Review: Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian

Originally published at StandardBlogs/Currents

In his book, “Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian,” Levi S. Peterson describes a woman who lived two distinct lives. In one, she was the Bunkerville, Nev., native one or two generations away from early-Mormon pioneer life, bred to be a farmer’s wife and live a life similar to her mother and grandmother.

But there were life changes in store for Brooks (1898-1989), a remarkable individual who experienced most of the 20th century. Left a young widow with a baby, she entered academia. As middle age approached, she made another life change. She married a sheriff, Will Brooks, and quickly had four more babies. Had she stayed single, opines biographer Peterson, she likely would have had a distinguished academic career, editing and writing literary criticism.

Instead, her return to a domestic life signaled the career of Mormonism’s most tenacious historian. Brooks’ achievements brought much-needed candor to Utah and Mormon history. Her signature work, “The Mountain Meadows Massacre,” brought sunshine to events that, through their secrecy, had long infected lives and a church’s reputation.

Long before she recounted the massacre, Brooks was at the deathbed of patriarch Nephi Johnson, who had participated at Mountain Meadows. His last words were “blood, blood, blood!”

According to Peterson’s account, Brooks long regretted that she had ignored Peterson’s earlier requests to discuss what he called a matter of great importance with her.
Brooks wrote, published and edited hundreds of works. Besides “Mountain Meadows Massacre,” she wrote a biography of John D. Lee, the main scapegoat of the crime. She also wrote biographies of early Utah/Nevada pioneers, including Dudley Leavitt. She wrote an autobiography of her early years and even finished a fond tribute to her husband, Will.

She was a faithful member of the Mormon church. A persistent historian, she discovered and saved many journals and old accounts, some left in the rooms of the St. George temple, which she had access to as stake Relief Society president. Brooks would frequent old attics and basements to find early Southern Utah journals. One she discovered had been re-used as a scrapbook. Working with her family, she painstakingly pried glue off pages to access the diaries.

As her reputation as a historian grew, her correspondence with colleagues, including Fawn Brodie and Dale Morgan, makes for interesting reading. She would both fiercely defend her Latter-day-Saint faith to detractors, such as Morgan and Brodie, and just as fiercely debate the need for historical openness with the most powerful Mormon apostles.

She requested Mountain Meadows documents from President David O McKay, who wouldn’t even see her. Most apostles refused to read her book. Elder LeGrand Richards did read it, and later contended with her as to its importance. From Peterson’s book it doesn’t seem that Brooks was ever in danger of serious church discipline, although she certainly was ostracized for a time in Southern Utah after “Mountain Meadows Massacre” was published. If there was one time she came close to trouble it was her insistence that a second edition of her biography of John D. Lee include an afternote that the LDS had restored Lee’s membership posthumously.

According to Peterson, President McKay threatened to rescind Lee’s unexcommunication and both an apostle, Delbert L. Stapley, and the Lee family were recruited to argue with Brooks. But she kept to her word and won, as the next edition included the afternote and Lee’s renewed church status remained.

Peterson;s biography is maybe too thorough — parts are tedious. This may be due to Peterson’s style, which is chronological to a fault. But there are valuable nuggets of information that describe life as a woman historian. Her adventures took place in locating old histories. Brooks scoured temple rooms, dusty rural towns and old attics for decaying diaries and journals. While immersed in researching and writing, Brooks would keep a clothes iron hot. Housework, Peterson explains,  was a reason to get rid of unwanted visitors. Writing was not deemed as important — at least for a woman.

Although she gained fame by middle age, Brooks was not immune to rejection. Her books and articles were routinely rejected by publishers. In fact, “Mountain Meadows Massacre,” was rejected several times, was finally published by Stanford University Press after a guarantee that descendants of John D. Lee would purchase a significant block of copies. Some early career breaks for her were landing articles in prestigious magazine such as The Atlantic, and her relationship with the Henry Huntington Library in California.

