Willard Bean, Mormonism's 'Fighting Preacher,' attracted the attention of the curious press

  

Above is an 1899 news clipping from The Boston Globe. I apologize the text is mostly unreadable. It's a feature, however, on a "preacher," Mormon no less, named Willard Bean. He was a very good prizefighter out of Utah 100 years plus a generation ago. I first blogged about Bean several years ago. Here's a  link. And below is Cal Grondahl's fantastic cartoon that accompanied the blog post.

Bean has an "official" 8-5-3 record with one no decision and one no contest on BoxRec between 1897 and 1902 but he likely had more wins unrecorded. He would be tagged a near world-class boxer, in my opinion. The reason I say that is his no decision fight of 10 tough rounds with Joe Choynski in 1899. Choynski is one of the greatest early pugilists; a Hall of Fame boxer. A small clip from a Quincy, Ill. newspaper is below that mentions the bout.

Bean also fought, and went the distance -- 20 rounds -- with the world-class heavyweight title challenger Fireman Jim Flynn, who fought Jack Johnson for the world heavyweight championship. Flynn also knocked out future heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey in one round a few years before Dempsey won the title. Dempsey avenged the loss about a year later with a first-round KO of Flynn. Below is a recap of the decision win by Flynn. 

Below are some long ago clips of recaps of a couple of bouts Bean won by knockout.

Most people know of Bean today due to his enthusiastic missionary skills and temple work later in life. A popular film on Bean and his wife's missionary efforts, "The Fighting Preacher,"' was released a couple of years ago. I reviewed it here. It's available on various streaming services, including Amazon Prime. The next clip exemplifies his missionary spirit. It is from The Salt Lake Tribune in 1899. 

One more picture of the Fighting Preacher, Willard Bean. I do not know the source.

Book takes a look at all those spirit visits we Mormons receive

 

Review by Doug Gibson

If you are a longtime Mormon like me, you know a healthy amount of the stories out there. There's that missionary who was too confident in his priesthood power and actually summoned a demon. You know how that ended; he tempted evil, and was found with lots of broken bones.

Or there's the story of seeing a large, dark creature. He turns, and his eyes, they're the eyes of Cain! The Spirit whispers, "Stay away." You run.

But there's positive tales out there: It's World War II, and a weary soldier asks a stranger when this cursed war will end. The stranger gives a date. The war ends on that date. It must have been one of the Three Nephites!

I'm taking those yarns, which pop up everywhere, with lots of salt. We've all heard them. But all have a firmer provenance. 

I'm not skeptical of visits from the spirit world, good and bad. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religion that preaches personal revelation. That includes the belief that we can sense, even see and commune -- rarely -- with spirits both dead and yet to be born. On a personal note, I have never had a vision or heard a voice, but I believe I have felt the unseen, spiritual presence/love/support from my deceased son, and my deceased parents. My mother believed she saw the profile of Jesus Christ in the Los Angeles Latter-day Saint temple. Over decades I've shared experiences --- mostly with LDS peers --- of what we felt, heard or saw. And, I even claim to have sensed and felt negative spirits during my life.

It doesn't make us odd -- it makes us Mormons. 

Erin Stiles is a professor at University of Nevada, Reno. She was raised in Cache County, located in northern Utah. She has authored a new, fascinating book, "The Devil Sat on My Bed -- Encounters with the Spirit World in Northern Utah," Oxford University Press, 2024.

Stiles is not a member of the LDS Church, but through her life experiences and research she has a strong understanding of Mormon culture. As she notes, spiritual encounters underscore a type of collective salvation, members of a familial lineage -- alive, dead or not yet born -- working in tandem to influence or prod family members through what Mormons call The Plan of Salvation.

Stiles recounts examples, gleaned through personal interviews and research through archives. One is a long-deceased mother who communicates to her daughter through voice and text messages. In one message, the deceased mother laments that she didn't spend more time with her daughter. Others include adults who talk about meeting spiritual children. Later a child is born who resembles the spirit. 

These good spirits often have names, or the living person senses they are a descendant, and later discovers that to be the case.

As noted, Mormons tend to see morality as a concept and righteousness as a verb. That helps understand why Mormons are receptive to spiritual encounters. Mormonism regards works as paired with faith in receiving a degree of salvation or higher. The spirit world is divided between a type of paradise and "spirit prison." The latter is not really a prison. It represents people who need to be taught Latter-day Saint principles and ordinances of the Gospel. Under Mormon theology, it makes sense to continue religious duties after death. I can't tell you how many times I have heard at LDS funerals where someone will remark that "Brother or Sister (so and so) are really busy teaching the Gospel" in the spirit world.

