Dear Mormon Girl:

I’ve noticed a lot of my gay and lesbian friends seem to love the show Big Love? Why?

Signed,

JKL

First, JKL, a true confession: I don’t watch Big Love. I know Mormons who do watch it. I know Mormons who love it. And I know Mormons who hate it, especially since the show televised to the whole stinking world portions of sacred temple ceremonies reserved only for the most dedicated members of the faith. Yup, that really bothered me.

But my distaste for the show didn’t start there. It started much earlier, as in the first time I tuned in and beheld how the plot line in those early seasons revolved around poor Bill Paxton and all the stress he felt from taking care of all the wives and children. How was poor polygamous and hyperpatriarchal Dad to achieve any kind of work-life balance? Oh, boo-flippin’-hoo!

Some may ask: “Oh, Mormon Girl, why must you be so cranky about polygamy?”   To which I’ll reply that A) I just finished reading a slew of “I escaped from Warren Jeffs” memoirs and B) on the rare nights I do get to chill out in front of the television, I prefer shows that don’t send my mind hurtling back to the days when I used to debate myself over whether or not I’d share my husband for the eternities if it meant helping a righteous sister-Mormon get into heaven.  That just doesn’t feel like diversion to me.

Phew. I feel better. Thanks for listening. Oh, and now to your actual question, JKL, which I must hazard with some diffidence, since I am neither gay nor a watcher of Big Love.  So I will offer only a few totally unverified theories of why Big Love might be queer-attractive.

Theory one: Maybe queer folks love Big Love because according to the definition of queer developed by self-identified queer folks over the last decade polygamy is queer:  it does not conform to state-sanctioned monogamous companionate heteronormativity.  Yup, it might make Warren Jeffs’s head explode to think it, but according to some definitions of the term, some folks might describe polygamy as a queer lifestyle.

Theory two: Perhaps there’s a particularly charged attraction between gay folks and Mormons right now. We Mormons have been putting a lot of thought and energy into gay issues over the last decade, and so is it any surprise (as the marvelous Sister Dottie herself has said on this subject) that gay folks are interested in our business as well?

What say ye, Mormon Matters readers? How do you feel about Big Love?

Do you have a query for the Ask Mormon Girl column? Email askmormongirl@gmail.com, or follow askmormongirl on Twitter.

A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

I’d like to get into some of these details leading up to the Manifesto.  (This is a shorter version–more details are found here.)  I talked about the Manifesto previously in the context of whether the prophet would ever lead the church astray.  It should be noted that the church had been fighting federal anti-polygamy legislation for nearly 30 years, so I think it should be noted that the Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890 was not a spur-of-the-moment quick capitulation.  I’ll be taking my quotes from 2 books: Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler, and Great Basin Kingdom, by Leonard Arrington.

It was during the administration of Abraham Lincoln that the first federal anti-polygamy legislation passed Congress, but Lincoln wanted to ignore the issue.  With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s first priority was slavery.  In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which (from Wikipedia)

banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.^[1] The act targeted the Mormon church ownership in the Utah territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and President Lincoln chose not enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.^[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

The footnote at Wikipedia is especially interesting.  Quoting from the book, Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139, ISBN 0252069803, http://books.google.com/books?id=9AimifP2a-4C,

“Having signed the Morrill Act, Abraham Lincoln reportedly compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was ‘too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.’”

If the church had capitulated at this point, I can understand critics who say that the church traded polygamy for statehood.  The church had been applying for statehood for 40 years when it finally happened, and were always ignored by Congress.  In fact, the state of Utah is less than half the size of the original territory of Deseret.  Congress split the Deseret Territory, and created the territory of Nevada.  Congress continued to take away slices of Utah and added them to Nevada in 1861, 1864, and 1866.  Check out this map.  Nevada even became a state before Utah, even though it was created after Utah.

Utah continued to practice polygamy in defiance of federal law for another 20 years following the Morrill Act.  Congress made several attempts to handle “The Mormon Question”.  Leonard Arrington (former church historian) documents some of these laws on page 357 from his book called Great Basin Kingdom.  (Much more detail is in the book.)

• The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 – passed.
• The Wade Act of 1866- failed to pass.  It would have prohibited church officers from solemnizing marriages, would have taxed the church, taken over the Nauvoo Legion, and sent federal officials to take over all government responsibilities, among other things.
• The Cullom Bill of 1869-70 – passed House but failed Senate.  Plural wives would have been deprived of immunity as witnesses involving their husband.  It would have authorized the President to send army of 25,000 to Utah, and would confiscate all property of any Mormon.
• The Ashley Bill of 1869 – failed to pass.   Here’s an exact quote:  “The bill provided for “the dismemberment” of Utah by transferring large slices of it to Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado.”
  
• The Poland Act of 1874 – passed.  Gave federal attorney general and federal jurisdiction  over criminal, civil and chancery (equity) cases in Utah.
• The Edmunds Act of 1882 – passed.  Quoting from page 358, the act

“put teeth” in the 1862 law and attempted to eliminate the Mormon Church as a power in Utah by vesting the political machinery of the territory in federal non-Mormon appointive officers.  Specifically, the Edmunds Act provided heavy penalties for the practice of polygamy: defined cohabitation with a polygamous wife as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $300, by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both; declared all persons guilty of polygamy or cohabitation incompetent for jury service; and disfranchised and declared ineligible for public office all persons guilty of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation…all elective offices were declared vacant…persons professing belief in polygamy or cohabitation as a religious principle, whether or not proved guilty of their practice, were ineligible to vote and to hold public office…in the first year of its existence it had excluded some 12,000 men and women from registration and voting.

when, on March 3, 1885, the Supreme Court denied  Clawson’s appeal and upheld the constitutionality of the law, territorial officials commenced the intensive prosecution of Mormon leaders in Utah and elsewhere known as “The Raid.”

Polygamous marriage being difficult to establish in the courts, the most common charge against the Mormons what of unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six months in jail, or both.

…

There were 1,004 convictions for unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds Act between 1884 and 1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitude of the effect of the Act upon Mormon society.  The period from 1885 to 1890 was marked by intensive “polyg hunts” for “cohabs.”  Officials of the church made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.  Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives “for time and all eternity,” they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert these women in order to avoid punishment provided in the law of Babylon.  Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that rigorous enforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional, church leaders–nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives–went “underground.”

…page 360

With almost all leaders of Latter-day Saint communities in prison or in hiding, business establishments were abandoned, or were kept in operation by inexperienced wives and children.  The ownership of the co-operatives drifted into the hands of a few individuals and eventually were converted into private enterprises.  Those United Orders which had survived until this period were discontinued.  There were no further meetings of Zion’s Central Board of Trade.  Almost every business history, in short, shows stagnation; almost every family history records widespread suffering and misery.  Above all, the church, as prime stimulator, financier, and regulator of the Mormon economy, was forced to withdraw from participation in most phases of activity.  The Raid, in other words, was a period of crippled group activity of every type, of decline in cooperative trade and industry–a period when, above all, church economic support was essential but not forthcoming–a period when planning would have saved much, but when planners dared not plan.

A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile.  Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends…Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act

Nevertheless, the Edmunds Law was unable to force a change in the attitude of Latter-day Saint authorities. It was an unwilling cross, but one which the create majority of members seemed prepared to bear rather than yield on what they regarded a religious principle.  Congress therefore moved almost immediately to increase the pressure, and after considering several proposals during a number of sessions, adopted, on February 19, 1887, an amendment to the 1862 law known as the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Enacted into law without the signature of President Grover Cleveland, this “Anti-Polygamy Act,” as it was entitled, amended the 1862 law to provide as follows:

1.  That the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, insofar as it had, or pretended to have, any legal existence, was dissolved.  The United States Attorney General was directed to instituted proceedings to accomplish dissolution.

2.  That the Attorney General institute proceedings to forfeit and escheat all property, both real and personal, of the dissolved church corporation held in violation of the 1862 limitation of $50,000, which was reaffirmed.  The property was to be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and the proceeds applied to the use and benefit of the district schools of Utah.

The books continues on, with 3 more items, including the abolition of women suffrage.  (Utah was the first or second state to allow women to vote–quite progressive, eh?)  Continuing from page 361,

The Edmunds-Tucker Act was a direct bid to destroy the temporal power of the Mormon Church.  Congressional leaders reasoned that the church would have to yield on the principle of plural marriage or suffer destruction as an organization of power and influence.  Church leaders did not see the matter in this light, however.  They believed (and were supported in this belief by several constitutional lawyers of national reputation) that several features of the Edmunds-Tucker Act were unconstitutional.  They further declared that they could not revoke the principle of polygamy:  Only God could do that; and, if He so decided, He would do so by direct revelation to the church–not by prohibitory national legislation.

The book details how many properties, including the Tithing Office, were placed or sold into private church members and/or stake hands, and hidden as much as possible.  A series of legal battles ensued as federal officials tried to track down church assets.  However, the government did uncover many of these transactions, and took control of the assets.  Arrington goes into great detail about many of these trials.  A trustee was appointed, and he charged enormous fees to maintain records of these properties.  He was removed later, but many of the church properties were squandered as payment for his services.

In January 1889, the church challenged the constitutionality of the confiscated properties, but lost again in the Supreme Court.  From page 375, the majority Supreme Court opinion read,

“Under these circumstances we have no doubt of the power of Congress to do as it did.”

However, the opinion was not unanimous.  Chief Justice Fuller and associate justices Field and Lamar

wrote a short but vigorous dissent based on the States’ Rights doctrine which had reached its farthest in the Dred Scott decision.  Wrote the Chief Justice:

In my opinion, Congress is restrained, nor merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power, express or implied in that instrument….  If this property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation.  In my judgment, its diversion under this Act of Congress is in contravention of specific limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication, by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the agents of the people of this Republic, is delegated and not inherent.

From page 377,

The second effect of the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act was the church “Manifesto” proclaiming an end to the performance of plural marriage.

The Supreme Court decision on May 19, 1890 was nearly the final blow.  David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom page 354 outlines an even more ominous problem.

What made this ruling truly ominous was the appointment two months later of Henry W. Lawrence, a leader of the Godbeite schism, as receiver of church property.  He replaced the moderate former U.S. marshal Frank H. Dyer, who had earlier agreed to keep hands off the church’s temples under the provision of the law that exempted buildings used exclusively for “the worship of God.”  The Utah Supreme Court had approved this determination.  Now Lawrence and U.S. attorney Charles Varian, reappointed in 1889 by President Harrison, made it known they intended to overturn the agreement on the ground that temples in Logan, St. George, and Manti did not qualify for exemption since they were not places of public worship.  If upheld, this move would lead to confiscation of the church’s holiest places, where its most sacred ordinances were performed, including marriages.

Arrington writes in Great Basin Kingdom on page 355 that Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890,

“I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:

Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.

Forgotten Kingdom adds additional detail here.  From page 356,

While many treated the manifesto with skepticism, one who took it at face value was the magistrate who had sent more men to prison for violating  the marriage laws than anyone else.  The day after it was sustained, Judge Charles Zane on October 7 said that he would record the church “opposed to polygamy hereafter, unless something happened to change my opinion,” and he began only to fine violators, but not impose prison time.