A lifelong Democrat, Brooks became a bit of a mild LDS rebel as her career progressed. She would routinely downgrade information from The Deseret News and Brigham Young University, believing it was unduly influenced by LDS leaders. She deplored what she regarded as the church’s penchant for secrecy as a means of maintaining harmony. She believed that the accomplishments of the LDS Church since its inception could stand without hiding details that it could not control, such as the massacre.

The reader witnesses Brooks gain confidence gradually and become an advocate for issues such as granting blacks the priesthood. The trauma of her first husband’s death solidified her belief in God and an afterlife, but made her more skeptical of man’s promises. She had a early LDS folklore-like belief in the Gospel that includes personal manifestations and Three Nephites-like visits of mercy.

She was an honest, persistent, thorough historian who kept dogma away from a search for truth. Peterson’s book captures that unique and enviable personality.

--- Doug Gibson

Major 19th century legal tussle over Mormon polygamy occurred in England

 

Originally published at StandardBlogs

Most of us are aware of the many challenges, legally and legislatively, to the Mormon practice of polygamy in the U.S. during the 19th century. Fewer people are aware that polygamy was addressed by an English court in 1866. In the winter 1982 edition of Brigham Young University Studies, historian Kenneth Cannon II, in “A Strange Encounter: The English Courts and Mormon Polygamy,” provides an interesting overview of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee, a divorce case which led to a precedent that survived in England for more than a century.

The plaintiff, John Hyde Jr., is a fascinating person. Although barely an historical footnote today in Mormon history, Hyde was an 1848 British convert to Mormonism, — age 15 — who served a mission to France three years later, In 1853 he traveled to Utah, was rebaptized (a not uncommon occurrence,) “and married Lavinia Hawkins, to whom he had been betrothed while they both lived in England,” writes Cannon.

Not much later, Hyde received his Mormon endowments. Frankly, over the next few years, little is known about Hyde’s life. According to Lynn Watkins Jorgensen, who wrote “John Hyde Jr., Mormon Renegade,” for the Journal of Mormon History, Volume 17, Hyde and his wife, Lavinia, had one child. The family suffered financially, with Hyde earning little sums teaching school and dabbling in merchandising. According to Cannon, Hyde contacted LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, informing him he had lost his faith. Perhaps as a remedy for his doubts, Hyde was called on an 1856 mission to the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii). Surprisingly, Cannon notes, Hyde accepted.

It seems, though, that the mission acceptance was not sincere. Once Hyde arrived in Hawaii, he established himself as an active opponent to Mormonism, preaching against the Mormon missionary efforts. He shortly returned to the U.S. and continued proselyting against Mormonism. It would be fascinating to learn the catalyst for his change of heart with Mormonism. By all accounts, he was a far better opponent of Mormonism than he had ever been as an LDS missionary. In 1857, Hyde wrote and published “Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs.” The book, which can be read online today, is a particularly harsh attack on the church. It’s best known as being the earliest book to reveal the secret — sacred to Mormons — LDS endowment ceremony. Hyde also wrote articles against Mormonism for newspapers, including the New York Herald. His published suggestions on dealing with the Mormons included establishing martial law in Utah, invading Utah, putting a bounty on the head of Brigham Young and deporting polygamists. Hyde described Mormons as “thieves, villains and murderers,” according to Watkins Jorgensen.

Even before his book was published, Hyde was excommunicated by the LDS Church. Mormon Apostle Heber C. Kimball also publicly divorced Hyde from his wife, Lavinia, who had remained faithful to the church. It was not unusual for LDS leaders to “divorce” married couples from the pulpit or by declaration. As Cannon notes, in 1899 the Utah Supreme Court would rule these “divorce decrees” as invalid.

After Hyde failed to convince his wife to leave Mormonism and join him in England, he settled in England, working as a newspaper editor, and a minister of Swedenborgian beliefs, a Christian sect that followed the teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), a Swedish scientist, philosopher and theologian who claimed to have witnessed many near-death experiences. According to Watkins Jorgensen’s article, Hyde also wrote an unpublished novel, heavily biographical, that claimed to be an expose of a family, in which lovely young women who joined the LDS Church and traveled to Utah were forced into polygamous marriage with Brigham Young, John Taylor and Heber C. Kimball.