Temple work is important in the LDS faith because it's designed to provide the deceased a choice to follow what LDS faithful believe are covenants necessary toward a higher degree of salvation, called exaltation. As Stiles notes, it is always a choice of the person. It's not a decree. The idea of agency is important within the faith. 

For that reason, unsurprisingly, Stiles has gathered accounts of spiritual encounters within temples, interaction with spirits who have chosen to receive the post-mortal ordinances. I found fascinating accounts of people performing baptisms for the dead seeing spiritual people watching the baptisms. After every baptism, a spirit would leave, presumably satisfied with his or her baptism.

One of the accounts recall a child spirit left alone after the series of baptisms. This child, seen by one of those performing the ordinance, appeared very distraught. The officiator was asked to review the list of deceased slated for proxy baptism. It was discovered the man had missed one to be baptized. Once that occurred, the child spirit left.

I remember one of my late sisters telling me that she had conversed with the deceased spirit of one of our aunts, who died when I was very young. She eagerly conversed with my sibling, still a child. Frankly, I believe her. These are not carnival tricks to Latter-day Saints. Spiritual encounters occur, as the book notes, to guide those on earth, to protect them, and -- most in my opinion -- to comfort. Expressions of love extend beyond the grave.

As Stiles notes, adversarial spiritual encounters are generally nameless. They include demons on beds, bad ouija board experiences, encounters with Cain. There are many accounts of missionaries dealing with bad spirits. Although the term demon is often used in popular culture, most Mormons would regard these visitors as being rebellious spirits who aligned with the devil, Lucifer, in the pre-existence and were cast out to -- ironically earth. They were denied bodies. Mormon theology considers the number to be a third of all people created.

An example in the book involves unseen spirit women who were whispering to missionaries late at night. The sounds were so loud the missionaries faced accusations of having girls in their rooms. I'm not sure about this one. It may derive from sexual frustration. However, as a missionary myself, we swapped tales of dealing with the adversary.  Another involves rebellious spirits attempting to enter the Logan LDS temple. This is a well-traveled tale. The spirits are stopped, but in some accounts do manage to disrupt temple activities. *

In both cases, males in the Mormon faith used what is called Priesthood authority to cast out the renegade spirits. The patriarchal culture of Mormonism provides near-absolute authority to males in ecclesiastical matters. Stiles notes that in the early years of the LDS Church, women had much more power to "perform ordinances" before church leaders cracked down on that in the early 20th century. Candid interviews with current members provide evidence that the future may hold a loosening on overly patriarchal attitudes on female participation in Gospel ordinances.

"The Devil Sat On My Bed ..." contains fascinating information. It brings to an academic setting what's long been discussed between families, in pews, in Sunday school, firesides, campouts, sleepovers, family reunions, and so on. What happens in northern Utah really happens just about everywhere in Mormon culture. Hopefully this book, which can be a tough read at times due to its academic style, will lead to more books on spiritual encounters and how they relate to Mormon theology and culture.

* I have no disagreement with Stiles' stance that most adversarial spirits are unnamed. However, I have spoken to a handful of people who have a feeling these bad spirits they encounter are acquaintances, or friends from the pre-existence, but chose to follow Satan. Given Mormon culture, I think that idea is worthy of further study.

Secular appeal helped Utah to be a big hit at 1893 Chicago Congress

 

In contrast to the Mormon Church’s bitter rejection at the 1893 Chicago Parliament of Religions, the territory of Utah was warmly received at the Congress of States and Territories, recounts historian Konden R. Smith in his Journal of Mormon History essay, The Dawning of a New Era: Mormonism and the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893. (Both events were part of the Chicago World’s Fair). As Smith writes, “In contrast to Mormonism’s rejection from the Great all, Utah Territory … was granted the coveted ‘Lot 38’ in the Congress …” Smith adds that Utah was “thrilled.”

“Lot 38” was one of the largest and situated in the middle of the hall. The reason for Utah’s success was simple: Mormons and non-Mormons in the territory — united in a desire to become a state — stayed away from the religious aspects of Utah, and emphasized its secular strengths. As Smith writes, “Its (Utah’s exhibit) central objective was to make a good impression on visitors, creating an image of Utah characterized by its great potential as a valuable future state with exemplary citizens.” 

The successful exhibit focused on “agriculture, mines, manufacturing, fine arts, ethnology and archaeology, education, women’s work, and a bureau of information” from spectators. Ogden Catholic and mineralogist, Dominick Maguire, educated fair attendees on Utah’s minerals. 

