Apocryphal Hale vision underscores LDS passion for baptism for the dead

With my faith’s practice of baptism for the dead, in my opinion, so misunderstood, it was interesting that this five-page Heber Q. Hale “vision” fell on my desk. It alleges to be a divine vision of the spirit world that Hale, president of the Boise, Idaho, stake almost 100 years ago, received between midnight to 7:30 a.m. on Jan. 20, 1920. Also, Hale is alleged to have delivered the account of his vision in October 1920 at an LDS “Genealogical Conference” in Salt Lake City.

Journalism has hardened my skepticism, and I was prepared to chuckle over Hale’s account. Instead, the account moved me. Maybe it’s because I have an infant son who died, and Hale offers words that would comfort LDS parents who have experienced the death of a young child. Also, the Hale “vision” provides a traditional representation of how Latter-day Saints perceive the afterlife. The Mormon belief in restored Gospel, priesthood authority, necessity of baptism, confirmation, temple ordinances, and other keys and requirements to eternal progression, are underscored in Hale’ comforting “vision.”

It’s such a fun bit of Mormon lore, the Hale “vision,” that it’s almost a shame to throw cold water on it. BYU-Idaho-approved or not, it’s at best apocryphal second- or third-hand stuff, at worst a deliberate hoax. Contributor J. Stapley at the Mormon blog bycommonconsent does a capable job of investigating the Hale “vision." Read the comments too. There’s no record of this account in Hale family books, no record of a “genealogy conference” in Salt Lake City, and other “supporting” material provides names and titles that don’t check out. As one comment on the blog noted, it’s amazing how often Mormons will ignore the canonized examples of modern-day visions, such as Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the Celestial Kingdom, and obsess over the “White Horse Prophecy,” or our current subject.

Having established that the Hale Vision should not be LDS-approved curriculum, I don’t believe it’s a malicious hoax. It sounds like a dream that a deeply religious individual, very versed in Mormon history and theology, may have had. Whether the dream was Hale’s, who died in 1969, or was simply attached to his name, who knows? Hale was born in 1880, early enough to be influenced by how strongly dreams were attached to religious experiences from the 19th century into the 20th century. The LDS Prophet Wilford Woodruff, as Stapley notes, constantly cataloged his dreams. A denunciation of spiritualism and seances from Hale, who asserts those are wicked spirits toying with the foolish, sounds like it would have come from that era. Frankly, I would not be surprised if there were many Latter-day Saints who experienced dreams similar to the Hale Vision.

But I digress. Whoever penned the vision, there are segments that underscore why Mormons believe so fervently in baptism for the dead. I’ll start with one segment that tore at my heart, when infant children are observed. It reads, “I was surprised to find there no babies in arms. I met the infant son of Orson W. Rawlings, my first counselor. I immediately recognized him as the baby who died a few years ago, and yet he seemed to have the intelligence and, in certain respect, the appearance of an adult, and was engaged in matters pertaining to his family and its genealogy. My mind was quite contented upon the point that mothers will again receive into their arms their children who died in infancy and will be fully satisfied, but the fact remains that entrance into the world of spirits is not an inhibition of growth but the greatest opportunity of development. Babies are adult spirits in infant bodies.”

The concept of life, death, and the spirit world as distinct levels of eternal life is captured here: “I passed but a short distance from my body through a film into the world of spirits. This was my first experience after going to sleep. I seemed to realize that I had passed through the change called death and I so referred to it in my conversation with the immortal beings with whom I immediately came into contact. I readily observed their displeasure at our use of the word death and the fear which we attach to it. They use there another word in referring to the transition from mortality to immortality, which word I don’t recall and I can only approach its meaning and the impression which was left upon my mind, by calling it ’the New Birth.’”

The veil, a term used often by Latter-day Saints to indicate how close, yet separate life’s existence is from the spirit world, is exemplified in this paragraph, “My first visual impression was the nearness of the world of spirits to the world of mortality. The vastness of this heavenly sphere was bewildering to the eyes of the spirit-novice. Many enjoyed unrestricted vision, and unimpeded action, while many others were visibly restricted as to both vision and action. The vegetation and landscape were beautiful beyond description; not all green as here, but gold with varying shades of pink, orange, and lavender as the rainbow. A sweet calmness pervaded everything. The people I met there I did not think of as spirits, but as men and women, self-thinking and self-acting individuals, going about important business in a most orderly manner. There was perfect order there and everybody had something to do and seemed to be about their business.”