Arrington, author of Great Basin Kingdom concurs discusses the issue of statehood on page 377,

The Manifesto declaring an end to officially sanctioned plural marriages also enabled the Mormons to achieve the goal of statehood, which had been denied them for over forty years.  Statehood gave them the prospect of getting rid, once and for all, of the unwanted and unfriendly federally appointed governors, judges, marshals, attorneys, and commissioners who had fought against them since 1852.  As part of the “deal” by which this was arranged, church officials are said to have given congressional and administration leaders to understand that they would support a proposition to prohibit forever the practice of polygamy in Utah; that the church would dissolve its Peoples’ Party and divide itself into Republican and Democratic supporters; and that the church would discontinue its alleged fight against Gentile business and relax its own economic efforts….The Raid had finally culminated in the long-sought goal of statehood, but had produced capitulation in many areas of Mormon uniqueness, not the least of which was the decline in the economic power and influence of the church.  The temporal Kingdom, for all practical purposes, was dead–slain by the dragon of Edmunds-Tucker.

So, what do you make of these events?  Did the church wimp out?  Should the church have defended the temples like the Jews did in the days of Nero?  Many Jews died, the temple was taken anyway and hasn’t been rebuilt in 2000 years.

When her children were smaller she had some good friends, a married couple, who had come to her with an offer of a polygamous marriage in the next life, if she wanted it.  They assured her that this would not involve any physical relationship in this life.  However, this couple would support her financially by paying her mortgage and offering other parental help, if she ever desired it.  Because this couple were good friends of this woman she was not offended but did feel a little uncomfortable and therefore politely turned them down. 

This reminded me of another conversation I had with a friend who had a girlfriend who was a significant influence on his life and lead him to serve a mission for the LDS Church.  She died shortly after he arrived in the mission field.  He felt that he wanted to marry this girl in the life to come so that he could offer her the highest blessings of the Celestial Kingdom.  He was so convinced of this that he felt that he would expect any future wife to understand and accept this before they were married.  He is currently married although I am unsure of how he feels about this now.

I offer these examples not as illustrations of Church wide practices but as a move to understand how this ‘doctrine’ still permeates LDS thought and practice, despite President Hinckley saying this practice was not doctrinal. 

These stories have something in common; I think they are both rooted in the commonly held misconception that polygamy was practiced as a means of financially supporting single women.  This seems to me as though it could be a form of ‘benevolent polygamy’. 

My initial response was surprise.  In the first story I am surprised at the faith of this couple and their concern for the eternal welfare of this woman and her children.  Secondly I feel a sense of wonder and interest in the ways that polygamy may be still being practiced celebately and in private.  She honestly did not feel that there was any physical motive behind the offer, and that interests me.  I am certainly not advocating this, or any other form of polygamy, but am more interested in people’s impressions about this. 

My questions are these:

What are your intial reactions to these variations of polygamy?

Would such people be subject to Church Discipline, if discovered?

Is this practical (in the first example)?  How would the woman break the marriage if she met someone?  Would this lead to some physical expectation down the line?

In the second story, there is a strong sense to me that this would be barrier in his current relationship; how do other people feel about this idea?  Is this a reasonable request?

(1) Was Joseph’s polygamy revelation really a disguise for his real motive as a womanizer (libertine)?

(2) What is the true nature of the Fanny Alger relationship?

(3) Was Eliza Snow pushed down the stairs by Emma?

Let’s look at how does Richard Bushman, author of Rough Stone Rolling sees these issues.

(1)  Was Joseph a Libertine?

I have never been especially fond of this position, and neither is Bushman.  I don’t think it adequately explains Joseph’s actions.  From page 325,

Because plural marriage was so sexually charged, the practice has provoked endless speculation about Joseph’s motives.  Was he a libertine in the guise of a prophet seducing women for his own pleasure?  The question can never be answered definitively from historical sources, but the language he used to describe marriage is known.  Joseph did not explain plural marriage as a love match or even a companionship.  Only slight hints of romance found its way into his proposals.  He understood plural marriage as a religious principle….As Joseph described the practice to [Levi] Hancock, plural marriage had the millennial purpose of fashioning a righteous generation on the eve of the Second Coming.

… page 437

Joseph exercised such untrammeled authority in Nauvoo that it is possible to imagine him thinking no conquest beyond his reach.  In theory, he could take what he wanted and browbeat his followers with threats of divine punishment.

This simple reading of Joseph’s motives is implicit in descriptions of him as “a charismatic, handsome man.”  They suggest he was irresistible and made the most of it.  Other Mormon men went along the way out of loyalty or in hopes of sharing power.  But missing from that picture is Joseph’s sense of himself.  In public and private, he spoke and acted as if guided by God.  All the doctrines, plans, programs, and claims were ,in his mind, the mandates of heaven.  They came to him as requirements, with a kind of irresistible certainty….

page 438,

The possibility of an imaginary revelation, erupting from his own heart and subconscious mind, seems not to have occurred to Joseph.  To him, the words came from heaven.  They required obedience even though the demand seemed contradictory or wrong.  The possibility of deception did not occur to him….

Joseph never wrote his personal feelings about plural marriage.  Save for the revelation given in the voice of God, everything on the subject comes from people around him.  But surely he realized that plural marriage would inflict terrible damage, that he ran the risk of wrecking his marriage and alienating his followers.  How could faithful Emma, to whom he pledged his love in every letter, accept additional wives?…Sexual excess was considered the all too common fruit of pretended revelation.  Joseph’s enemies would delight in one more evidence of a revelator’s antinomian transgressions.

… page 440

The personal anguish caused by plural marriage did not stop Joseph Smith from marrying more women.  He married three in 1841, eleven in 1842, and seventeen in 1843.  Historians debate these numbers, but the total figure is most likely between twenty-eight and thirty-three.  Larger numbers have been proposed based on the sealing records in the Nauvoo temple.  Eight additional women were sealed to Joseph in the temple after his death, possibly implying a marriage while he was still alive.  Whatever the exact number, the marriages are numerous enough to indicate an impersonal bond.  Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship, but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities…. He did not lust for women so much as he lusted for kin.

I found this last statement especially intriguing, because there is no DNA evidence that Joseph had any kin from wives other than Emma.  Continuing on page 440,

Romance played only a slight part.  In making proposals, Joseph would sometimes say God had given a woman to him, or they were meant for each other, but there was no romantic talk of adoring love.  He did not court his prospective wives by first trying to win their affections.  Often, he asked a relative–a father or an uncle–to propose the marriage.  Sometimes one of his current wives proposed for him.  When he made the proposal himself, a friend like Brigham Young was often present.  The language was religious and doctrinal, stressing that a new law has been revealed.  She was to seek spiritual confirmation.  Once consent was given, a formal ceremony was performed before witnesses, with Joseph dictating the words to the person officiating.

Joseph himself said nothing about sex in these marriages.  Other marriage experimenters in Joseph’s time focused on sexual relations.  The Shakers repudiated marriage altogether, considering sex beastly and unworthy of a millenial people….

page 441

We might expect that Joseph, the kind of dominant man who is thought to have strong libidinal urges, would betray his sexual drive in his talk and manner.  Bred outside the rising genteel culture, he was not inhibited by Victorian prudery.  But references to sexual pleasure are infrequent.  Years later, William Law, Joseph’s counselor in the First Presidency, said he was shocked to hear Joseph say one of his wives “afforded him great pleasure.”  That report is one of the few, and the fact that it shocked Law suggests that such comments were infrequent.  As Fawn Brodie said, “There was too much of the Puritan” in Joseph for him to be a “careless libertine.”

What was the nature of the Fanny Alger relationship?

Some people have wondered if Alger was ever pregnant.  Bushman says there is no good evidence of this position.  Many people often quote Oliver Cowdery (as does Bushman) as referring to the “dirty, nasty, filthy affair.”  First, let’s provide some background on Alger.  From pages 323-327,

Alger was fourteen when her family joined the Church in Mayfield, near Kirtland, in 1830.  In 1836, after a time as a serving girl in the Smith household, she left Kirtland and soon married.  Between those two dates, perhaps as early as 1831, she and Joseph were reportedly involved, but conflicting accounts make it difficult to establish the facts–much less to understand Joseph’s thoughts.

… page 324

Cowdery, long Joseph’s friend and associate in visions, was a casualty of the bad times.  In 1838, he was charged with “seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith jr by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultry &c.”  Fanny Alger’s name was never mentioned, but doubtless she was the woman in question.

…

Cowdery and Joseph aired their differences at a meeting in November 1837 where Joseph did not deny his relationship with Alger, but contended that he had never confessed to adultery.  Cowdery apparently had said otherwise, but backed down at the November meeting.  When the question was put to Cowdery “if he [Joseph] had ever acknowledged to him that he was guilty of such a thing…he answered No.”  That was all Joseph wanted: an admission that he had not termed the Alger affair adulterous.  As Cowdery told his brother, “just before leaving, he [Joseph] wanted to drop every past thing, in which had been a difficulty or difference–he called witnesses to the fact, gave me his hand in their presence, and I might have supposed of an honest man, calculated to say nothing of former matters.

These scraps of testimony recorded within a few years of the Alger business show how differently the various parties understood events…. On his part, Joseph never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous.  He wanted it on record that he had never confessed to such a sin.  Presumably, he felt innocent because he had married Alger.

After the Far West council excommunicated Cowdery, Alger disappears from the Mormon historical record for a quarter of a century.  Her story was recorded as many as sixty years later by witnesses who had strong reason to take sides.  Surprisingly, they all agree that Joseph married Fanny Alger as a plural wife.

… page 437

After marrying Fanny Alger sometime before 1836, Joseph, it appears, married no one else until he wed Louisa Beaman on April 5, 1841, in Nauvoo.  (Historians debate the possibility of one other wife in the interim.)

…page 325

Most of the other stories about Joseph’s plural marriage in Kirtland come from one individual without confirmation from a second source.  Ann Eliza, for example, included a story of Fanny being ejected by a furious Emma, one of the few scraps of information about her reaction.  Ann Eliza could not have been an eyewitness because she was not yet born, but she might have heard the story from her parents who were close to the Smiths.  Are such accounts to be believed?  One of the few tales that appears in more than one account was of Oliver Cowdery experimenting with plural wives himself, contrary to Joseph’s counsel.  That pattern of followers marrying prematurely without authorization was repeated later when some of Joseph’s followers used the doctrine of plural marriage as a license for marrying at will.  Stories like these, all of them partisan, must be treated with caution.

… page 326The end of Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger is as elusive as the beginning.  After leaving Kirtland in September 1836, Alger, reportedly a comely, amiable person, had no trouble remarrying.  Joseph asked her uncle Hancock to take her to Missouri, but she went with her parents instead.  They stopped in Indiana for a season, and while there she married Solomon Custer, a non-Mormon listed in the censuses as a grocer, baker, and merchant.  When her parents moved on, Alger remained in Indiana with her husband.  She bore nine children.  After Joseph’s death, Alger’s brother asked her about her relationship with the Prophet.  She replied:  “That is all a matter of my–own.  And I have nothing to Communicate.”