The territory promoted its granting of the vote to women as proof of its feminist appeal. Utah’s then-Gov. Caleb W. West, who was not Mormon, dismissed talk of a theological rule in Utah, saying, “In times past there have been struggles and differences, and I mention these only to say that they exist no more. They have been buried and now we bespeak for Utah simply justice,” recounts Smith.

Most notably, the LDS Prophet Wilford W. Woodruff spoke on Utah Day in Chicago, but he spoke not as a religious leader, but as oldest living pioneer, writes Smith. The Congress certainly went a long way toward achieving Utah statehood in three years, and the effort paid off in highly favorable press coverage. The New York Times, for example, dismissing any threats from Mormonism as remants of the now-ended Brigham Young era. 

The Times also derided opponents of Utah statehood as “non-Mormon ministers, who were spouting fears of now-dead policies such as “polygamy,” recounts Smith. Of course, polygamy was not quite gone. It’s amazing that two separate battles were waged by the church; one by itself, the losing effort to include the LDS faith at the Chicago fair; and the other, very successful campaign, with non-Mormons, to promote Utah territory.

As mentioned in the previous post, the Chicago World’s Fair was promoted as the end of the frontier times. In many ways, that is an apt description for the evolution of the Mormon faith. Its determination to be included in national events, its determination to be a state, were in sharp contrast to the church’s anti-government, distrust of external authority it had promoted only a generation or two earlier. 

The current Mormon Church hierarchy is often described — sometimes with admiration, other times less admirably — as having strong public relations skills. Its success at the Congress of States and Territories is proof that today’s promotional skills were inherited from leaders more than 100 years ago. 

The ecuminity between Utah’s Mormons and “gentiles,” Smith explains, was a realization that an end to popular fears and prejudices against the Mormons would benefit all Utah Territory residents.?As Smith also notes, the relatively new Mormon Tabernacle Choir was a big hit in Chicago. The 400-plus members of the Choir performed in Chicago on Sept. 8, 1893, to lots of acclaim, including a favorable review in The Chicago Daily Herald.

It is notable that after the Chicago events were over, Mormon leaders, including George Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow, Francis M. Lyman, and Heber J. Grant, at LDS General Conference in October, ignored the repudiation of the church itself and focused on the positive results of Utah’s exposure at the Congress.

As Smith notes, it was a moment of realization for late 19th century Mormons, “that, if they hoped to accomplish their goals as a people — they could not do so when ‘all hell” raged against them. Rather, Mormons by finding acceptance as American citizens who believed in progress and social reform, sought a position of equality rather than marginalization and oppression.”

In short, the secular triumphed over the theological.

-- Doug Gibson

Originally published in 2011 at StandardBlogs.

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

Utah's first serious presidential candidate — Christensen, not Romney

Utah’s first serious presidential candidate was not Mitt Romney, of course, or even Sen. Orrin Hatch, who ran a weak race in 2000 that ended after he received 1 percent in the Iowa caucus. 

I’ll bet most have no idea that 90 years ago, Utah fielded a presidential candidate that many newspapers — incorrectly — thought might have a shot at winning a few states. His name was Parley Packer Christensen. The Salt Lake City resident was a bachelor, a Unitarian, a former Salt Lake County attorney, and former candidate for U.S. Congress. He was also the Farmer-Labor Party’s 1920 nominee for U.S. president.

A fascinating article by Gaylon L. Caldwell from the October 1960 Utah Historical Quarterly provides loads of great historical information on Christensen’s candidacy. The Salt Lake Tribune mostly criticized and ridiculed Christensen as a defender of labor unions. The Deseret News afforded him more respect. However, according to the article, the Tribune predicted Christensen would carry six states.

Of course, history records that Christensen carried no states. In a days when polls were nonexistent, third parties still under-performed. On election day, Christensen tallied 265,411 votes, finishing fourth behind Republican Party winner Warren Harding, 16,152,200 votes, Democratic Party nominee James M. Cox, 9,147,353 votes, and Socialist Eugene V. Debs, who was in prison, with 919,799 votes. Finishing fifth was Prohibition Party candidate Aaron S. Watkins with 189,408 votes.

As Caldwell points out, “the final tally ... reinforced the old axiom of American politics that new parties begin with a burst of enthusiasm only to fade away.” There is a parallel between the Farmer-Labor Party of 1920 and the post-H. Ross Perot Reform Party. Once a dynamic personality or symbol leaves a third party, the bloom is gone.

How Christensen grabbed the Farmer-Labor nod is really interesting. As Caldwell recounts, it was big news in the summer of 1920 in Chicago at the Farmer-Labor convention, which was populated by a smorgasbord of political movements — left and right — looking for an alternative to the two main parties.