The concept of family, which lasts forever, far beyond earth, is in this short graph: “As I passed forward, I soon met my beloved mother. She greeted me most affectionately and expressed surprise at seeing me there, and reminded me that I had not completed my allotted mission on earth. She seemed to be going somewhere and was in a hurry and, accordingly, took her leave with saying that she would see me soon again.”

The busyness or Mormon afterlife, the hustle and bustle of making sure that all the required ordinances of the Gospel are met, are found in this segment, which frankly explains baptism for the dead as well as any LDS general authority talking in a conference could: “All men and women were appointed to special and regular service under a well organized plan of action, directed principally toward preaching the gospel to the unconverted, teaching those who seek knowledge and establishing family relationships and gathering genealogies for the use and benefit of mortal survivors of their respective families, that the work of baptism and the sealing ordinances may be vicariously performed for the departed in the temples of God upon the earth. The authorized representatives of families in the world of spirits have access to our temple records and are kept fully advised of the work done therein, but the vicarious work done here does not become automatically effective.

The recipients must first believe, repent and accept baptism and confirmation; then certain consummating ordinances are performed effectualizing these saving principles in the lives of those regenerated beings. And so the great work is going on — they are doing a work there which we cannot do here, and we a work here which they cannot do there, for the salvation of all God’s children who will be saved.”

As doctrine or canon, the Hale vision is, appropriately, officially as inconsequential as the latest “Three Nephites” tale or “Satan as Bigfoot harassing Utah pioneers” account. It could even be a wonderfully moving piece of fiction designed to deceive. But it does a decent job of explaining why we Mormons are running around baptizing all the relatives of so many non-Mormons. I don’t think it would hurt if those outraged over the baptisms read Hale’s “vision.”

-- Doug Gibson

This column was originally published at StandardBlogs.

Book of Mormon biography charts its existence, influence

In “The Book of Mormon: A Biography,” (Princeton University Press, 2012) author Paul C. Gutjahr notes that critiques and evaluations of Mormonism’s most important book have moved simple two-way, primarily theological debates between Mormon apologists and mostly evangelical critics who opposed the book for its claims of being holy scripture. As Gutjahr writes, including his own, slim but scholarly volume as one example, “By the early twenty-first century it was finally escaping the narrow confines of Mormon/non-Mormon religious debate as it increasingly came to be treated as an important text in American culture more generally.”

“The Book of Mormon” has inflamed passions, and interests from the moment the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith announced he was translating scripture that detailed a history of the Americas. Gutjahr charts how the book came to be, while adding some details that will come as news to many. One example: while at the printer’s shop of E.B. Grandin, copies of the Book of Nephi were lifted and printed in a local periodical. Smith warned the publisher of the legal consequences of the printing, and publication of the excerpts ceased.

“The Book of Mormon” was preceded, Gutjahr, explains, by an era when religious leaders sought to get the Holy Bible into as many American homes as possible. Its advertisement as additional scripture, as well as its egalitarian, democratic, and patriotic message, certainly helped it gain adherents in the individualistic, very religious U.S. frontier.

Readers will be interested to know that for the latter half of the 19th century, and well into the 20th century, The Book of Mormon’s importance was overshadowed by The Bible. Gutjahr notes in that the Southern States Mission, President Ben E. Rich, an LDS apostle, intentionally featured The Bible over the Mormon scripture, realizing that converts needed to be familiar with scripture that they were comfortable with. However, putting less emphasis on The Book of Mormon turned into a problem for LDS Church leaders in the 20th century as some professors at Brigham Young University, the church-run university, began advocating the theories that scripture, whether Bible or Book of Mormon, was largely fictional accounts designed to teach Gospel concepts. Church leaders, writes Gutjahr, worried that they were failing the Lord’s command to be stewards of The Book of Mormon, re-energized emphasis on The Book of Mormon, removed professors who doubted the book’s veracity from BYU, and gradually through the 20th Century elevated the status of The Book of Mormon to the point that today it is clearly the primary book of scripture of Mormonism. Members are repeatedly urged to read it often.