Was Eliza Snow pushed down the stairs?

Bushman doesn’t think so.  From page 493,

One story told in Utah in the 1880s had Emma pushing one of Mormondom’s most honored women, Eliza Roxcy Snow, down the stairs upon discovering she was married to Joseph, but the evidence for the incident is shaky.  Snow was a refined, intelligent woman who had been brought into the Smith household to teach their children.  She joined the Mormons in 1835 along with her sister Leonora and moved to Kirtland, where she boarded with the Smiths and taught school.  Slender and ramrod straight, Snow was the most intellectual of all the women converts.  She wrote poetry and prepared a constitution for the Female Relief Society.  Repelled at first by the practice of plural marriage, she concluded that she was “living in the dispensation of the fulness of times, embracing all the other Dispensations,” and so “surely Plural Marriage must necessarily be included.”  Brigham Young performed the ceremony for Joseph and Eliza on June 29, 1842.  She was thirty-eight, two years older than Joseph.  She later spoke of him as “my beloved husband, the choice of my heart and the crown of my life.”

In August 1842, Emma invited Eliza to move back into the Smith household.  In December, Eliza began teaching the Smith children and ran a school for them and others until March 1843.  Eliza noted in her diary that on February 11, 1843, while still teaching, she moved out of the Smiths’ house without saying why, though the reason could well be that on the same day, Joseph’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, moved in.  Later gossip blamed Emma.  All the versions of the Eliza story, however, were attenuated.  Most of them were tales told many decades after the fact and were second- or third-hand hearsay.  Some had Emma pushing Eliza, others said she beat her.  None hold up under scrutiny.  They have to be read skeptically because of the widespread dislike for Emma among the Utah Mormons.  Brigham Young never forgave her for breaking with the Church and not coming west.  She was considered a traitor to Mormonism because she remained behind and denied, in carefully worded statements that skirted the truth, that Joseph took additional wives.  When her sons, then leaders of a rival branch of Mormonism, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, came to Utah on missions in the 1860s, they tried to trace and discredit every claim that Joseph had multiple wives.  In response, the Utah church secured scores of affidavits from people who knew of the practice in Nauvoo.  Besides proving the existence of plural marriage, the affidavits attempted to refute the hypothesis that Joseph’s relations with his plural wives were purely spiritual.  Some members of the Reorganized Church accepted ceremonial marriages but thought Joseph never slept with his wives.  To rebut that view, the affidavits noted the occasions when Joseph occupied the same room with a wife, facts that might have been omitted had not the Utah Mormons been determined to prove the Joseph and his plural wives were married as completely as the later polygamists under Brigham Young.

Bushman gives so much detail, that it is hard to cover every aspect in a single post.  (There is more detail found here.)  But, given this information, what do you make of Smith’s practice of polygamy?  Are you comfortable with it?

While all Mormons are well-aware of polygamy, my first real encounter with uncomfortable facts about polygamy came when I heard John Dehlin’s interview of Todd Compton on Mormon Stories (episodes 12-14).  Compton wrote a book called “In Sacred Loneliness“, and goes into detail about all of Joseph Smith’s practices.  Then I read Richard Bushman’s book, “Rough Stone Rolling“, and was quite astonished to learn that Joseph married women who were currently married to other General Authorities, while they were still alive.

A third book, “Nauvoo Polygamy” by George Smith, caused me further discomfort with the practice, so much so that I never finished the book (but plan to go back to it later.)  My book club has picked 2 more books:  “The Mormon Question:” by Sarah Barringer Gordon (a non-mormon), and “More Wives Than One” Kathryn M. Daynes.  Additionally, I had been having a conversation with an RLDS blogger who claims Joseph Smith never taught or practiced polygamy.  (Since he is so rude, I refuse to publicize his site.)

I’m currently reading “Nauvoo: a place of Peace“, by Glen M. Leonard, which has a chapter on polygamy.  I read the first 125 or so pages, and found it focused on a lot of economic data, which I found rather dry.  So, I’m skipping ahead to some more interesting chapters.

Anyway, while I plan to devote some posts to Leonard’s chapter, which is written from a very sympathetic Mormon view, I have to say that from what I know so far about polygamy, I just do not believe it to be an inspired doctrine, just as I do not believe the priesthood ban was an inspired doctrine, as seen from my earlier post on that topic.  Now that may cause some people to ask if I believe Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet?  No.

I’m sure that seems like a big contradiction, but I have a more complex view of prophets.  I think they can make errors, even in revelation. I don’t believe a prophet is infallible.  I believe that when we look at Biblical prophets, we find errors in revelation, bad conduct, and pagan influences as well.  For example, I don’t believe God commanded genocide with Joshua, I question Abraham’s conduct with Hagar (and circumcision), and Jonah was a bigot towards the people of Nineveh (which deserves a future post.)  In short, I believe God uses fallible men to give revelations to.

So, while I respect Joshua “Choose you this day whom ye will serve”, Abraham, “the father of monotheism”, Jonah “swallowed by a great fish”, I can respect Joseph Smith as well.  Just as the former three were prophets, so is Joseph.  I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but my testimony of polygamy is completely different.  I can accept that Joseph spoke many inspired things, translated the Book of Mormon, and performed many miracles.  I can also accept that I don’t believe polygamy was inspired by God, just as the Curse of Cain was used by so many people to justify slavery.

So, as I post on polygamy in the future, I just want to make my perspective clear.  Comments?

OK Paul technically isn’t exactly an international DJ, not unless you consider that you can listen to his interviews on line.

He’s a returned missionary and member of the Grays Ward in the Romford Stake Essex England.  Paul got the show after being a presenter at Hospital Radio Chelmsford for a year and chased a local station for airtime:

“When I was asked to join Phoenix FM the station manager warned me that radio presenting wasn’t all easy but in fact involved a lot of voluntary service too.  I responded that I was a missionary in France for 2 years for the church and was used to giving service to others, as well as being actively involved in the church weekly.  The station manager was intrigued by this and I was invited to the station to explain more about my religious beliefs and the voluntary service I had done in France.  I was then offered the chance to begin a brand new religious show once a week that they had been wanting to start but couldn’t find anyone with the religious background to do it.  I put together the idea for a chat show where he would bring in local religious leaders and ask them about their beliefs on air and their views on current issues.”

Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson from the Church of Scientology – Listen   here

Highlights:

10 million members around the world. Their anti-drug program “Say no to drugs say yes to life”.  Human rights educational programme and other great work they do in the community.  We discussed the 8 dynamics, the founder of the church L. Ronald Hubbard and where the word “Scientology” comes from.

The core beliefs of the church of Scientology are:

Man is a spirit, he has lived before and that man is good. Through wisdom and knowledge man can improve any area of his life he wants. Scientology is all denominational and non-conversionary and members bring with them their own beliefs.

Great Interviews ( All the ads and music have been stripped out)

Habibur Rahman & Forad Edu – Islam / Alfurqaan Foundation
Father Matthew Bemand – St Thomas Church of England
Councillor Dudley Payne – Mayor of Brentwood
Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson – Scientology / Jive Aces
Ed Wellman – PhoenixFM Monday Classics
Richard Burch – Brentwood Buddhist Society
Chris Day – Crown Street Christian Fellowship
Reverand Peter Thomas (Baptist)
Reverand Trevor Jamison (United Reformed Church)
Julian May – ELIM
Father Paul Keane – Brentwood Catholic Cathedral
Bishop David Barter

The show can be seen at www.phoenixfm.com/proverbs98.php

Let us know your views

Faith needs reason because faith unchecked by reason can be just as deadly as reason unchecked by faith proved to be in the gulags of Soviet Russia, the Cultural Revolutions of Maoist China, and the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia.  (Would Stalin, Mao, and Pot have ordered the killings of millions if they had had faith in an afterlife and final judgment?)

We Mormons are certainly not immune to the potential dangers of unquestioning faith.

Brigham Young once said he feared that members of the Church would “settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation . . . .” (Journal of Discourses, 9:150 [quoted by James E. Faust, “Continuous Revelation,” Ensign, Nov 1989, 8].) When unconditional confidence in our church leaders is so often hailed as a virtue, one wonders what Brigham had in mind exactly when he warned church members against “trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in [our] salvation”. I wonder, what are “the purposes of God in [our] salvation” that are potentially thwarted by “reckless confidence” in church leaders?

In a similar vein, Brigham taught that we Mormons still have work to do in identifying and rooting out erroneous beliefs held among us. He explained that we receive revelation “line upon line” only to the degree that we have first thrown off “our false traditions and foolish notions”. [1] For me, hearing an LDS Prophet acknowledge that even we Mormons have “false traditions and foolish notions” suggests we have an ongoing obligation to critically evaluate our longstanding doctrines, policies, and practices to determine whether any of them are, in fact, false and foolish.

Of course, the greatest obstacle to identifying our “false traditions and foolish notions” is our own unwillingness to critically examine ourselves. There is no doubt that critical evaluation of our doctrines, policies, and practices is a delicate art in LDS circles, and there are plenty of examples of how not to criticize the Church. However, if done properly, critical evaluation can help us identify the false traditions and foolish notions among us so that we may lay them off, and thereby open our hearts and minds to new revelation from God (the Church’s re-evaluation and abandonment of the pre-1978 priesthood ban being an excellent example). In other words, when done properly, critical evaluation does not tear down the Church, it builds up the Church.

But despite our having successfully cast aside certain false traditions and foolish notions in the past, and despite the scriptural warnings against being lulled into an “all is well in Zion” mentality, there persists a strong resistance to the idea that other false traditions and foolish notions may still exist among us. As a result, when reasoned inquiry suggests that a longstanding doctrine, policy, or practice may be a false tradition or foolish notion that we ought to cast aside, such suggestions are often met with a host of misquotations, misinterpretations, and misapplications of scripture and doctrine that collectively promote the idea that true faith requires us to continue to adhere to the officially established status quo, even if it seems to be erroneous in our reasoned judgment. (Might that be the “reckless confidence” Brigham Young warned us against?) And the problem with that approach is that it can potentially lead people to embrace all manner of falsehood and evil, and in the cleverest manner of all: by convincing people that true faith requires them to ignore their reasoned judgment.

To illustrate my point, I’ve presented a fictional conversation below between an FLDS leader and an FLDS teenage girl. In the discussion below, an FLDS teenage girl is having reasonable doubts about FLDS doctrines, policies, and practices. At every step of the way, her FLDS leader gives her familiar responses designed to reinforce the idea that God is testing her faith by seeing whether she will unconditionally obey her church leaders regardless of her reasonable objections. As you read the conversation below, ask yourself this one question: Should this FLDS teenage girl abandon her reasonable doubts about FLDS doctrines, policies, and practices and exercise unconditional faith in her church leaders? Or should she listen to her inner voice of reason and common sense, and reject the faith propositions that her parents and leaders are attempting to foist upon her?