Christensen was a convention leader. There was a “committee of 48” that tried unsuccessfully to recruit a consensus candidate. That’s not surprising since two major contenders were ultra-right-wing automobile maker Henry Ford and the Socialist Debs.

Christensen, a persuasive leader, saw his opportunity and arranged alliances with lesser candidates. He finished second on the first ballot, which eliminated all but the two top finishers. On the second ballot, Christensen easily garnered the nomination. 

Christensen ran an energetic campaign and attracted nationwide press. In the Aug. 1, 1920 New York Times, reporter Charles Welles Thompson wrote, “The Republicans are getting a little uneasy over the unlimited activity of Parley Packer Christensen, the candidate of the Farmer-Labor Party. He seems a most virile and extensive person. ...”

Christensen also criticized the imprisonment of Debs, saying, “Mr. Debs may be utterly wrong in his ideas as how best to conduct the affairs of society, and so may I be and so may you, but my conception of liberty includes the right to think wrong.”

After reading Caldwell’s excellent account, I think another reason Christensen under-performed is that he was too moderate for a third party. Although clearly a liberal, he was not socialist enough to take many votes from Debs, but he was too liberal for Ford supporters, who returned to the Republican Party in the general election.

Nevertheless, Parley Parker Christensen is an individual worthy of our respect. I doubt, however, that his name is mentioned in any school rooms below the college level.

-- Doug Gibson

This column was previously published at StandardNet.

Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith, a review

Review by Doug Gibson

"Brigham Young and the Expansion of the Mormon Faith," 2019, University of Oklahoma Press, follow a more comprehensive biography a few years back from John Turner, "Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet. (Reviewed here)

Thomas C. Alexander is the author of ... Expansion of the Mormon Faith, and despite not being as detailed as Turner's biography -- as part of the Oklahoma Western Biographies series, it lacks footnotes, for example -- it is a very valuable historical and biographical resource, offering insights and accounts of Young's time in Utah that may surprise readers.

The book moves rapidly through Young's life until events after Nauvoo, then it settles down into a much more detailed account of the Mormon prophet's life in Utah. Early in the book, Alexander provides life passages that underscore both Young's learned stances and philosophies on life. For example, he was amicably turned out of his home by his father at age 16 with the admonition to make his way in the world. Also, as a young man, Young was a more radical Methodist, insisting on baptism by immersion and a believer in talking in tongues. In fact, he joined the more radical Reformed Methodists, writes Alexander. For a while, early Mormonism included talking in tongues, of which Young participated in.

As mentioned, the meat of the biography is Young's 30-year tenure as ecclesiastical leader in Utah -- and for a while governor -- although he retained political power even after having to accept territory leaders sent by Washington D.C. Readers who are accustomed to hearing that Young was a forbidding autocrat who brooked no dissent or disobedience from church members will be surprised by Alexander's account. Not infrequently, church members ignored Young's advice. Some examples: Some members Young would call -- from the pulpit -- on missions chose not to serve; some members called to colonize new towns would either not go or return home after a short spell; some merchants would refuse Young's admonitions to not sell or trade with out-of-state, or non-Mormon, merchants; some of Young's ecclesiastical opinions, notably blood atonement and the Adam-God Doctrine, were disputed by members and high church leaders. The latter never gained acceptance, the former appears to be a possibly misunderstood remnant of the Mormon Reformation only.

However, this is not to intend that Alexander's biography is a harsh critique of Young.It's no hagiography either. Alexander notes Young's strong personality and organizational skills. He managed to settle hundreds of colonies through Utah and the rest of the Intermountain West. He retained great loyalty and devotion among members of the Mormon Faith during his tenure. Although he made his share of mistakes, he was enough of a diplomat to endure severe hostility from Washington D.C., non-Mormon territorial leaders, military officials, and dissident Mormons within Utah. His stature, diplomatic skills, and relationships with allies, such as non-Mormon Thomas L. Kane, occasionally assisted his efforts to sway U.S. officials to ease tensions. It's clear that without Brigham Young, the Utah Mormon Faith would likely have splintered apart.

Young had a caustic tongue, and was a strong, talented public speaker who spoke off the cuff a lot. Alexander acknowledges that his rhetoric caused problems. The author accurately notes that Young did not order the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but points out the sharply inappropriate remarks Young made at the site,, talking about revenge being taken. Alexander writes that Young, for years after the massacre, urged federal officials -- to no avail -- to speed their slow investigation.

Alexander does a  great job describing the tension and dangers that swept through Utah during the Utah War in 1857 and the later Black Hawk War. The former inspired a palpable fear in Utah. Salt Lake City was emptied at one point. A tragic error by Young that allowed a Native American ally to be killed by Mormon settlers exacerbated the already deadly Black Hawk War. In both cases Young learned from mistakes, having the presence of mind to negotiate and make concessions in order to achieve peace, however uneasy it may have been.