In 1866, Hyde made a decision to sue — in British court — his former wife, now remarried in Utah and named Lavinia Woodmansee, for divorce, charging her with adultery. Why Hyde chose to seek a divorce is still puzzling. The journalist in me thinks Hyde, who had a record of vociferously tub-thumping anti-Mormonism, was seeking the publicity that would accompany such a high-profile lawsuit. Cannon offers the possibility that Hyde reasonably surmised that his divorce from Lavinia was not binding. Watkins Jorgensen speculates that he may have remained hurt from his failure to convince his former wife to leave Mormonism. In any event, Hyde wanted, and expected I’m sure, a formal dissolution of his marriage. He would be surprised at the eventual outcome.

As Cannon relates, during the divorce trial, Hyde told the judge, Sir James O. Wilde, of his life with Mormonism, his changing opinions, and related the history of his marriage, which he testified had been monogamous. A witness for Hyde, former Mormon Frederick Piercy, once married to his ex-wife’s sister, supported Hyde’s claim that he had never engaged in polygamy.

(I digress here to provide an example — courtesy of Cannon’s article — of the intense London press coverage of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. “On 22 March of that year The [London] Times related: ‘It is a strange fact that no case should have arisen on the validity of Mormon marriages before that of ‘Hyde v. Hyde,” which came before the Divorce Court in January last. So many young women have been tempted or entrapped into abandoning English homes for the half or third part of a husband at the Salt Lake City, and have since found reason to rue their infatuation that we can only explain the entire absence of precedents on the subject by supposing that few are happy enough to retrace their steps across the wastes that divide the Mormon paradise from Christendom.”)

It’s not surprising, nor unreasonable, for 19th century courts or newspapers, or other organizations to view polygamy as criminal sexual immorality, rather than accede to the LDS doctrinal belief of earthly marriages and children leading to greater heavenly glory after death. Mormon doctrine, while widely available then on friendly presses, were not often read by anyone other than the faithful. The resolution of Hyde’s case, though, was convoluted and ultimately, unsatisfactory to Hyde. Judge Wilde was as disgusted by polygamy as anyone else, so much so that he refused to acknowledge any marriage in Utah as being valid, despite Hyde’s barrister’s careful arguments that any monogamist marriage, in Utah or elsewhere, should be legal in England. Judge Wilde disagreed. As Cannon writes, “Wilde decided that the central question of the case was not whether Hyde was in fact a polygamist; rather, it was whether polygamy was recognized in Utah where the marriage had taken place.” As a result, Judge Wilde considered Hyde’s marriage as “potentially polygamous.” Because Hyde’s marriage clashed with Christian values, Judge Wilde ruled that it was not recognized in England and therefore was not eligible for a divorce ruling.

The decision, Cannon noted, hampered any couple married in a polygamous nation for scores of years. It left Hyde in an unenviable situation, “denied matrimonial relief by the English court,” writes Cannon. Although England considered his marriage not worthy of a divorce decree, Judge Wilde had made it clear that his decision did not “decide upon the rights of succession or legitimacy which it might be proper to accord to the issue of polygamous unions, nor upon the rights or obligations in relation to third persons which people living under the sanction of such unions may have created for themselves.”

As Cannon sums up the case, “Hyde was left in a kind of marital limbo. The marriage could not be dissolved in England and had probably not been legally dissolved in Utah. … He was married technically yet could not get a divorce in England despite his wife’s second marriage.”

Hyde, lived only seven years after his attempt at divorce, dying in 1876 at age 43. According to Watkins Jorgensen, he lived a respectable life as a Swedenborgian minister in England, writing “several books and pamphlets” on the subject. Lavinia Hawkins Hyde Woodmansee died on April 28, 1910.