FLDS LEADER: Susan, I hear rumors your faith in President Jeffs and the Brethren is weakening. What’s going on?

FLDS GIRL: Well, brother Jeppson, I have to be honest, I have been having serious doubts about whether everything President Jeffs and the Brethren are doing is right, and whether everything they’re telling us is true. I feel so confused, and the more I think about what they’re doing and what they’re teaching us, the less sense it all makes to me.

FLDS LEADER: Young lady, God will never give you doubt or confusion. Satan is the author of doubt and confusion. God gives you faith. You need to have faith, nothing wavering. Doubt not.

FLDS GIRL: I’ve heard that before, but I just can’t help having all these questions about whether the things our church leaders are doing are really God’s will.

FLDS LEADER: Be careful, young lady, you shouldn’t be questioning if what our church leaders do and say is right. Follow the Prophet, President Jeffs. Don’t go astray. And be very careful, because questioning the Brethren is the road to personal Apostasy.

FLDS GIRL: What does personal Apostasy mean?

FLDS LEADER: It means rejecting your church leaders, which cuts you off from the one true church and God.

FLDS GIRL: So when you say that questioning our leaders can lead to personal Apostasy, you’re saying that questioning our leaders can lead to disagreeing with our leaders and rejecting them?

FLDS LEADER: That’s right.

FLDS GIRL: But why should we fear disagreeing with our leaders and rejecting them if they are wrong?

FLDS LEADER: Susan, how could you possibly think the Brethren are wrong?

FLDS GIRL: Well, for one, it just seems that so much of what our FLDS leaders do and teach couldn’t possibly be inspired by God.

FLDS LEADER: Well, God’s ways are higher than man’s ways. It doesn’t make sense to you because even God’s foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men.

FLDS GIRL: I know its not wise to reject God’s ways, but how do I know that what FLDS leaders are saying and doing is God’s way?

FLDS LEADER: Susan, surely you’ve heard that scripture enough times. “Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same.” There you have it. If our leaders say it, it’s the same as God saying it. If President Jeffs says it, then you can rest assured it is God’s way.

FLDS GIRL: I’m not so sure that’s the correct interpretation of that scripture. I read that scripture as saying if God says something to his servant, and his servant says it to us, then that indirect communication through a servant is the same as God saying it directly to us. In other words, if A says something to B, and B says it to C, then it’s the same as A saying it to C. But that’s quite a different proposition than the idea that everything B says to C must have come from A. That’s just bad logic.

FLDS LEADER: Bad logic? It seems to me you’re using the philosophies of men. And frankly, I don’t know where you get off thinking you have authority to interpret scripture for yourself. FLDS leaders alone have the authority to interpret scripture. And because we are God’s modern-day Prophets, what we say is new scripture, even if it seems to contradict existing scripture.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but I just can’t buy into that.

FLDS LEADER: You can’t buy into it? Young lady, you need to be humble. Be obedient. Be teachable. Be submissive. Don’t be so prideful and arrogant as to think that you are better able to discern the truth than your leaders who have decades of experience with matters of the Spirit.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but it just seems ridiculous to me that God would place in the hands of a select few men the ability to discern the truth, and then expect the rest of us to follow them no matter what.

FLDS LEADER: You’ve misunderstood me. I never said that FLDS leaders alone have the ability to discern the truth. You have the ability to know for yourself that FLDS leaders are God’s chosen prophets, seers, and revelators. First you must desire to believe, then you need to pray and ask God in faith, nothing doubting, if what the Brethren tell you is not true, and God will tell you that it is true.

FLDS GIRL: Well, I’ve done that, several times, but I don’t sense God confirming to me so many of the things the FLDS leaders and teaching and doing.

FLDS LEADER: Well, the Holy Spirit can only communicate with you if you have clean hands and a pure heart. Susan, is there any sin or other misdeed in your life that could be preventing you from feeling the whispers of the Holy Spirit?

FLDS GIRL: Sins and misdeeds? I’m sure I have plenty. The Bible teaches us that we have all sinned, and that not one doeth good. The Book of Mormon teaches us that we can’t count all the ways we can offend God. So I’m sure I have many sins.

FLDS LEADER: Well then, now we’re making progress. You need to repent of your sins, and when you’ve fully repented and abandoned all your sinful ways, you’ll be able to feel the Holy Spirit confirming the truthfulness of FLDS teachings. And if you do that and still can’t feel the Holy Spirit confirming the truthfulness of FLDS teachings, then you need to keep repenting until you can.

FLDS GIRL: Maybe I should have been more clear. Although I am sure I have sins, I can assure you that I am not guilty of any serious sins or transgressions. Like Joseph Smith, I can honestly say that “while I frequently fall into many foolish errors and display the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, lead me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins.”

FLDS LEADER: Well then, if you are certain your heart is sufficiently pure to receive revelation, then all you need to do is give the Lord more time to give you a testimony. Be patient and exercise faith by doing whatever your leaders tell you to do. And by so doing, over time, maybe even after years or even decades, you will receive a testimony that what they are telling you is true. But don’t abandon the faith of your fathers. Endure to the end.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but I just can’t spend my whole life obeying orders and believing things that don’t make sense to me, hoping that one day, years or decades down the road, I might finally get a witness of their truthfulness. What if decades go by and that spiritual witness never comes? By the time I realize it was all wrong all along, it will be too late; most of my life will have already gone by.

FLDS LEADER: But you don’t have to worry about that, Susan, because if the Prophet tells you to do something and it’s wrong, and you obey it, then the Lord will only reward you for your faith and will never punish you for it. But don’t worry, because the Lord will never allow President Jeffs to lead us astray in the first place.

FLDS GIRL: I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make any sense to me that God will reward me for doing something erroneous because I chose to disregard my reason and follow the commandments of men who claimed to be divinely inspired but weren’t. And I understand President Jeffs thinks the Lord will never let him lead us astray, but what if President Jeffs is leading us astray by telling us that he will never lead us astray?

FLDS LEADER: Listen, young lady, you know what the Proverb says: “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not to thine own understanding.” Trusting in the Lord means trusting in his chosen prophets instead of relying on your own understanding.

FLDS GIRL: Well, maybe trusting in the Lord means trusting in his prophets, but how do I know the FLDS leaders are God’s chosen prophets in the first place?

FLDS LEADER: I already told you: repent and be clean, desire to believe, then pray in faith, nothing doubting, and if the answer doesn’t come, just keep obeying and doing what they tell you, and in doing everything they tell you to do, eventually you’ll know for yourself that what they say is true.

FLDS GIRL: And what if I’ve done that and I feel the Holy Spirit has told me something that contradicts what the Brethren have said?

FLDS LEADER: That won’t ever happen, because everything the Brethren say comes from the Holy Spirit. Remember: they will never lead us astray.

FLDS GIRL: I hate to say it, but it seems we’re just going around in circles here.

FLDS LEADER: You know, that’s a really contentious thing to say, and I’m getting really concerned by the contentious tone of your remarks. Stop contending with me and the Brethren. Contention is of the Devil.

FLDS GIRL: So let me get this straight: when our Church rejects all the other religions and churches and their leaders and their beliefs, that’s not contention. And when the Brethren tell members they’re wrong and that they need to get in line, that’s not contention either. But when members disagree with the Brethren, that’s contention?

FLDS LEADER: Young lady, I’m sad to say it, but it’s quite apparent to me that you just don’t have a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

FLDS GIRL: With all due respect, I don’t think it has anything to do with that. It’s just that so much of what our FLDS leaders are doing and saying these days seems to just defy plain common sense; it seems so illogical.

FLDS LEADER: But don’t you see, Susan, that’s the whole nature of faith — believing or doing something even if it contradicts your sense of reason! Do you think it made sense to Noah to build an ark when it wasn’t raining? Do you think it made sense to Abraham to have to kill his own son? But Noah and Abraham defied their “common sense”, their “reason”, their “logic”, and they did exactly what the Lord told them to do even though it seemed not to make any sense at the time.

FLDS GIRL: Look, I completely understand why we would need to follow a direct commandment from God like Noah and Abraham received, even if it doesn’t seem to make sense. But isn’t that a very different proposition than the idea that we need to unconditionally follow a man, President Jeffs, even if what he says doesn’t make sense to us? Isn’t that really just asking us to put blind faith in a man?

FLDS LEADER: No, Susan, that’s not asking you to put faith in a man because God is at the head of this FLDS Church. I so testify to you. Unconditionally obeying President Jeffs is not putting your faith in man; it’s putting your faith in God!

FLDS GIRL: Well, I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense to me either. It seems like asking me to unconditionally obey President Jeffs and the Brethren is asking me to put my faith in man.

FLDS LEADER: Susan, I feel impressed to warn you that the eternal fate of your soul is at stake here, so let me get down to the bottom line. Susan, this whole life is really just a test to see if we will do everything the Lord requires of us, yes, even if it contradicts our “logic” and “reason”. And you need to understand that President Jeffs and the Brethren are the only ones on Earth who have the authority to tell us what the Lord requires. So by obeying them, you are demonstrating the faith that God requires of us. And in fact, the more illogical the Brethren’s actions or teachings seem to you, the more faith you are demonstrating to God when you obey them!

FLDS GIRL: So it seems you’re telling me to ignore my sense of reason.

FLDS LEADER: Well, Susan, that’s precisely what true faith requires!

FLDS GIRL: But why would God give us reason and then require us to forsake it?

FLDS LEADER: Well, I guess that’s a question we’re just going to have to wait until the next life to understand.

CONCLUSION

To be clear, the point of the fictional dialogue above is to illustrate how scripture and doctrine can be misinterpreted and misapplied to preach a false version of faith that can be probably found amongst most religions, churches, and denominations — an unquestioning faith; a faith that requires us to ignore reason; a faith that demands unconditional obedience to leaders because of their claimed divine authority. And the problem with that unreasoned faith is that it can lead people to embrace all manner of falsehood and evil by convincing devout believers in any church that the status quo established by their leaders must not be questioned, must not be challenged, must always be right, and must always be followed, no matter how unreasonable it may be.

NOTES:

[1] The full quote is as follows: “[God] would be glad to send angels to communicate further to this people, but there is no room to receive it, consequently, He cannot come and dwell with you. There is a further reason: we are not capacitated to throw off in one day all our traditions, and our prepossessed feelings and notions, but have to do it little by little. It is a gradual process, advancing from one step to another; and as we layoff our false traditions and foolish notions, we receive more and more light, and thus we grow in grace; and if we continue so to grow we shall be prepared eventually to receive the Son of Man, and that is what we are after.” (Journal of Discourses 2:309-318).

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

While I did cover most of the scriptures included in the lesson I went a completely different direction with it. This was the exact lesson I needed at this moment of time.  But the real point of the lesson was the fact that the purposes of God cannot be frustrated by Joseph Smith’s boneheaded weaknesses. This is a major and significant lesson.

Joseph was praying for forgiveness the night that Moroni came because he had become a lazy prankster who liked to dig for buried treasure. He knew he was not someone who would be expected to be a Prophet–there was nothing exceptional about him. He was not preparing himself very well for any great work.