Young had an idealistically contradictory viewpoints of Native Americans. Believing them as meant to be part of the restored gospel, he wanted to keep them close to settlers. This clashed with the goal of obtaining more land and resources for settlements. These conflicts flared into violence, with Young sometimes sanctioning the deaths of Native Americans. At the same time, he was angry at settlers who dealt harshly with Native Americans. Eventually, Native Americans were moved away onto reservations, with monetary promises from the federal government that were largely reneged on.

Young's discourses are covered well in the book. On issues, he was progressive for his times on women's role in society. He supported suffrage; Utah territory provided the vote to women. He also routinely granted divorce to women who requested it. Despite his own limited education, he implemented a strong education system, including BYU, University of Utah and LDS Business College. He also strongly supported the arts in Utah society, favoring concerts and stage productions. In fact, he called church members to be in the arts, prompting (appropriate) complaints that they needed to be paid for their time and efforts,

The book provides familial details of Young's family life among his many spouses and children. In the Beehive and other houses, daily family spiritual time was mandated. Alexander notes Young's occasional chagrin that some family occasionally missed those spiritual hours.

His final years, as Alexander notes, were accompanied by increasing health problems. One of his final public acts was the dedication of the St. George Temple. Too weak to stand during the ceremonies, Young was carried throughout the building and spoke seated. He also did a lot of church reorganization in the final years, including ranking apostle leadership by ordination rather than age.

Alexander's biography is relatively easy to read. There's much more than I summarized. I was surprised by some of the details of Young's mind and life that I learned from the book. The Young depicted, while flawed as any other man, is both pragmatic, eager to learn more, and learned from his mistakes.

Young was struck ill in the summer of 1877 and died soon afterward. According to Alexander, although his health was poor many today believe he died of appendicitis, which was not diagnosed as such in that time.

Parts of the biography that stand out are the accounts of the Utah War, the Mormon Reformation, the Mountain Meadows Massacre and its aftermath, the Black Hawk War, a section on Young's discourses, and accounts of the prophet's family life.

When Socialism was popular with Mormons and Utah

Mormons, as well as the state of Utah, have been identified as conservative/Republican for so long that it may surprise many to know that 100 years ago more than a few Mormons in Utah were card-carrying socialists, rallying against the evils of capitalism.

No, socialists were never the majority in Utah, nor were most socialists in Utah LDS, but in the years between 1900 and 1920, the Socialist Party in Utah enjoyed some triumphs.

In the early 20th century, about 40 percent of the members of the Utah Socialist Party were LDS. There were many thousands of socialists in Utah, which was only one of 18 states that had socialists in its state legislature. In fact, there were nine socialist publications in Utah, with the largest, The Intermountain Worker, boasting a circulation of 5,000.

If you can find the spring, 1985 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, John R. Sillito (of Weber State University) and John S. McCormick (of the Utah State Historical Society), provide the interesting information on the rise and fall of the Utah and LDS socialists. Utah socialists controlled the entire administrations in Bingham, Murray and twice in Eureka. The demographics of Utah’s socialists mirrored the national party at that time. The Socialist Party peaked in 1912, with presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs getting close to 1 million votes.

Eureka, a mining town, was the center of socialist success. According to Sillito and McCormick, They write, “In 1907, the voters of Eureka elected Wilford Woodruff Freckleton to the city council as a socialist. Halfway through his term. Mormon Church authorities called him on a mission to England. Upon his return two years later, he resumed his involvement in the Socialist Party and in 1917 was again elected to the city council on the socialist ticket.

A.L. Porter, a Mormon and prominent Springville socialist, wrote this declaration of beliefs that was unearthed Springville High School gymnasium, dedicated in 1931 (Porter was the janitor): “Our political faith is Socialism, our religious faith is (Mormon) the Latter-day Saints. We are living under capitalism and the wealth of the world is privately owned by individuals ... but this building is collectively owned by the community ... It is built by wage slavery as all labor at this point in history is ...”

In 1981, the authors recount, the opening of the cornerstone of the Gila Stake Academy in Thatcher, Ariz., revealed a socialist manifesto written by a prominent Mormon of that period, George W. Williams, who helped construct the building. Williams, born in Toquerville, Utah, firmly stated his beliefs, including, “millions are walking the streets of our large cities seeking employment. The capitalists who own the machinery of governments are using every means under their control to hold in check the rise of the workers who are beginning to show their strength ...” Williams “expected those who read his statement in the future to ‘be living in the light of a better day,’” write Sillito and McCormick.