--- Doug Gibson

Nauvoo City Council’s minutes of 1840s provide chaos, contention and lies

 

Originally published, in slightly different form, in January 2012 in StandardBlogs

---

The Nauvoo City Council and High Council minutes from 1839 to 1845, when accessible, were recorded. Signature Books, with the assistance of historian John Dinger, published almost a decade ago the minutes, along with notes, and they’re just plain fascinating for enthusiasts of history. Without spin, they lay out the controversy that swirled in Nauvoo prior to Joseph Smith’s murder and the LDS exodus west.

The documents lend credence to the belief that the then-secret doctrine of polygamy sparked much of the contention that roiled Nauvoo. Many of those associated with the anti-Smith publication, the Nauvoo Expositor, were accused of using polygamy as an excuse to commit adultery. In the city council meeting of June 8, 1844, Hyrum Smith is cited as claiming that Joseph Smith’s revelation on polygamy, read to the Nauvoo High Council on Aug. 12, 1843, “was in answer to a question concerning things which transpired in former days & had no reference to the present time.” 

As curiously noted, “Hyrum Smith married four plural wives in 1843.” It’s clear that Hyrum Smith had rationalized that it was OK to mislead. Also, on page 255 of the Nauvoo City Council minutes, the LDS prophet, and Nauvoo mayor, Joseph Smith, supports Hyrum’s incorrect words, saying that he had not preached the doctrine in public or private.

From reading the various minutes and notes commentary, polygamy was used as a cudgel in a conflict between the Smiths and their enemies, such as William Law, Wilson Law, Robert and Charles Foster, Chauncey and Francis Higbee, Sylvester Emmons, and others. These accusations were often judged in the non-secular, but equally powerful, Nauvoo High Council meetings. On May 24, 1842, “Chancy” Higbee was excommunicated by the high council after being judged guilty of adultery and for teaching “the doctrine that it was right to have free intercourse with women if it was kept secret …” Higbee, the minutes report, claimed “that Joseph Smith autherised (sic) him to practice these things.”

Other accusations used to discredit critics included counterfeiting, stinginess, and plots to kill Joseph Smith. The final accusation was probably closest to the truth, as the violence that was commonplace in that era made lynching and murder a real possibility. The City Council minutes note how the Smiths used Nauvoo civil law to construct a habeus corpus statute so far-reaching that it could blunt any attempt to have Smith or others extradited to Missouri or anywhere outside of Nauvoo. In fact, Smith used habeus corpus to initially avoid arrest for trashing the Nauvoo Expositor press.

The city council debate that preceded the Nauvoo police’s destruction of the Expositor press as a “nuisance” is very interesting. Anger from past atrocities against Mormons, notably the Haun’s Mill massacre, were used as rationales to destroy the Expositor’s press. Interestingly, one Nauvoo councilman, Benjamin Warrington, opposed destroying the press. He wanted to give the editors time to stop publishing and assess them a $3,000 fine.

Both Smiths spoke in opposition to Warrington’s proposal, Hyrum adding that he doubted the publishers had the money to pay the fine. Those in favor of the press’ destruction cited ” Blackwater’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,” a reference book widely used in that era. Nauvoo city attorney and councilman George P. Stiles used “Blackwater” as evidence, “{saying a} Nuisance is any thing {that} disturbs the peace of {the} community.”

The destruction of the Expositor began before the city council meeting authorizing the act had finished. As are most decisions made in haste and with excessive emotion, it backfired, increasing the danger to Joseph Smith and others. An attempt to use Nauvoo’s liberal habeus corpus law to escape legal heat failed, and to protect Nauvoo from armed mobs, Joseph and Hyrum agreed to be jailed in Carthage, Ill. Assurances of safety from a feckless governor, Thomas Ford, failed, and history records that both Smiths were murdered by a mob.