But it was OK. God was going to use him anyway. Moroni comes to see him.

Then he meets Emma while employed digging for a long lost Spanish silver mine down by Harmony and instead of getting a real job and making himself respectable, he just dishonors Emma’s family and runs off with her to get married without blessing or permission. This was a selfish and impulsive act contrary to one of the 10 commandments. Can you imagine how he would be lauded in the Church today if he had stayed for a year working on a local farm proving himself to get Emma’s parents permission. But we largely ignore the elopement.

But it was OK. God was going to use him anyway. He gets the plates.

Then he gives the 116 pages to Martin after not taking no for an answer and a lifetime of Father Lehi’s work is gone in an instant. All Lehi’s blood sweat and tears put into his record are thrown down the drain because Joseph is a stubborn and disobedient sod.

But it was OK. God was going to use him anyway. He got the plates back and finished the rest of the book and the Small Plates of Nephi cover the gap in the story (to a certain extent).

The lesson covered the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon, but I taught the lesson of how Joseph kept failing during the process of bringing for the Book of Mormon (I only mentioned the elopement in passing) and how that was OK because he repented and the work of God rolled forward.

One cannot read Sections 3 and 10 honestly and think anything other than Joseph’s falling from his calling was not only possible but might have seemed at times likely. The doctrine of the Prophet not ever being able to lead the Church astray comes much latter. (It is found in the excerpted conference talks by Wilford Woodruff after the Manifesto in the PofGP.) In 1828 and the years following, it probably seemed likely to even Joseph that he would be rejected.

I also find it interesting that he is directly reproved in Section 3 verse 4 for his “carnal desires”. It is no surprise that later it is precisely his carnal desires leading to Fanny Alger and Marinda Knight and so many others that lead so many of the early Church leaders to conclude he was a fallen Prophet and leave his side.

I have a testimony that despite all Joseph’s weaknesses–including being too often a petty dictator and horny lustmonger–he was the Lord’s chosen. He made many mistakes, many serious mistakes. They ended up costing him his life. But his mistakes did not frustrate the purposes of God. The restoration happened, imperfectly, but it happened.

And so today the Church rolls forward. Imperfectly (very very imperfectly) but it rolls forward. Some cannot abide the imperfections. I don’t blame them. Sometimes I want to join them. Often even. But no imperfections, not matter how ugly or pervasive, can stop the work of God entirely. It is too hard for me to remember that truth.

I love Joseph Smith. I want to slap him upside the head for being so often a total idiot. But I love him just the same.

This is where I am at today anyway.

Seriously, think about it:

How many times have you heard someone complain about the Adam/God theory – or polygamy/polyandry – or Joseph’s statements regarding Adam-Ondi-Ahman – or the Manifesto – or the justifications for the Priesthood ban – or any other concept that was preached in the past that has been left by the wayside now?  How many of those people who complain also use their concern about these things to explain their crisis of faith – often linking it directly to the person who taught those views – including their struggles to accept that person as a real prophet of God explicitly because of the things they said and taught?  How many of those people then turn around and complain about how “boring” the Church is now and pine for the time when prophets were PROPHETS!!!! and boldly spoke their minds about the will and word of God – or the time when the Church was more liberal and free-wheeling and evolving day-to-day? Generally, these statements are followed by something like,

If only I had lived back then!  I would have embraced the Gospel and the Church back in the good old days.

My question is a simple one:

How can people complain about what a former Prophet taught then turn around and say they miss and long for “the good old days”?  I believe we are judged by how we handle our own day, just as the early Saints were judged by how they handled their own day.  The original members of the modern Church pined for the time of Christ and the ancient Church, forgetting that the earliest Christians were crucified and fed to lions.  We pine for the time of Joseph, forgetting that we might have been asked to engage in polygamy or polyandry – or been tarred and feathered – or lost multiple children and a spouse as we shivered and shuddered and struggled across the plains.

Personally, I’ll take my day over Joseph’s and Brigham’s any day and twice on Sunday – when they used to meet all day, and our entire three-hour block of meetings would have been the opening exercises.  Nostalgia is easy – especially for those who never lived in the times for which they are nostalgic.  It allows them to criticize (often harshly) those early leaders while pining for the time in which they lived.

No thanks.

Orson Pratt, who was an early defender of plural marriage, often explained that its purpose was to participate in the blessings of Abraham and to more effectively populate worlds:

“Therefore, a Father… could increase his kingdoms with his own children, in a hundred fold ratio above that of another who had only secured to himself one wife. As yet, we have only spoken of the hundred fold ratio as applied to his own children; but now let us endeavor to form some faint idea of the multiplied increase of worlds peopled by his grandchildren, over which he, of course, would hold authority and dominion as the Grand Patriarch of the endless generations of his posterity. …the one-hundredth generation would people more worlds than could be expressed by raising one million to the ninety-ninth power.” (The Seer, March 1853, p. 39)

Brigham Young concurred with Pratt when he stated:

“This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)

The Book of Mormon is supportive of these conclusions. Although Jacob teaches that many of David and Solomon’s marriages were not sanctioned

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord…there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. (Jac. 2:24-29)

he also outlines the conditions under which he would approve polygamy:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30)

If the purpose of polygamy was to populate this world and the next, why did Joseph Smith have so little success in raising up posterity from his polygamous wives?

Over the years, there have been claims that some of Joseph’s plural wives had children by him. A thorough search of all children who could possibly have been sired by Joseph has been made. Each of the children of Joseph’s polygamous wives between the time they contracted marriage and Joseph’s death in 1844 were considered. Nine people have been identified by historians as being possible children of Joseph Smith:

• George Algernon Lightner (son of Mary Rollins Lightner who was also married to Adam Lightner), and Orson Washington Hyde (son of Marinda Johnson Hyde who was also married to Orson Hyde). These two children died as infants.
• Moroni Llewellyn Pratt (son of Mary Ann Frost Pratt, who was also married to Parley P. Pratt), Zebulon Jacobs (son of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith, who was also married to Henry Bailey Jacobs) and Orrison Smith (son of Fanny Alger). These three alleged male descendants were ruled out by DNA testing in 2005.
• Mosiah Hancock (son of Clarissa Reed Hancock, who was married to Levi Hancock), Oliver Buell (son of Prescindia Huntington Buell, who was also married to Norman Buell). DNA testing also ruled out these two males in 2007.
• That leaves John Reed Hancock (son of Clarissa Reed Hancock, above) and Josephine Rosetta Lyon (daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who was also married to Windsor Lyon.)

I have included the Hancock sons despite the fact that Todd Compton and most reliable Joseph Smith specialists do not recognize Clarissa Hancock as being one of Joseph Smith’s wives. Josephine Lyon cannot be tested with current technology because Y-DNA genetic testing for non-male lines is not possible. Researchers are currently using autosomal DNA testing on descendants of Josephine Lyon and should be able to make a conclusion within the next two years.

Ugo Perego, director of operations at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, where these DNA tests are ongoing, has stated: “I’m not saying the list I have is definitive or complete at all. But out of those we have data for, there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith.”

One must ask the question: If the purpose of plural marriage was to propagate additional posterity, why did it seem to have failed in the case of Joseph Smith, the first modern Prophet to restore the practice?

The main difficulties with this lesson are:

1. Lack of context.  The letters (snippets) are presented without any context of the rocky relationship that existed between Joseph and Emma.  Although his polygamy was a sore topic with many ups and downs, none of that is mentioned to contextualize the relationship in the letters.  There were other points of discord between them that are also not mentioned.  It only references things like where they were and whether Emma was pregnant at the time or if a child had been sick.
2. No doctrine.  There is no doctrinal content whatsoever, just snippets of letters.
3. “Gag me with a spoon” factor.  Like all letters from this era, the language is flowery and exaggerated.  The style of writing is clichéd and designed to obfuscate meaning through emotionalism rather than to communicate directly and clearly.  What’s next?  A walk through “Cupid’s Grove” with Abigail and John Adams?  I know this kind of stuff is really appealing to some people; it’s just not my thing.  I’m sort of glad we quit signing letters “Your humble servant.”
4. Weak Application.  The letters are personal with no inherent universal application.  That, coupled with the ambiguous state of the Smith marriage (which is neatly avoided), and the nature of letters from this period (the sentimentality) greatly reduces their applicability.  Likening the scriptures unto ourselves is one thing; likening letters between Joseph and Emma to ourselves is much more difficult, especially with no meaningful context (although in this case, the context would probably make it even more meaningless to current lay members).

There are a few hints at the on-and-off strain in the relationship:

• “And as to yourself, if you want to know how much I want to see you, examine your feelings, how much you want to see me, and judge for yourself.”  (1839)
• “O Emma, … do not forsake me nor the truth, but remember me.”  (1838)

My favorite snippet, that seems much very folksy and personable.  He had a real fondness for that dog:

• “I want you to try to gain time and write to me a long letter and tell me all you can and even if old Major is alive yet and what those little prattlers say that cling around your neck.”  (1839)

Difficulties are naturally presented in highly emotional ways with a religious persecution spin.  There is a desire for the stories to be recast in a way that motivates further religious and familial devotion; for example:

• “Tell them I am in prison that their lives might be saved.”  (1839)

I’ve read a lot of things written in this time period, and I have to wonder.  The following frankly sounds like an oblique reference to a conjugal visit:

• “I take the liberty to tender you my sincere thanks for the two interesting and consoling visits that you have made me during my almost exiled situation. Tongue cannot express the gratitude of my heart, for the warm and true-hearted friendship you have manifested in these things towards me.”  (1842)

The questions provided in the lesson are not tremendously helpful either, but here is the direction I would take it to maximize personal applicability (sticking to the questions in bold).  The below is straight from the manual, except where indicated:

• Briefly review this chapter, noting Joseph Smith’s feelings toward Emma and their children.  What does his example teach about how we should speak and act in our families?  (Don’t write down anything negative?  Don’t express your true feelings in letters?  Accentuate the positive?) What can we learn from Joseph and Emma Smith’s efforts to write to one another and to see one another?  (Very little since there is no context and only one side to the conversation). What are some things you have done to show family members that you love them?
• The Prophet Joseph told Emma that he was “a true and faithful friend to [her] and the children forever,” and he thanked her for her “warm and true-hearted friendship” (pages 242, 246). What can husbands and wives do to nurture their friendship? (Well, if I’m right about the conjugal visit . . .  But seriously, folks.  I think this is a helpful question, and I would just let the sisters discuss.)
• In his letters, Joseph Smith showed trust in Emma, expressing confidence that she would make good decisions and do all she could to take care of the family (page 245). How might such expressions of trust influence the relationship between a husband and a wife?  (You could say he was expressing confidence in her ability to take care of the family in his absence, or you could say he was reminding her of her duties.  Given that he was largely absent, his instructions seem custodial to me and would probably tick me off.  Still, you could just throw out this question to the group about how you can build trust in a marriage, regardless of whether his letters are a good example of that.) How can we build trust in our marriages?
• Read the Prophet Joseph’s message to his children in the second paragraph on page 246. How might it have helped his children to receive this news?  (It made it clear to them that the thing that stood between them and their loving father was the mob.) During times of trial, what can parents do to show their children that they have faith in God?
• Review Joseph Smith’s expressions of trust in God found on pages 243–46. Identify several of these expressions that are particularly touching to you.  How can you apply these truths in your life? (Since this is not presenting “truth,” so much as faith, I would repurpose the question to “How can trials strengthen your faith in God?” which I realize is too broad and a lot like the last question.)