More than 100 socialists were elected in Utah in 19 communities during that era, but by 1920 the movement had already peaked and socialism began its slide into irrelevance that remains today. Sillito and McCormick offer three reasons why the socialist movement waned in Utah. The first was the memory of the unsuccessful United Order socialist-like communities. While the United Order doctrine attracted some Mormons to socialism, its failures also led to a lack of enthusiasm for a collective society.

The second reason cited is that many non-LDS socialists were very critical of the Mormon Church and its cultural and political influences within the state. One prominent Utah socialist, Murray B. Schick, in a national socialist newspaper, harshly criticized the church for its emerging movements into the corporate world.

History has proven Schick correct, at least from a socialist perspective, but his and others’ critiques turned off many active Mormons from socialism.

The third reason, according to Sillito and McCormick, is that the LDS Church was moving toward a more free-enterprise, capitalistic institution. “Mormon leaders ... were clearly, if unofficially, anti-socialist, just as they were anti-union...,” write the authors.

The growth of Utah socialism clashed with the LDS Church’s deliberate decision to try to move into the mainstream of American society. In that kind of battle, at least in Utah, the Socialist Party was no match for the Mormon Church.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNet

Charles Shuster Zane was a fair judge Mormons loved to hate

Ever heard of Utah territorial Chief Justice Charles Shuster Zane? He’s one of those fascinating footnotes in history. Appointed in 1884 to administer justice in Utah, the New Jersey Quaker was a respected Illinois lawyer who rubbed shoulders in the same circles that Abraham Lincoln inhabited. Zane was a circuit judge when appointed to the Utah bench by President Chester A. Arthur. 

His tenure was stormy. The dominant Latter-day Saints disliked Zane because he thoroughly enforced the laws against polygamy. He imprisoned men and polygamous wives that he discovered were living “the Principle.” Zane also was heard to publicly proclaim polygamy an abomination. The judge was enforcing the Edmunds law, which was designed to go after Utah Mormons on the polygamy issue. 

According to an article on Zane in the fall 1966 issue of Utah Historical Quarterly, then-BYU professor Thomas G. Alexander cited the following negative assessment of Zane from LDS historians B.H. Roberts and Orson F. Whitney: “Judge Zane ... will stand classed ... in that history as sharing in responsibility for the cruelty and injustice of that regime, which marks the saddest period of Utah’s history. ... Judge Zane never divorced himself from his deepseated prejudice and vindictiveness against ... [the Mormon] offenders and their religious faith, ... his object was the overthrow of Mormonism as a religion.”

Those are harsh words, and they come from Roberts’ “Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and Whitney’s “History of Utah.” But they’re also not true. In his Utah Historical Quarterly article, Alexander takes a long look at Zane’s judicial philosophy while in Utah, and discovers a tough but fair judge who was scrupulously following the law. In other words, Zane was not the judicial activist many Mormons had hoped would look the other way at laws designed to hamper their religious beliefs.

In fact, Zane made many lower-profile decisions that helped the Mormon church, which was constantly facing nuisance lawsuits from the energetic anti-Mormon “gentile” faction of Utah, which had as its mouthpiece “The Salt Lake Tribune.” For example, Zane ruled in favor of local, Mormon public schools receiving tax monies, rejecting lawsuits that they sectarian schools that taught treason. Zane was a big believer in public education, and the rights of local communities to make educational decisions. 

Also, Zane resisted efforts by gentiles in Utah to swing elections through malicious efforts. He sided with the People’s Party, an LDS party, in its accusation that members of the gentile Liberal Party had tried to stuff ballots in an 1890 school election. In fact, Zane even allowed, over gentile objections, voting by Mormon men who had engaged in obviously sham “spiritual divorces” from their polygamous wives. That shows a lot of tolerance for the Mormon religious mores.

In fact, when Zane finally jailed men and polygamous wives, it was only after every effort to prosecute, or resolve, the situation, had been attempted. There’s no doubt that Zane’s judicial decrees ailed many prominent Utah Mormons. Zane had the — perhaps — misfortune of assuming the bench when enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws was at its most intense. And he was determined to obey the letter of the law. Alexander adds that whenever a guilty plea came in, Zane was likely to fine, rather than jail the polygamist.

Another ruling, disliked by the LDS majority, was Zane’s decision to allow lawyers to question Mormons on naturalization, or citizenship, protests. As Alexander notes, this was a big issue as the Mormons were energetic missionaries overseas and the converts migrated to Utah. However, Zane did offer the Mormons an olive branch by requiring that the district attorney question prospective citizens, rather than anti-Mormon lawyers, explains Alexander.