The Nauvoo City Council minutes after the Smiths’ murders are interesting. There is little of the anger or bluster that was part of the meeting that sanctioned the press’ destruction. It’s muted, and frankly reflects the shock and despair that must have surrounded Nauvoo and church members at the loss of their prophet. Much of the minutes cover discussion on how much the city must renumerate the Nauvoo Expositor for the destruction of its property. Hiram Kimball was assigned the task of dealing with the renumeration.

Also, it’s clear that city leaders were concerned that the mobs that had killed the Smiths were still eager to attack Nauvoo. The council endorsed pleas by Governor Ford and others to avoid violent reprisals.

“The Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes” is a massive, indispensable treasure trove of Mormon history in Illinois. Some accounts were amusing; one recounts a man brought for church discipline because he sold his wife for her weight in catfish!

-- Doug Gibson

Mormon deity doctrine versus ‘state of blessedness in the presence of God’ forever

-- Originally published in 2014 at StandardBlogs.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, continuing a trend of more transparency in its history and non-traditional doctrines, published “Becoming Like God” (read) which focuses on the Mormon doctrine of exaltation. The Salt Lake Tribune’s Matthew Piper did an excellent work of reporting on the essay (here).

The idea of worthy Mormons receiving planets to rule in the afterlife was dismissed as “cartoonish” and compared to the idea of Christians playing harps on their own clouds. Nevertheless,  reading of the essay does not dismiss the Mormon doctrine of an afterlife in which resurrected persons eventually create new worlds. In the LDS scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, Moses sees worlds and their inhabitants, and God tells Moses that he has created “worlds without number.” (Read)

The LDS belief that humans can become deity has been mocked, condemned, and otherwise analyzed in words without number. I’d like to address a different take, sans another argument in favor of the Mormon deity belief. Speaking to those who believe in God, and an afterlife, and an eternal heaven, here’s a question: In your view, what exactly goes on in an eternal heaven forever, other than “a state of blessedness in the presence of God.” (Read) Wouldn’t that get tiresome after a while?

Anecdote time: In 1983, a month or so before my LDS mission to Peru, I was invited by a friend to speak to his Christian youth group. I thought I was to be the only speaker. When I arrived, I discovered I was a “Mormon missionary” who was there to debate a Christian pastor who specialized in dissecting the “cult of Mormonism.” I was annoyed but also intrigued, so I went along, only insisting to the packed crowd that I wasn’t a missionary or an official representative of my religion.

It was a surprisingly pleasant debate. I probably lost on points but the audience — all disapproving of Mormonism — was respectful. They stared at me with that mixture of concern and frustration that I likely have unconsciously adapted today when I look at children in my life who have left Mormonism.

One portion of that evening I have never forgotten. I asked the pastor (can’t recall if it was during the debate or afterward) what exactly goes on in Protestant heaven forever. Are there any future assignments beyond eternal rest? His answer was that we’d be able to do things that seemed wild and impossible to us today. For example, he added, we’d be able to fly from location to location and go as fast as we wanted.

“OK, but what about the next six months,” I wondered silently.

The late journalist Christopher Hitchens, an atheist, has quite reasonably defined the “false promise of eternity,” which is that an eternity in a heaven worshiping, resting and adoring God will eventually turn into a monotony of idleness.

Readers may mock the LDS beliefs (found in The Pearl of Great Price) of Kolob and God overseeing planets (Read) to their hearts’ content. But the question of what’s going to keep the faithful in heaven occupied for the next 10 trillion years-plus is a worthy question to address, if you are a believer of heaven.

-- Doug Gibson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs

Joseph Smith for President book details Mormonism founder's frustration with states rights

 

Review by Doug Gibson

The ill-fated decision by LDS Church prophet and founder Joseph Smith, Jr., to seek the U.S. presidency in 1844 is mostly regarded as a footnote in U.S. history. Smith was martyred in late June of the presidential season, before he was formally nominated by supporters. 

Nevertheless, it retains strong interest within Mormon history, and most older active Mormons were taught of and retain a knowledge of Smith's campaign. I recall a church-sponsored book being published to some fanfare nearly 50 years ago. 