Since there is not a lot of meat here (which could be the upside of this lesson–it’s different from the other lessons), I will mention a few other lesson ideas I’ve seen bandied about (all of which sound pretty good to me at filling the allotted time):

• Have a man come in to read the letter snippets so people can hear them in a “Joseph” voice.  He could even tie his tie in a bow and put his shirt collars up in true 1830s fashion, if you are daring.
  
• Print the snippets out on old-style parchment paper with a seal and have sisters read them aloud.  A little crafty for my taste, but you could do it.
• Take time at the end of class to write a letter to loved one(s) sharing your faith, love, and trust.  Perhaps a little “precious,” but again, there’s time here to be filled.

That is the best I’ve got, gang.  Let me know your thoughts on what you think works best for this lesson.

Upon engaging unsettling historical evidence, most people will fall into one of roughly four groups:

1. The “Blind Faith” approach. Reject the evidence out of hand as “white noise” from Satan. Continue to accept the official church party line as 100% correct.  Steer clear of further information on this topic because it is apostate or unhealthy.
2. The “Have Your Cake and Eat it Too” approach. Accept one of the many apologetic explanations that attempts to reconcile the evidence while still hoping for additional information to exonerate.  In the end, the authenticity of the actual story is held more or less in tact.
3. The “Post Modern” approach. Realize that many factual and historical claims are simply unknowable and contingent on other unknowables, so it probably doesn’t matter.  What matters is what you think and do because religion is nothing more than personal/spiritual feelings about the Divine put into story, symbol, ceremony, and covenant.  All of us adopt some stories and reject others. This approach moves the focus away from Joseph Smith and onto you.  What has God told you? Do these stories resonate with you and help you become a better person?
4. The “See You Later Alligator” approach.  Accept the evidence as pretty damning and reject the church’s claims out of hand.  Likely reject Joseph as either delusional or very calculated.  Reject believers, especially those in categories 1 and 2 above, as seriously biased, or even deluded or calculated.

Obviously there are subcategories and various permutations to the above approaches.  Feel free to add categories I may have missed or to think of this as a sliding scale.  If your initial approach was to “ask of God” as Joseph Smith did, regardless of your answer (or lack thereof), you still likely fall into one of these categories.  Does that experience color where you fall on this scale?

The interesting thing is that you’ll probably use the same approach to any of Mormon issues you encounter (i.e. BOM historicity, polygamy, patriarchy, priesthood restoration, first vision, blacks and the priesthood, translation methods, etc.) and possibly to any Christian issues you encounter (i.e. creation story vs. cavemen, age of the earth, miracles, Christ’s conception, the concept of atonement when viewed as a historical event, etc.) or religious issues in general (i.e. the inability to empirically prove the existence of God, the inability to statistically prove the power of prayer to heal, etc.).

I’m not making any value judgements here. There isn’t a “correct” approach, only an approach that allows you to better engage with God.  Which do you choose?

He was a murderer (killed an Egyptian).  Joseph Smith was not accused of murder, but he did destroy a printing press and engage in suspicious treasure-digging endeavors.  Even so, Moses wins this one.

He was a thief and organized criminal, instructing his people to plunder the Egyptians and take everything of
value that wasn’t nailed down when they left.  Joseph Smith told the early Saints in Missouri to abandon their homes that were then destroyed or plundered by neighbors.  Once again, Moses wins.

He abandoned his people in the desert for long periods of time, then when they struggled due to his own absentee leadership, he blamed them (Exodus 32:1).  Many early church leaders left due to weaknesses they perceived in Joseph.  Let’s call this one a draw.

He was a mass-murderer, ordering his enforcers to slaughter 3000 men for worshiping the golden calf (Exodus 32:28).  Then he tried to poison them by making them drink it.  On the Zion’s camp journey, they did have to drink some pretty disgusting swamp water.  Still, not even close on this one–Moses takes it.

He hypocritically spared the life of his brother, who was the one who made the calf/idol in the first place.   Nepotism!  Joseph frequently misjudged others’ character out of love and loyalty for them, often to his own detriment.  Whether bolstering his father’s confidence or entrusting John C. Bennett with a leadership role he was unworthy to hold, Joseph often erred on the side of mercy with those whom he loved.  This looks like a draw.

He denied freedom-of-religion to those wanted to worship the golden calf and other idols.  Joseph’s political platform and the voting bloc of the early church caused many to fear that the church was becoming too powerful and would deny freedoms to neighbors and rights to citizens.  And those fears appear to be alive and well today in certain parts of the country.  But, given that one of our Articles of Faith specifically speaks to allowing all to worship how they choose, Moses once again wins this one.

He was a bigamist.  Joseph has 33 wives of record during his life time, some of which may have been platonic and none of which were openly co-habitating with him (unless you count Fanny Alger); still we have to give this one to Joseph.

Oh, and he was very homophobic, sexist (calling women unclean, and they were unclean for twice as long if they gave birth to a female child as opposed to a male child–how insulting!)  Joseph created the Relief Society and did not prohibit women from practicing the priesthood, although he also did not specifically ordain women to the offices in the priesthood.  Joseph was pretty progressive for his day; Moses clearly wins this one.

He was bigoted, prejudiced and provincial (he wouldn’t let his people date or marry non-Hebrews).  Joseph welcomed all visitors openly, offering his home to all, regardless of their race or religion.  He crafted a plan to buy and free all slaves so that their owners would not come after them for retribution, and his presidential platform was anti-slavery.  Moses was clearly the more bigoted.

I think with some research, one could come up with a lot more indictments on Moses’ character.

So, for those who like to criticize Joseph Smith, does this list more securely solidify him as a prophet?  Or do two wrongs not make a right?  Is Moses’ character simply characteristic of his era, or has the historical record been embellished over time?  How does the Lord work through imperfect prophets?  How do other modern-day prophets’ flaws stack up against these historical precedents?  Are modern-day prophets’ flaws evidence that humanity is evolving or that message control is getting tighter or something else?  Discuss.

“Marriage for all eternity is being threatened. Many male members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are married to multiple women in heaven. Even today, prominent LDS general authorities are also polygamists in heaven. I believe in the importance of eternal marriage; therefore I would like to propose a “Celestial Marriage Amendment” that would define marriage in heaven as “one man married to one woman.” This is a moral issue that certainly threatens to undermine the sanctity of heavenly unions…”

I for one would be a bit more comfortable if this matter was cleared up. Will it take a revelation to do it? After learning about the fervor with which Spencer W. Kimball sought revelation on the priesthood issue, I often wonder if we have just left polygamy alone, rather than actively seeking guidance. Normally I would agree that we don’t need to worry about these types of things right now, but we are still practicing it.There must be at least some choice involved, however, because I’ve heard people may be sealed “for time” in temples. Is that correct?

I always tell my wife that if she died young, I would find an LDS woman (or of another faith) who had lost her husband and we would get married for time only. Sure, people fall in love again, but I think I would be betraying my respect and honor for her by adding on a second. What do you think?

I just spent the last week in Hollywood, so I thought it would be fun to try different readings of that title to see how the emphasis changes the meaning.  (This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer says, “These pretzels are making me thirsty!”).

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It – with the emphasis on “obedience,”  it kind of sounds like:  “Obedience!  When the Lord Commands, Do It:  The Musical!”  The score would probably be lame.

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It – “When” as in “when and if,” or as we’ve discussed elsewhere on MM, you have to obey when it’s commanded and not when it is not (e.g. cutting off Laban’s head is A-OK when commanded, but beheading people in general is frowned upon; polygamy is grand if you’ve been asked to do it, but you may be told no if you show up at JS’s door rubbing your hands together and asking for some spiritual wife action.)

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  But surely, when Allah commands (or your terror cell leader says he does), you might want to think twice before you do it.  So, this reading places the emphasis on who is doing the commanding:  the Lord, one of the Lord’s servants, or your Aunt Sally telling you what she thinks the Lord wants you to do.  So–important to verify the source?

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  So, if the Lord’s just suggesting it (earrings & tatoos?), you could drag your feet (e.g. Oliver Cowdery translating the BOM?).

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  Emphasis on action (vs. thought or questioning?).  This is probably the most orthodox reading.

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  Well, that just makes the meaning of “it” ambigious in this context.  Which actually brings up a good point – when He commands, do what exactly?  This title isn’t really proper grammar–the pronoun “it” is lacking a direct object to the verb “commands” to explain the pronoun.  Are all commandments clear about what exactly should be done?  (Remember, we shouldn’t need to be commanded in all things).  Or is that perceived ambiguity really just an excuse to vacillate?

Think about this:  What did obedience mean to JS and to the early church members?  How has that meaning evolved over time?  What does it mean to LDS today?  What does it mean to you personally at this stage of your spiritual journey?  Here are some of JS’s thoughts on obedience from the lesson:

Earning Salvation

“To get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded.” (1844)

This is a clear “earning salvation” quote.  The word used here was “salvation,” although current teaching would upgrade that to “exaltation” (salvation is free for everyone through the atonement; exaltation costs extra).  How has the church’s understanding of the role of faith and works evolved?  Has the dialogue spurred by evangelical churches added clarity or confusion to our actual doctrine?  In short, why are we so doggone defensive about this?

Church Unity Imperative

“When instructed, we must obey that voice, observe the laws of the kingdom of God, that the blessing of heaven may rest down upon us. All must act in concert, or nothing can be done, and should move according to the ancient Priesthood; hence the Saints should be a select people, separate from all the evils of the world—choice, virtuous, and holy.”  (1844)

How did JS’s obsession with building an earthly kingdom of God (a Zion or city of Enoch) influence his emphasis on obedience as a means to purifying the saints into a “holy people”?  Are we still attempting to build a kingdom of God on earth today or is the church’s global status (staying put vs. gathering to Zion) shifting us toward a broader moral spectrum for practical reasons (shirtless calendar guy would probably say there is still crackdown on infractions from HQ)?  Does obedience purify us?  If so, how?  Is it important to become a “holy people” or are we fooling ourselves to think so?  Are we collectively getting holier or less holy over time?  (Evidence for “holier” = fewer apostles are being ex’d than in JS’s day).

When True Is Unpopular

“The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.” (1842)

Clearly, JS stood alone in some unpopular principles (e.g. plural marriage, King Follett discourse, etc.).  If all people have the light of Christ which tells them what is good, why are some true principles unpopular?  How can we tell if an unpopular principle is true or just outdated?  What types of peer pressure (from other churches) exist for the church?  How does the church cope with unpopular (yet true) principles? 