After the 1890 Manifesto against polygamy, Zane’s attitude on the practice became more relaxed. Alexander recounts that he accepted the promise by LDS Church President Wilford W. Woodruff and later published an article in Forum magazine where he stated, according to Alexander, “that the Mormon problem (polygamy) was at an end because the Mormons had resolved to obey the law.”

The tenure of Zane was an example of a judge diligently following the law in a rugged, still frontier-like territory and angering both sides. Because the high-profile cases went against the majority Mormons, he was vilified long after his death in 1915. It would be fascinating to read a more in-depth look at his tenure as Utah territory’s chief justice.

--- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardNET

Morrisite War was a bloody little event in 1860s Top of Utah

In the small northern community of South Weber, Utah, a monument was erected to the Morrisite War, a small but deadly 1862 battle between a group of Mormon apostates and the territorial militia comprised of Mormons. The Morrisite War is no secret, but it’s faded to a footnote in history. Its irony can’t be disputed, however. Just as the upstart Latter-day Saints had received ire from the dominant religions of the East and Midwest two decades-plus earlier, an angry, Christ-seeking offshoot of Mormonism located in the heart of Utah got its fair share of retribution from an outraged dominant Mormon populace.

There is a Wikipedia page and a short history at the Utah History Encyclopedia from Cache County historian Kenneth Godfrey (read), but an entertaining, if not complete, account of the Morrisite War is offered by Josiah Francis Gibbs in his 1909 book, “Lights and Shadows of Mormonism,” and available at Google Books. As Gibbs recounts, a Welsh convert to the LDS Church, Joseph Morris, grew frustrated that Mormon leader Brigham Young, who published only a few revelations, “placed more reliance on the guidance of his own active brains than on the indefinite, intangible, and uncertain ‘impressions’ on one’s mind, called revelations.” Therefore, Morris decided he was a prophet, failed to recruit Young to his cause, but did manage to convince a group of Saints on the Weber River “of the divinity of his, Morris’, mission.” He and others were soon excommunicated and forbidden from trading with nearby Mormon neighbors.

A problem soon developed with the prophet “Joe Morris.” It’s a common thorn for those who claim divine insider information — Morris was frequently wrong. On several occasions Morris left his flock disappointed when his claims on when exactly Christ would return went unfulfilled. Not surprisingly, these failed revelations winnowed the flock some.

Because the Morrisites pooled their resources, those leaving often squabbled with the faithful over how much they were allowed to reclaim. Also, the Morrisites put more faith in their leader’s revelations than food storage. Gibbs writes, “As the date for the arrival of the Saviour drew near, the Morrisites ceased all unnecessary labor, and devoted their time to public worship.”

With supplies low and hunger becoming a real problem, three Morrisite apostates, William Jones, John Jensen, and Lars C. Geertsen, took more from the community pool than Morris and his followers thought was fair. The Morrisites intercepted them and took the trio prisoner. One, Geertsen, escaped. The others, due to the efforts of their wives, received a court order from Chief Justice John F. Kinney mandating their release. Morris ignored the writ and gathered his followers in a lean-to fort — that included a chapel/schoolhouse — to meet any force that opposed them.

They were not disappointed. As Gibbs writes, “A requisition was made on Governor John W. Dawson for the use of the militia to aid the marshal in serving the writ. General Robert T. Burton, a prominent Mormon, and subsequently bishop of the 15th ecclesiastical ward, Salt Lake City, commanded the posse.” One part of the 1,000-posse was a militia from Ogden.

Most of the posse made its way to South Weber. The 200 to 500 Morrisites burrowed down, confident that Christ would appear at any moment and vanquish their oppressors. But, again, Christ was busy. An initial bombardment from Burton’s posse wounded a girl, 15, and killed two women. Also in the initial attack, the only non-Morrisite casualty, 19-year-old posse member Jared Smith, was killed. For three days, Burton’s posse sporadically attacked the Morrisites, who quickly ran out of food, arms, warmth and faith. The Morrisites, writes Gibbs, finally “hoisted the white flag.”

Ordered to stack their remaining arms by Burton at the square near the fort/school/church, most Morrisites did this. However, the Prophet Morris and a few diehard followers, including women, chose that time to make a holy dash for the remaining weapons. As Gibbs writes, “Morris’ frenzied cry: ‘Follow me, and see the salvation of the Lord.’ was the signal for a rush for the stacked arms. Burton and his staff spurred their horses into the rushing crowd and when the smoke cleared away, Joseph Morris was dead — a martyr to his faith; (John) Banks was mortally wounded. A woman was also killed, said to have been shot by Burton because she upbraided him for shooting Morris, but which is almost incredible. Banks died the ensuing evening.”