The importance of The Book of Mormon to Mormon culture and theology, explains Gutjahr, is underscored by how it is translated. The book is translated in literally dozens of languages (there is a list of translations in the book). The LDS Church trains all of its translators to use the conservative formal equivalency method of translation, which dictates a precise, word-by-word translation. Not used is functional equivalency translation, which is designed to capture the spirit of a book being translated. As Gutjahr writes, “The Church wishes each of its Book of Mormon translations to retain as much as possible the sentence structure, phrasing, and idioms of the original language.”

There is a direct contrast between the biographies of the larger Salt Lake City-based Mormon Church and its Midwestern brother, the formerly named Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the Reorganized Church maintained a greater emphasis on The Book of Mormon, as well as Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, than the Mormons did for well more than a century, the past couple of generations have seen a reversal: With the LDS Church doubling down with its emphasis on The Book of Mormon and the reorganized church, while remaining fond of Smith’s discovery, downgrading its importance and doubting its veracity. In fact, the reorganized church has abandoned most Mormon-specific theology, opened its offering of the sacrament to non-members and has changed its name to Community of Christ, joining mainstream Protestantism.

Gutjahr devotes parts of the book to the Mormon Church’s challenges of apologetics of The Book of Mormon. This has become difficult, as expeditions and DNA studies have failed to yield evidences that support the scripture. However, there is scholarly research devoted to defending the Book of Mormon’s claims. Its central hub is the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU. One evolutionary theory that differs from past defenses is that the entire Book of Mormon occurs in a very small portion of the Americans, primarily in Mexico and Central America, and does not deal with events in other parts of the continent.

Gutjahr includes chapters that deal with the Book of Mormon’s influence on art and film. Readers won’t be surprised at reading commentary on the iconic, masculine images created by Arnold Friberg but the more feminine Book of Mormon art of Minerva Teichert (1888-1976) is also discussed. Teichert’s softer depictions, which placed more emphasis on women (almost ignored in The Book of Mormon) and children, were largely ignored during her life but have recently gained prominence due to their display at BYU.

The chapter on films is fascinating. Readers will wish they could find a copy of the lost 1915 silent, “The Life of Nephi:” a still is shown from the book. And I would love to see a print of the 1930 film, “Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love.” This film, which dramatizes the sexual sins of Book of Mormon prophet Alma’s son, Corianton, included songs from The Mormon Tabernacle Choir. However, church leaders were distressed to discover that the pre-Hays morality code film contained nude shots of the actress who portrayed the harlot Isabel. (Alma: chapter 39)

The recent film, “Book of Mormon Movie Vol. 1, The Journey,” is examined. Gutjahr posits that the box office failure of the film — no sequel was filmed — is due to its direct faithfulness to the book. On the screen, formal equivalency, without nuance or character expansion, leads to dullness. This reviewer’s take on BOM’s “The Journey” is footnoted by Gutjahr, who writes, “One reviewer found the movie so boring that he parodied Mark Twain’s famous characterization of The Book of Mormon by calling (director Gary) Rogers’s motion picture ‘chloroform on film.’” Alas, it was. The LDS Church needs a Cecil B. DeMille to make a great Book of Mormon film adaptation.

In Gutjahr’s opinion, the best adaptations of the Mormon scripture are on the stage, where the enthusiasm of the actors are evident. He cites the many pageants that LDS faithful have produced, noting the famous Hill Cumorah Pageant. He also cites the success of the irreverent but widely acclaimed “Book of Mormon: The Musical” Broadway play.

The Broadway success of Joseph Smith’s “Gold Bible,” completely divorced from any Mormon involvement, stands as the best evidence that The Book of Mormon, while treasured by the LDS faithful, now belongs to the rest of the world. “The Book of Mormon: A Biography,” is a suitable serious secular introduction to this iconic book.

-- Doug Gibson

Originally published at StandardBlogs

LDS doctrine on gathering of scattered Israel has shifted

In Sunday School class, there was some debate, and mild concern, when the teacher explained to students that there is not a specific physical transfer of the lost tribes of Israel to one location in the USA. One student, a former bishop, pointed to The Articles of Faith, number 10, which reads, “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”

Another elderly student pointed out that the Lord had revealed that the waters of the earth would open up and allow the gathered tribes of Israel to walk on dry land to the American continent for the final gathering.” He’s right; if one reads Doctrine and Covenants, Section 133, Verses 26 and 27, which read, “And they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their prophets shall hear his voice, and shall no longer stay themselves; and they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence.

“And an highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep.”