Principle-Based Obedience

 Joseph Smith taught the following in April 1843, later recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 130:20–21: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

“All blessings that were ordained for man by the Council of Heaven were on conditions of obedience to the law thereof.” (1843)

How does the emphasis on the underlying principle (the law upon which it is predicated) vs. the obedience itself add meaning to this idea?  Here are some possible examples to consider:  temple attendance vs. temple worship, accepting a calling vs. magnifying a calling, prayer vs. seeking to know God, being born again as an event vs. enduring to the end faithfully (finishing the race).  How does changing to principle-centered worship vs. activity-centered worship make us more spiritual?  Why is it so easy to forget the underlying principles and start checking our duties off a list?

Becoming Holy Like God

“Remember, brethren, that He has called you unto holiness; and need we say, to be like Him in purity? How wise, how holy; how chaste, and how perfect, then, you ought to conduct yourselves in His sight; and remember, too, that His eyes are continually upon you.” (1834)

This is theosis teaching (on par with NT brand theosis anyway) from a very early date (10 years before King Follett breathed his last).  Does this brand of “eternal progression” distinguish LDS from other Christian sects?  How has that distinction changed over time?  Is “eternal progression” a true but unpopular principle in our day?  Is obedience requisite to progression or does it hamper progression?

Discuss.

An article in Newsweek this week poses these questions.  What is the real age of accountability?  Are age limits arbitrary?  The article compares two recent cases:  YFZ Ranch raid and Omar Khadr.

• Adults treated as children.  The article states that the actions of the Texas CPS were based on assumptions that didn’t hold up in court:  1) the original complaint call was a hoax, 2) the assumption of the TCPS was that the beliefs of the FLDS were inherently dangerous (the court failed to uphold this), and 3) the belief that the polygamous women were too young to consent (15 of 31 were legal adults, one as old as 27).  The court found that being ”sober, conservative, religious and married . . . doesn’t necessarily make them victims of abuse.”  A case of treating adults like children.
• Children treated like adults.  The article contrasts this with the case of Omar Khadr, a 21-year old Canadian facing a life sentence who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for six years.  At age 15, he was charged with throwing a grenade in a fire fight in Afghanistan, killing one U.S. Soldier.  His lawyers state that, as a child soldier, he should be protected and rehabilitated as a victim.  The judge in the case has overruled that argument and stated that he will be tried as an adult.

In this example, both cases have completely different outcomes.  Is this evidence that the courts are lenient on pacifists but harsh on warmongers (make love, not war)?  Or is this evidence of protecting our own (fanatical Americans) but not protecting others (fanatical Canadian citizen/Islamic terrorist)?

Both cases are examples of what average Americans might call adults brainwashing teens to accomplish their own religious ends.  Or you could argue they are both cases of young adults with fanatical devotion for a religious cause.

The term “brainwashing” is liberally applied these days and experts question whether religious brainwashing is even a reality.  The term originated in 1950 to explain why so many GIs defected in the Korean war after being POWs.  They were subjected to psychological torture such as sleep deprivation to systematically break down their feelings of autonomy and individuality.  Efforts to prove religious groups, cults or NRMs have conducted “brainwashing” or persuasive coersion have been largely fruitless at explaining the shift in fundamental beliefs for converts.  With children, there is no actual shift in belief since they are raised to believe this way.  So, beliefs we don’t like (Jihad and polygamy) are brainwashing, but beliefs we like “being a [insert political party of choice]” or “the American dream” are not brainwashing.

The term adult is also difficult to define.  Various societies consider the age of adulthood to be as low as 13 or as high as 21.  The majority would put that age between 15 and 18.  What are the characteristics of adults?  A list proposed on Wikipedia includes the following characteristics: 

Based on this list, I’m not sure I know any adults.  Maybe Ray.  In any case, each item on this list is more of a subjective continuum than a yes/no.

So, what do you think?  What is an adult and what is brainwashing?  Are polygamist teens and terrorist teens unable to make their own choices?  Are they 1) victims or 2) perpetrators or 3) adults responsible for their choices?  Were they brainwashed by their religions or have they made a choice?  How can we legitimately tell the difference?  At what age should people be held accountable and considered adults?  Do we overprotect those we see as victims while we underprotect those we see as victimizers?  Discuss.

Unless your last name is Van Winkle, you likely already know that, yesterday afternoon, the California Supreme Court concluded that the state’s law prohibiting same-sex marriage (SSM, for short) is unconstitutional. Put more simply, in 30 days, SSM will be a reality in California. For those of us here on the Left Coast, things are about to get very interesting. Within hours of the ruling, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, without a hint of irony, told a gathering of reporters: “I plan to marry as many people as I can.”

Like many others, I’m still working my way through the 100+ page opinion. We lawyers sure love our footnotes, and one in particular has got me thinking. To be clear, I am no fundamentalist Mormon, and I certainly am not bucking for the opportunity to bring another set of problems wife into my happy family. But I can’t help but be annoyed by the apparent fact that, over a century later, courts are still content to rely on outdated and prejudicial attitudes towards Mormon polygamy.

The key holding — one that will be contested in the coming months by way of a final ballot initiative — is that the right to marry “guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” The Supreme Court dropped the following footnote to this sentence:

We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the right to marry. Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. Thus, our conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives. (emphasis added; legal citations deleted).

As I read it, this footnote is the Court’s way of brushing aside fears of a “slippery slope” resulting from their decision. According to this argument, which has featured prominently in both the California and the national debate, SSM should be banned because legalization necessarily will open the door to all manner of heretofore prohibited martial relationships. Inevitably, polygamy is at the top of every list of “loves that dare not speak their name.”

Here’s my question for you: Do you agree with the Court that polygamy between is truly “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the right to marry?” Is polygamy so nefarious a practice that, by its very nature, it will have a “detrimental effect on a sound family environment?”

This is the same logic the U.S. Supreme Court relied on 120 or so years ago to validate legislative efforts (including the Edmunds-Tucker Act) to stamp out polygamy (in Reynolds v. United States (1879) and Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1890)). As Sarah Barringer Gordon deftly illustrates in her book, “The Mormon Question,” this analysis was flawed to the extent it relied on a hodge-podge of ill-informed and simply false ideas about Mormons promulgated by the popular (and very loud) anti-polygamy movement, i.e. Utah women were enslaved by the Church, etc.

I see that same sort of stereotypical thinking in yesterday’s ruling. As a starting point, the Court lumps polygamy in with incest without bothering to draw any distinction between the two. From there, the Court treads on shaky legal ground. To wit, the jurisprudence cited by the Court holds that laws restricting certain marital relationships are necessary for reasons such as (i) “protecting persons who may not be in a position to freely consent to sexual relationships”; (ii) “guarding against inbreeding”; and (iii) “promot[ing] and protect[ing] family harmony and protect[ing] children from the abuse of parental authority.” As applied to polygamy, these concerns — just as the notion of white slavery in turn-of-the-century Utah — rely on a profoundly distorted vision of the practice wherein underage girls are forced to marry adults, including their own parents. The message sent is clear — polygamy, just like forced sexual relationships between parent and child, is malum per se (evil in itself).

I, for one, am not persuaded that this is the case. I believe that consenting adults could create polygamous relationships in which there is no coercion and certainly no inbreeding. If polygamy were to be legalized, would society run the risk of such untoward practices? Of course — if reports are to be believed, the FLDS practice polygamy in a similar fashion. But the more important question is whether that risk is so great that polygamy should be outlawed entirely. Inherent in any marital relationship — be it a monogamous heterosexual couple, a monogamous homosexual couple, or a polygamous arrangement between 3 people — is the risk that one partner will force his/her will upon the other(s). As of today, we permit the first categories of marriages; why not polygamy?

You may be asking yourself, why should I care, since polygamy in the LDS church has gone the way of the dodo? Here’s why: despite the best efforts of the men in the big buildings on Temple Square, we will always be associated with polygamy. That’s just a fact. And that’s OK by me, as long as folks take the time to disabuse themselves of the same sort of prejudicial notions lurking behind the Court’s formal language. My progenitors, while they may have been many things, were not involved in relationships equatable with incest. So, when I see discussions of polygamy that require that conclusion (i.e., polygamy = incest), I cannot help but think it sets us all back a few steps. That’s why this little footnote, buried amidst hundreds of pages of legalese, is stuck in my craw.

In the movie Weird Science, two geeks use their computer to make a beautiful woman.  A man comes up to the three of them in a bar and asks, “What’s a beautiful woman like you doing with a couple of Malakas like these?”  My husband and I refer to it as a “Malaka relationship” when the woman is either 1) vastly better looking or 2) a much better person than her husband.  (No offense to the city of Malaka, Malaysia).

A friend of mine refers to this phenomenon as “the 7-10 split” or when a woman who’s a 10 is married to a man who’s a 7 (on a scale of 1 to 10).  This kind of split could be looks, as he is describing it, or it can be used to refer to being “yoked unequally with a non-believer.”

Obviously, every rule has an exception.  Some marriages are going to go the other way (righteous man married to a flaky woman), but which is more common?  Will there be a surplus of fabulous women in the Celestial Kingdom?  Here is the foundation of this premise:

1. There would have to be a preponderance of single women who are living a “Celestial” law but will never be married in this life.
2. There would have to be a preponderance of married women who are living a “Celestial” law, but whose husbands are living a “Terrestrial” or “Telestial” law.
3. There would have to be few or no married men living a “Celestial” law who are married to women living a “Terrestial” or “Telestial” law.
4. There would have to be few or no single men living a “Celestial” law who will not marry in this life.
5. Throughout the history of the world, there would have to be more female children who died in innocence and will receive a Celestial glory than male children.

So, are there significantly more righteous women than men?  Here is some anecdotal evidence (and I do mean anecdotal more than I mean evidence) usually cited to show that there are more righteous women:

• There are usually more women attending temple sessions than men.
• In marriages where only one spouse holds a temple recommend, it is more often the wife than the husband.
• There seem to be more unmarried women than men attending church.
• More men than women are excommunicated for adultery.
• Often, wives are more receptive to the missionaries than their husbands.
• Men get more “tough” messages directed at them (don’t masturbate, don’t gamble, don’t look at porn, don’t use unrighteous dominion or be angry, show appreciation for your wonderful wives), whereas women get soft messages (you are beloved spirit daughters of God, your divine purpose is ordained of God, you are the heart of the home, your lives are blessed, the errand of angels is given to women).
• Priesthood lessons usually consist of bored men taking turns reading straight from the lesson manual between naps, whereas Relief Society lessons are well-planned affairs with centerpieces, great quotes and other handouts, crafty tchotchkes to take home, and sometimes even a musical number.