That was the end of the Morrisites on the Weber River. The slain prophet’s followers were taken to Salt Lake City. Gibbs recounts, “The male Morrisite Saints were marched into Salt Lake City, and were about the most forlorn, mud-bespattered procession that ever tramped the earth — the wretched victims of maximum faith and minimum brains.”

There were repercussions to the bloody uprising. Eventually, seven Morrisites were convicted of second-degree murder and more than 65 convicted of resisting the posse. However, all were pardoned a few days after the trial. In another event — one that underscores the tensions of that era between Mormons and secular authorities — Burton was tried for the murder of one Morrisite woman, Isabella Bowman. He was acquitted.

History tells us that the Morrisites scattered after the South Weber war. Most ended up in Montana. The last remnants of Morris’ church died off 40-plus years ago. History buffs can see what is likely the last Morrisite chapel. It’s visible in Racetrack, Montana, on the west side of Interstate 90 south of Deer Lodge. Wikipedia has a picture.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

Utah’s first presidential vote was a landslide for the Democrat

Originally published in 2010 but not much has changed.

Utah voters have been reliably Republican in presidential elections for more than 40 years now. In fact, only once since 1948 — Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 — has the Democratic candidate carried the Beehive State.

It seems highly unlikely that President Obama will carry Utah in 2012, but it hasn’t always been that way. In fact, in 1896, the first time Utah voted for president, Democrat William Jennings Bryan (above) carried almost 83 percent of the vote against Republican William McKinley, who won the general election. The fundamentalist Bryan’s appeal was not his faith, but his support of unlimited coinage of silver. Utah and other “silver states,” such as Nevada, went big for the Democrats. However, four years later incumbent McKinley nosed out Bryan in Utah with 50.5 percent of the vote. A better economy helped the Republicans.

In 1916, Utah supported incumbent President Woodrow Wilson over Republican Charles Evans Hughes by an easy 20-point margin. However, beginning in 1920 Utah voted Republican for three state presidential elections.

Democrats longest dominance in Utah presidential politics began in 1932 with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (below) over incumbent Herbert Hoover. The still young Great Depression made Republicans as toxic in Utah as the party was in many other parts of the nation. In fact, 1932 also saw the re-election loss in Utah of famed Republican U.S. Sen.  Reed Smoot. The longtime incumbent Smoot, who was an apostle in the Mormon Church, lost badly to Democratic challenger Elbert Thomas.

Roosevelt would carry Utah in all four of his presidential elections. As an incumbent, Roosevelt’s support never sunk below 60 percent of Utah voters. To provide an idea of Utah Democratic Party dominace during the Roosevelt era, the online Utah History Encyclopedia reports that in the Utah Legislature, there were 45 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the House, and 18 Democrats and 5 Republicans in the Senate.

That was likely the peak of Democrats’ success in Utah but the party continued its presidential success in 1948 with a narrow win by Harry S. Truman over Thomas Dewey. However, the next three presidential elections saw GOP wins in Utah by victor Dwight D. Eisenhower and 1960 loser Richard Nixon.

As mentioned, 1964 was the last presidential win by a Democrat in Utah. President Johnson’s landslide over Republican Barry Goldwater — who at the time was considered an extremist — was echoed in Utah, where Johnson carried almost 55 percent of the vote, or 6 points fewer than his national tally.

The next election started the long slide for Utah Democrats. Nixon swamped Democrat nominee Hubert H. Humphrey and Democrats in the state Legislature lost their majority status. Things have only gotten worse in the last four decades. Even in years where Democrats have won, including 2008, the Democratic Party candidate has stayed mired in the low to mid 30s support.

The issues of the mid 1960s to the early to mid 1970s — the peace movement, gay rights, abortion, the Vietnam War, the Equal Rights Amendment, other women’s rights issues, affirmative action, welfare — probably played a huge role in moving Mormons to the Republican Party. Whereas Utah Mormons had coalesced behind Democratic Party principles of ending the Depression, fighting a World War and providing security for working families, the post-1964 social, secular and extreme liberal shift in focus moved them away permanently.

Abortion, for example, is an issue wedded to the Democratic Party in Utah. No matter how that may frustrate Utah Democrats, it is nevertheless a reality.

Many Democrats compare the recently passed health care reform law to previous Democratic initiatives such as Social Security and Medicare.

It will be interesting to see if these accomplishments by President Obama move some Utah voters back to the party of FDR. Right now, I’d bet against that happening.

The Web sites Utah.media.edu (Allen Kent Powell’s article “Elections in the State of Utah) and uselectionatlas.org were among sources for this article.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published long ago in StandardBlogs