Let me backtrack a bit now and explain a piece of Mormon lore that every active Mormon over the age of 30, as well as many others who are younger, has heard. It’s that one day, the Lord, through the prophet, will call on ALL the Saints to put aside their lives and with their families gather in Jackson County, Missouri, to await the Second Coming of Christ. In my lifetime, I have heard countless discussions about the future global migration and speculations about how many of the Saints will have the faith to follow the prophet and head to Jackson County.

In fact, I’d place the restoration of scattered Israel and the ensuing migration as one of the most appealing doctrinal beliefs of Mormonism. It provides a preview of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and specific instructions on how to receive the return of the Lord. It’s a testament to its popularity that several years after the restoration of Israel doctrine shifted in its interpretation, that many of the church’s members still adhere to the migration belief, and are unaware of, or fail to remember, an important LDS General Conference address, in 2006, by LDS Apostle, and future church president, Russell M. Nelson.

The discourse, titled, “The Gathering of Scattered Israel,” subtly shifts the participation in the Gathering as “A Commitment by Covenant.” Nelson explains near the end of the address:

“The choice to come unto Christ is not a matter of physical location; it is a matter of individual commitment. People can be “brought to the knowledge of the Lord” without leaving their homelands. True, in the early days of the Church, conversion often meant emigration as well. But now the gathering takes place in each nation. The Lord has decreed the establishment of Zion in each realm where He has given His Saints their birth and nationality. Scripture foretells that the people ‘shall be gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise.’ ‘Every nation is the gathering place for its own people.’ The place of gathering for Brazilian Saints is in Brazil; the place of gathering for Nigerian Saints is in Nigeria; the place of gathering for Korean Saints is in Korea; and so forth. Zion is “the pure in heart.” Zion is wherever righteous Saints are. Publications, communications, and congregations are now such that nearly all members have access to the doctrines, keys, ordinances, and blessings of the gospel, regardless of their location.

“Spiritual security will always depend upon how one lives, not where one lives. Saints in every land have equal claim upon the blessings of the Lord.”

It’s interesting that Nelson uses Scriptures, including the Doctrine and Covenants and The Book of Mormon, as support for his statements. I have no problem with Nelson’s re-interpretation of the Gathering of Scattered Israel. With the international growth of the church over the past three generations or so, the migration of millions of Saints to one portion of the USA is impossible. (I also understand that many of my fellow LDS believers will argue that the doctrine has not changed, that the literal migration will occur during the Millennium, or that the literal restoration was always meant to be a spiritual one.)

That’s bunk, though. Scriptures and doctrinal revelations are meant for our religious comprehension, and often cannot be relied on for scientific or historical verification. And, in a church that claims continuous revelation, the meaning of doctrines can shift. It is a fact that the migration of the scattered tribes was taught as one that would be a a specific physical trek from across the world to the United States.

Here’s a excerpt from the once-popular LDS religious book, “Prophecy and Modern Times,” by W. Cleon Skousen. The publisher was Deseret Book. The book’s forward was written by then-LDS Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, a future LDS Church president and prophet. On page 56, it reads:

“Mountains, ice and a continent of water will stand between the Ten Tribes and the land of Zion when they first appear, but they will ‘smite the rocks. and the ice shall flow down at their presence.’ As they come to the great body of water, dry land will be cast up in the midst of it so that a mighty highway will spread before them.”

Footnotes for that section include Doctrine and Covenants, Section 133, Versus 26 and 27, which prophesy of the mighty highway through the seas.  In “Prophecy and Modern Times, the need for a migration to America is considered urgent. Skouson later writes on page 59:

“”… They (special ambassadors) must go into the mountains and deserts, the cities and hamlets, among caves and rocks, hunting out the Saints and warning them to gather to America.”

Mormon history, as well as its doctrine, is extremely interesting to read and write about. Perhaps one day I’ll have time to look for views –from the same time period — that publicly contested Skousen’s (and by extension, Benson’s) viewpoints of the gathering of Israel.

While Nelson, in his speech, clearly reaffirms the Gathering of Israel, the interpretation has shifted in a manner that makes its fulfillment much easier to accomplish.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

John C. Bennett was the Lucifer of early Mormonism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Doug Gibson

Originally published at StandardBlogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs.

The Bishop's Wife tears at facade of normalcy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Doug Gibson

Originally published at StandardNET.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Doug Gibson

This post originally was published at StandardBlogs.