However, each of the above premises is flawed.  For example:

• Temple and church attendance does not necessarily correlate with righteousness.  Are these women truly living a “Celestial” law?  For example, women’s relationships have more intricate social structures, and therefore women might appear more active at church.  There are also more social activities for women than there are for men.  Activity doesn’t necessarily equal righteousness.
• Statistically speaking, women outlive men.  Might that account for some of the higher female temple attendance?
• More men have died in wars than women.  Soldiers have often been single men.  Many of these individuals could end up in the Celestial kingdom.
• Although we might look at women who are married to less active men as being far superior in righteousness, is that really the case or is it sometimes just due to the comparison?  For example, might a church-going woman be living a terrestrial law be married to a non-attending spouse who is also living a terrestrial law, but we think there is a big difference because of something superficial like church attendance.
• Women’s receptivity to the missionaries could be due to more initial interest, more openness to religious discussions in the home, or more sociability.  Additionally, men are “expected” to eschew emotional displays and may be reluctant to engage in a moving religious discussion for this reason.  This doesn’t mean they are less righteous, but they manifest it differently.
• The difference in messages given to each sex in conference could be for other reasons, such as how men receive instruction vs. how women receive instruction (generally speaking).  It could also be an apologetic stance toward feminist sentiments about priesthood inequality or even polygamy (please not that discussion again!).
• Women and men have a different style in teaching.  Sometimes women are kind of like the teacher’s pets, and the preparation can have more to do with pride and the intricate social systems than with actual righteousness.  Obviously not in my case, but some women.

In my experience, a split of two levels (woman living celestial law, man living telestial law) is pretty rare indeed (to say nothing of completely impossible to gauge without mind-reading).  I’m sure it happens, but a one level split seems more likely.  And frankly, I don’t buy that there are that many more women who are that much more righteous than men.  From my view, I see mostly equal yokes out there.

So, what do you think?  Are women more righteous than men?  Significantly more righteous (celestial vs. lower law)?  Significantly more women?  Are men total crap?  Discuss.

The underlying assumption in taking 400 children out of their homes is that the lifestyle itself is harmful; invading the temple is a direct challenge to the FLDS religion’s legitimacy.  The total absence of ACLU intervention further indicates that there is no legal basis for protection and that national sympathy is lacking due to illegal polygamous behavior.  If the FLDS women are viewed as victims, it is as complicit victims.  As Alice Walker put it Possessing the Secret of Joy (her book about female genital mutilation), “One tree said to another:  I have seen the axe, and the handle is one of us.”

The responses to the raid have varied greatly.  There are articles praising TX for its bold action to safeguard women and children from a dangerous patriarchal and insular cult.  There are sympathetic posts by LDS who view this action as the Extermination Order II.  There are critics of the LDS who condemn any lack of sympathy on our part as being hypocritical.  There are women of the FLDS baffled as to why they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, their children taken from them, and their rights stripped.  I would like to explore the shift in approach TX has made, the legal and pragmatic implications of that, and the possible outcomes.

Growing up in the northeast (raised LDS), I had no idea that polygamy was still being practiced by anyone in the US.  I had assured my inquisitive high school friends that it had been done away with almost a hundred years ago.  I was truly shocked to find otherwise when I attended BYU.  My parents are converts, so we have no polygamous ancestry.  The first time I heard the term “polyg,” I thought it was an architectural style (“polyg houses”).  During my first temple recommend interview I had to ask what a “splinter group” was because I had no idea that (aside from the RLDS) there were other groups that had split from LDS.  The idea that anyone would voluntarily practice polygamy if there was any way out of it (e.g. the Official Declaration and it being made illegal) was beyond my comprehension.  My own teenage contemplation of polygamy really went no farther than to wonder whether it was something I could have lived if asked like some of those early church women, a safe enough exercise at a distance of a hundred years.  It was unpalatable, but as theoretical as other unpalatable things like eating a live cockroach or breast feeding.

Although I was initially outraged and chagrined that UT did not more actively prosecute polygamists who are clearly flouting the law, I gained a lot of respect over time for the pragmatic approach UT and AZ have taken.  Texas’ action, while bold, seems excessive; taking over 400 children from their mothers over one anonymous complaint of abuse is overreaching. As a contrast, there are recurring complaints of domestic abuse in some urban low income communities, but they don’t come in and take away all the children in all the neighboring apartments. And they would probably find a lot more abuse if they did.  It seems that people’s rights have been trampled and the innocent are being treated without much concern in a “guilty until proven innocent” approach.  The incident in Texas has been handled differently for several reasons:

1. Texas’ experience with polygamous sects is limited and recent whereas AZ and UT have had long-standing experience with polygamous sects.
2. One word:  Waco.
3. Everything’s bigger in Texas.
4. Some have suggested that Baptist sentiment is a force in this raid (at least at whipping everyone into a frenzy).
5. Some have suggested that an evangelical political plot is at play by casting the FLDS into the media at critical points in Mitt Romney’s political bid (either for POTUS or VP) to discredit him by a continual reminder that he descends from polygamists and is therefore too weird to hold such high office.

Having said all that, I would not shed a single tear if the end of polygamy is the outcome of this action.  I am thrilled polygamy was ended by the LDS in 1890.  And a religion (like FLDS) that encourages illegal behavior is inherently harmful if for no other reason than it creates a society of isolation and secrecy.  This type of secrecy can be directly harmful (creating an environment in which lying supersedes the truth), but secrecy is also indirectly harmful in that abuse can flourish in an isolated environment.

I acknowledge that there are issues wih prosecuting polygamy that make it difficult because consensual polygamous marriages are not legal; therefore, being in a polygamous marriage is not illegal because you’re only married to one person legally. It’s not illegal in this country to have consensual unmarried sex and children with many partners.  It’s called “hooking up,” and it’s quite popular (throw in a tramp stamp and a hairdo, and these women would not be getting hauled off in Baptist school buses).  So, prosecution usually focuses on:
1 - statutory rape
2 - abuse
3 - welfare fraud

Obviously, statutory rape and abuse usually require a complainant, difficult to obtain in most cases, but even moreso in a secretive group already wary of outsiders where patriarchal authority is unquestioned.  Welfare fraud feels a bit like nabbing Al Capone for postal fraud.  And it may fall into the “bigger fish to fry” category for pragmatic reasons.

So, what can be done?  If I were running the world, here are a few radical changes I would suggest (speaking of overreaching):
1 – raise the legal marriage age to 18 nationally, no exceptions. 18 is still too young if you ask me.  If I had to live with choices I made at 18 . . . well, I’m just glad I do not.
2 – eliminate home schooling or severely restrict it (e.g. limit to one consecutive year and insist on some additional oversight and socialization).

And lastly, if this does mean the end of polygamy (because it is being attacked directly for the first time), take the following steps:
1 – grant the mothers custody on condition they agree not to return to or enter into any more polygamous relationships. This requires ongoing monitoring, but if you’re going to take down polygamy, it’s the only way.  Otherwise, TX has to follow the AZ and UT lead and only prosecute what can be prosecuted directly.  Placing all the children into foster care seems unduly harsh; if the mothers were given a way to retain their children, even if it meant giving up their (sort of) illegal religious practice, many would comply.
2 – research and prosecute for every instance of abuse, statutory rape, and welfare fraud.  Go after these things with a vengeance until they are completely eliminated.

So, do you believe Texas has overreached?  And will Texas take it to the mattresses or not?  Does this mean the end of polygamy (again, once and for all)?  Or will TX back off and follow the lead of AZ & UT, only prosecuting what is feasible?  Will the ACLU ever intervene?  And if the end of polygamy occurs, can we “re-patriate” this splinter group into mainstream America?  Will they ultimately renounce Jeffs as a false prophet, leave the FLDS, and join the LDS?  Would they choose their children over their lifestyle if presented with that alternative?

Nauvoo was a mistake. At the close of the Missouri Mormon War in the winter of 1838-39, the Saints crossed the icy Mississippi. The people of Quincy, Illinois, were aghast at their condition and opened their hearts and their homes to the refugees. A new gathering place needed to be planted and the church soon found a hopeful location upriver from Quincy — approximately at the border between Illinois, Missouri and the Iowa Territory.

The bulk of the land the church purchased was in Iowa, but the relatively small tract in Illinois included the plats of the failed town of Commerce. Soon, Stakes were founded on both sides of the River. Commerce was renamed Nauvoo and the Iowa settlement was called Zarahemla — named for the most important city in the Book of Mormon.

Nauvoo was in Hancock County, an established area with a significant non-Mormon population that included the reasonable sized towns of Warsaw and Carthage. As with the church’s experience in Kirtland, it would be difficult and expensive for poor church members to gather to the area and buy farmland (and conflict with existing “old settlers” was almost inevitable). Iowa, by contrast, was wide open. For an industrious, agricultural people, land was the key ingredient to fuel a successful settlement. With hindsight, it’s very clear that Zarahemla should have become the church’s headquarters. Nauvoo was a mistake.

Unfortunately for Joseph Smith and the Saints, the Illinoians were seductively generous. Anxious to court the Saints for their own political gains, state Democrats and Whigs offered Joseph and his people every inducement they could wish for. Within a handful of years, Nauvoo grew to become a major town, while Zarahemla never got off the ground.

It might just as easily have gone the other way. If so, how would history change? Let me propose an alternate timeline.

• 1842 Headquarters of the Mormon Church and home to Joseph Smith, Zarahemla becomes the largest city in Iowa Territory.

• 1845 Iowa’s statehood negotiations threaten to collapse over a so-called “spiritual wife” scandal, allegedly involving Zarahemla Mayor (and church President) General Joseph Smith. Smith averts the crisis by publicly renouncing the practice and expelling guilty members from the church, including former confidant, Brigham Young.

• 1846 nearly 20,000 of Iowa Territory’s 90,000 residents are Mormon, making the Saints the decisive voting block in the convention. Smith’s successful maneuvers see Zarahemla made the state capital, while a non-Mormon is elected the state’s first governor.

• 1847 Dedication of the Zarahemla temple.

• 1851 California and New Mexico admitted to the Union, while Idaho, Kansas, Dakota, and Utah Territories created as part of the “Compromise of 1851.” Some Mormons take part in the settlement of Dakota, but none of the other western territories.

• 1854 Joseph Smith elected 4^th governor of Iowa as a Democrat. He is turned out of office in the Republican revolution of 1858.

• 1861 Missouri becomes the only border state to join the Confederacy. Mormon Iowa and Missouri replay old grudges in some of the most bitter local militia skirmishes of the war.

• 1867 Joseph Smith begins to ordain women as deaconesses, teachers, priestesses and high priestesses.

• 1869 Sidney Rigdon dropped from the First Presidency, in favor of Joseph Smith III. Transcontinental railroad routed through Zarahemla.

• 1879 Joseph Smith dies of natural causes. Joseph III ordained in his place by Parley P. Pratt, President of the Quorum of Twelve and by First Presidency Counselor Amasa M. Lyman.

In history after Joseph Smith’s death, things continue along the changed timelines for Mormonism, Iowa and the West. The Mormon Church follows the trajectory from highly peculiar to essentially moderate. Its expansion in the US is stunted, but this is more than made up for numerically overseas. By 2008, the church claims 25 million members worldwide, although this number includes only 2 million in the US (half of which are in Iowa). The largest proportion of the membership is in Africa, followed by Latin America.

Happy ever might have been?  Or might not?  What do you think?