One hundred and seventy-seven years later, a scholarly book on Smith's campaign is published. It's "Joseph Smith for President -- The Prophet, the Assassin, and the Fight for American Religious Freedom, Oxford University Press. (Amazon link is here) The author is Spencer W. McBride, and he's written a concise, informative account of a campaign largely derided by the elite media of 1844, but was an extremely serious effort from Mormon missionaries and adherents who tub-thumped Smith's candidacy intensely in 1844. 

Readers may be surprised at the progressivism of Smith's campaign. Its platform included closing prisons, the mass freeing of convicts, an end to slavery and having a national bank to prevent currency instability. But, as McBride points out, the genesis of Smith's campaign was to diminish states rights as a chief political belief and policy. Latter-day Saints of that time had already suffered greatly in various states, most notably Missouri. In fact, as McBride notes, legal and political forces were still actively trying to extradite Smith and other Mormons back to Missouri. A chief reason for Nauvoo's charter of government, including having essentially an army, was to stop outside efforts to arrest Smith.

Long before modern efforts using the federal government to correct regional and state prejudices and inequities, Mormons actively sought from the federal government restitution -- for both physical persecutions and financial losses -- for what they had endured in Missouri. McBride's book shows how easy it was in that era to contact and lobby the president of the United States. Knock on the White House door and request the president's ear.

Access was easier then, but getting results was perhaps as frustrating as today. President Martin Van Buren made it clear he would not help the Mormons, candidly admitting of future political liabilities. Undaunted, Mormon representatives took their requests to the U.S. Congress. They eagerly responded to sympathetic voices from members of Congress, but fell prey to the usual political games of Congress. They achieved progress in committee, but never got close to achieving majority support in Congress. 

A constant argument against Smith's and the Mormon's request for restitution was that the state, rather than the federal government, needed to correct its injustices. Petitions to presidential candidates of that era, including Lewis Cass and Henry Clay, also proved fruitless. Obviously, any chance of restitution, or even mercy, from Missouri was an impossibility. 

Hence the presidential campaign of Joseph Smith, nominated by the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. Whether General Smith -- of Nauvoo's militia -- actually believed he could win, or was using his candidacy to enhance political status for Mormonism, is still open to debate. The campaign effort was serious, with missionaries called to preach his candidacy, a pamphlet of campaign positions published, newspapers and presidential candidates lobbied, a nominating convention planned, and a nationwide search for a vice presidential candidate.

As McBride notes, easterner James Arlington Bennet, a famous author and newspaper publisher, was asked to be vice president to Smith. A bit of an opportunist, Bennet had been baptized but was not active in the church. His chief goal, explains McBride, was to become governor of Illinois. He had previously accepted an honorary position in the Nauvoo militia. Prominent Mormon Willard Richards, a friend of Bennet's, presented him with an invitation to join the ticket. As McBride notes, Bennet was blunt with his refusal, believing there was no chance Smith could win the office.

More efforts to get a vice presidential candidate -- outside of the inner circle of the church -- were unsuccessful. Even an obscure Southern states politician turned a deaf ear to a request. Eventually, longtime Mormon leader Sidney Rigdon was nominated. It was a safe but still curious choice, as the pair's relationship was strained, primarily due to polygamy.

On June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum were killed in a jail in Carthage, Ill. Polygamy, fears of Mormonism's political strength, unpopular political chicanery and backstabbing, bigotry, a prejudiced interpretation of "Christianity," and outrage over a bad decision by Smith to destroy a newspaper opposed to his leadership; all contributed to a mob killing the brothers. In today's world of immediate news, it's hard to comprehend that weeks after the murders, the news hadn't spread far. Missionaries were still campaigning for Smith after his death, unaware of the slaughter. 

The Mormons proved themselves far less bloodthirsty than the mob that killed the Smiths. The killers' leaders and eggers-on escaped consequences. Mormons wanted out of the United States, a sentiment that made Utah a more desirable exodus location than say, Texas, which was in the process of U.S. assimilation. The Mormons would, however, eventually learn that moving to Utah would not free them from national oversight.

