganized LDS church. Although the uncle tried to persuade his nephew, church leader Joseph Smith III to make him an apostle or presiding patriarch, he was unsuccessful. William Smith died in 1893.

The very short intramural newspaper battle between Smith, a sort of populist threat to the church led by Young and the apostles, and the rebuttal by John Taylor, which more or less ended Smith’s effort to become a Mormon leader, is fascinating to me as a journalist. Try to imagine today’s prominent Latter-day Saints waging a public relations battle — against each other — in “The Mormon Times,” “Church News,” or “The Ensign.”

It would never happen, of course. But it did 168 years ago, and it must have made for eager reading by Latter-day Saints.

Another excellent source for William Smith’s short tenure as LDS church patriarch is the summer 1983 issue of “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.”

-- Doug Gibson

Lincoln used diplomacy to charm the once-hostile Mormons

Originally published at StandardBlogs in 2011. 

The crude, casual racism of a long-ago era is striking in this Nov. 28, 1860 Deseret News advertisement from merchant George Goddard. (page one of four) It reads, “Abe Lincoln, Republican, elected by a large majority!!!, immense excitement!, Democrats all but crazy!!!, Niggers rejoicing at the prospect of freedom!!! and before they are all let loose — over 4,000,000, Geo. Goddard is determined to close out his present stock of goods at the following reduced prices: What follows is a list or ordinary merchandise, everything from grey overshirts, to fine tooth brushes, to tobacco to McGuffey's Readers, etc.

Mr. Goddard's published bigotry underscores the hostility that Utah's Latter-day Saint hierarchy greeted the presidential election of Republican Abraham Lincoln 151 years ago. Historian George U. Hubbard, writing in the Spring, 1963 issue of the Utah Historical Quarterly, notes that the election of Lincoln was greeted with derisive speeches by Mormon leaders, including Church President Brigham Young and apostle George A. Smith. As Hubbard writes in, “Abraham Lincoln as seen by the Mormons,” the Illinois president was described as “weak as water” or as a “King Abraham” who would oversee the destruction of the United States. Prominent Mormon John D. Lee, who would later be executed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, referred to Lincoln as “the Black Republican,” recounts Hubbard.

The Deseret News editorialized on Feb. 27, 1861, that “…Abraham the I. has, in all probability, been installed into office as successor of James the IV (James Buchanan) … we still believe as we have for many years, that the Union, about which so much has been and is being said, will go to destruction …”

Apostle Smith publicly worried that Lincoln's crusade against slavery would extend to persecution of Utah Mormons. Smith, after blasting Lincoln's anti-slavery crusade as “a priestly influence,” added that “the spirit of priestcraft” would lead to him putting “to death, if it was in his power, every man that believes in the divine mission of Joseph Smith, or that bears testimony to the doctrines he preached.”

Hubbard's piece notes the irony of the Utah antipathy for Lincoln. In fact, it had been his chief opponent, Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, who had been most critical of Utah Mormons during the 1860 campaign. The reason for Utah opposition to Lincoln was two-fold. The Republican Party platform of that era described slavery and polygamy as the “twin relics of barbarism.” That must have stung Utah Mormons, who had only recently admitted that their church promoted and practiced polygamy. The second reason for opposition to Lincoln by the Mormon faith was rooted in LDS theology. Mormon doctrine sees the establishment of the United States as overseen by God. As Hubbard writes, “To the Mormons the election of Lincoln meant the dissolution of the Union, a nation whose creation was divinely inspired.”

With those concerns, it's perhaps not surprising that the LDS Church hierarchy was a strong opponent of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln's plans to free the slaves. The Deseret News, which spoke only what church leaders' approved of, blasted the idea, describing it as radical and unconstitutional. The Deseret News wrote, “He (Lincoln) is fully adrift on the current of radical fanaticism” and further described the president as having been “coerced by the insanity of radicals…”

Harsh words, nevertheless, history tells us that two years later Utah's religious leadership, and by extension its citizens, were strong supporters of President Lincoln, cheering his re-election victory and later mourned and paid tribute to Lincoln after his assassination. The about face in support, explains Hubbard, was due to the president's extraordinary diplomatic skills.

Lincoln was no stranger to the “Mormon question.” As a Whig legislator in Illinois in the early 1840s, he had sought — like any other pol — the support of the Mormon voting bloc. In fact, in one election Lincoln had assumed support from the Mormons only to see it taken away by Joseph Smith for political reasons. The future president was too mature a politician to allow the snub to have long-term consequences, and refrained from harsh criticism of the church.

Hubbard writes that the first significant positive response Lincoln received from church leaders was in April 1862 when he bypassed federal officials and instead directly asked Brigham Young to supply an armed force to protect telegraph and mail lines from Indians. Hubbard writes: “The Mormon leaders were delighted with this recognition and demonstration of confidence on the part of the federal government, and their response was immediate.”

Lincoln's diplomatic skills further charmed Utah Mormons after a dispute — common in that era — erupted between church leaders and the non-Mormon leadership of the Utah territory.

Instead of the norm, which would have been to take the civilian official's side, Lincoln responded with a compromise solution. He provided the Mormons some political victories, as well as the civilian leadership. One significant move was that the anti-Mormon governor was removed from office.

The clinching act of diplomacy that endeared Lincoln to Utah Mormons, Hubbard relates, was an interview that the president provided then-active Mormon T.B.H. Stenhouse in 1863. The thrust of Lincoln's remarks as to the Mormons was to let them have autonomy in Utah. Lincoln, to Stenhouse, said, “You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.”

That advice was manna to Mormon leaders, who had sought without success such a policy for 33 years. From that point on, the Mormon change of opinion on Lincoln was complete. Hubbard writes, “As a result, the Mormon population had become fervent supporters of Abraham Lincoln, and they were looking forward to his re-election.”

The death of Lincoln united, at least temporarily, Mormons and gentiles who flocked to the Tabernacle for an overflow memorial service for the president in April 1865. Future LDS leader Wilford Woodruff delivered the benediction. As Hubbard related in 1963, Abraham Lincoln has been a revered figure in the Mormon faith ever since. Nothing has changed in 2011, 48 years later.

-- Doug Gibson