"Joseph Smith for President" provides a fair, detailed look at the Quixotic presidential campaign/ McBride compares the Mormons' experience of oppression with similar occurrences suffered by Jews and Catholics in the 19th century United States. He draws states rights as a tool oppressors have used to maintain discrimination, whether against religions or ethnicities. He also points to an ugly consequence of such discrimination justified for religious purposes: the oppressors claim divine approval for their bigotry. 

With states unable to police against bigotry, it becomes imperative for the federal government to correct injustice, something Joseph Smith realized 180 years ago. His platform did not just to protect Mormonism, but other religious alternatives to the prevailing Christianity of the time.

On the edge of Mormonism's inside -- a review of Why I Stay 2

 

"Why I Stay 2: The Challenges of Discipleship for Contemporary Latter-day Saints," (Signature Books, 2021), is a collection of essays from Latter-day Saints -- many perhaps more liberal -- who explain why they remain active members of a church predominantly comprised of more conservative members, at least in the United States.

The book is edited by academic Robert A. Rees, who penned an introduction and also an essay. He notes how Mormonism has changed a lot since the initial "Why I Stay" book was published a decade ago. I recall reading "Leaving the Fold," published a generation ago, and it's true that reasons for so-called faith crisis have more impact at different eras. 

That's not to say questions and concerns ever disappear, but at times historical revision and transparency had a bigger impact than they do perhaps now. Issues of same-sex marriage, disputes over transgender rights issues, and even rancor over former U.S. President Donald Trump likely play roles in testing an individual's commitment to Mormonism. 

To me, the greatest value in the collection is it offers readers the opportunity to learn and appreciate that others -- Saints who want to do good -- are just as righteous as we are, regardless of our cultural and political differences. This may seem like an obvious truth, but assigning evil to others due to disagreement has been going on since Cain slew Abel. The unfortunate maxim -- we demand perfection from those we despise -- still thrives.

The late playwright Eric Samuelson, in his essay, recalls listening during his mission to a general authority provide useless sales-oriented advice to Samuelson and other missionaries. However, the experience taught Samuelson that inspiration is "intermittent," and therefore to be treasured as a gift of the spirit that blesses us. It taught him not everything he hears in an ostensibly spiritual setting is inspiration. His essay concludes with a powerful anecdote of a Spanish-speaking member providing him a blessing of health.

Writer Carol Lynn Pearson's essay posits that she stays because she finds love in the church, and if she encounters a situation where there is not love, the church provides her an opportunity to create love. This is a strong point, particularly in this era where there is strong division over sexual orientation and gender issues. I recall as an editorial page editor, more than a decade ago, receiving many phone calls over the issue of same-sex marriage, which was not legally decided at that time. Callers tended to express their opinions on the issue with hate, rather than love. While this happened on both sides it was predominantly expressed, by callers opposing the issue. 

An essay from Mitch Mayne, a gay Mormon who is active in the church, reminds readers that "Mormonism isn't merely a religion -- it is also a culture, and one that deeply embeds itself into who we are as humans." 

Mayne acknowledges it is tough to stay when he hears messages from other believers that he doesn't belong. But he doesn't want to lose his faith, his culture. He doesn't want the holes in his life that would result from leaving his faith. His essays tells us how he stays in the church, and it's inspiring. He knows he alone is tasked with following the Savior and being a spiritual person.

In a recent Dialogue, Maxine Hanks, who returned to the faith after an excommunication, counseled readers (she was speaking to a group in Utah County) that one way to strengthen our own commitment to the Gospel is to respect the faith journeys of our peers. Loving people brings spirituality. Denouncing people like us because they think the same creates contention, and pleases the Adversary.

"Why I Stay 2" can also make us think about our own personal faith crisis, or even just disagreements. We all have them. Acknowledging that can create some much-needed empathy. (Here is a link to "Why I Stay 2" at Amazon.)

-- Doug Gibson