Review of:
Saints: The Story of The Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days, volume 2: No Unhallowed Hand, 1846-1893 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2020)
Firstly, I would like to thank the Church History Department for sending me an Advance Review Copy of this book.
As one who is engaged in Latter-day Saint apologetics and scholarship, one always appreciates Church history and other issues being more accessible to non-specialists. While, alas, many histories of the Church would fall more under the label of “historiography” and faith-promoting material that ignores many issues (often “difficult” issues), it was refreshing to read this volume, as it presents early LDS history during the Joseph Smith era, “warts and all,” in a way that will be accessible to all members of the Church, not just nerds like me who love delving into the complexities of various issues and love pursuing dusty old manuscripts. I plan on loaning this copy out to the young men in my branch and others.
As one who is a firm believer in inoculating church members by discussing, in an open and faithful way, “difficult” issues, I look forward to the remaining 2 volumes in this series.
Here are some important excerpts that show, among other things, the very open manner the Church now discusses difficult church issues and other topics those engaged in LDS apologetics will appreciate:
Development of LDS Temple Sealing Practices
Some Saints also gathered into special adoptive families. At this time, Saints were not sealed to their deceased parents if their parents had not joined the Church in this life. Before leaving Nauvoo, Brigham had therefore encouraged around two hundred Saints to be sealed, or spiritually adopted, as sons and daughters into the families of Church leaders who were friends or mentors in the gospel.
These adoption sealings were performed through an ordinance in the temple. Adoptive parents offered temporal and emotional support, while adoptive sons and daughters, some of whom had no other family in the Church, often responded with faithfulness and devotion. (pp. 41-42)
Reference to James Strang and other Dissenters/non-“Brighamite” Groups
Not everyone was eager to go west, however. James Strang and other dissenters continued to lure Saints away with promises of food, shelter, and peace. Strang and his followers had started a community in Wisconsin, a sparsely settled territory some three hundred miles northeast of Nauvoo, where some dissatisfied Saints were gathering. Already several families in Winter Quarters had packed up their wagons and left to join them. (p. 56)
Admission that early Saints held Racist/Wrong Views on Blacks
Like other groups of Christians at this time, however, many white Saints wrongly viewed black people as inferior, believing that black skin was the result of God’s curse on the biblical figures Cain and Ham. Some had even begun to teach the false idea that black skin was evidence of a person’s unrighteous actions in the premortal life. (p. 71)
During the debates [on slavery], Brigham declared publicly for the first time that people of black African descent would no longer be ordained to the priesthood. Before this time a few black men had been ordained, and no restriction existed then or afterward for other races or ethnicities. As he explained the restriction, Brigham echoed a widespread but mistaken idea that God had cursed people of black African descent. Yet he also stated that at some future time, black Saints would “have all the privileges and more” enjoyed by other church members. (p. 182)
Perseverance among those (e.g., George Q. Cannon) in the Early Mission to Hawaii
The Hawaiian language, the missionaries quickly discovered, was difficult for them to understand. Each word seemed to run into the next. Yet many Hawaiians were eager to help them learn. Since there was not many textbooks on Maui, the missionaries ordered some from Honolulu. George’s desire to speak was very strong, and he never missed an opportunity to practice the language. Sometimes he and others spent all day at home, reading and studying it.
Gradually, George began to use the language more confidently. One evening, as he and his companions sat at home talking in Hawaiian with their neighbors, George realized all at once that he understood most of what they said. Leaping at his feet, he placed his hands on the sides of his head and exclaimed that he had received the interpretation of tongues.
He could not distinguish every word they said, but he caught their general meaning. Gratitude filled him, and he knew he had been blessed by the Lord. (p. 136)
Openness about Plural Marriage (e.g., its initial secrecy until 1852)
At the time, the Saints had not yet publicly proclaimed their belief in plural marriage. When the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to practice the principle, and angel had charged him to keep it private and teach it only to Saints with unwavering integrity. Early Church members had honored monogamy as the only legitimate form of marriage, and any alternative to it would be shocking. But the Lord had promised to exalt these Saints for their obedience and sacrifice.
By the time of his death, Joseph Smith had married some plural wives for time and eternity. He had been sealed to others or eternity alone, which meant their marriage relationship would begin in the next life. He had also taught plural marriage to his closest associates, and they had continued to keep the practice private after his death. For Joseph and the early Saints, plural marriage was a solemn religious principle, not a way to gratify lust. (pp. 141-42)
Brigham contemplated the best way to announce the practice. With its headquarters in Utah securely established, the Church had never been stronger. Also, plural marriage now had a central role in the lives of many Saints, greatly affecting how they understood their covenant relationship to God and their families. Keeping the practice private for much longer seemed both impossible and unnecessary. The time was right to make plural marriage public, and they decided to explain the practice more fully to the Saints and the wider world at an upcoming two-day conference on missionary work . . .Orson Pratt stood to deliver the sermon on plural marriage to the Saints. His words would be published in the Deseret News, and other newspapers across the world would quickly reprint its report. Orson designed the sermon to teach missionaries the doctrinal foundations of plural marriage so they could teach and defend the practice while serving in the mission field. (pp. 152, 153)
To convict a Church member of bigamy, prosecutors would have to prove that a plural marriage had taken place—an almost impossible task when marriages occurred privately in the Endowment House and public officials had no access to its records. Furthermore, prosecutors in Utah were unlikely to convict someone of bigamy as long as Church members sat on juries. (p. 317)
The Young family tried to keep an orderly household, with a strict schedule for meals, schooling, and prayers. But that did not stop Susie [a daughter of Brigham’s] and her siblings from sliding down banisters, running up the stairs, and playing hide-and-seek. As a small girl, Susie thought it was perfectly normal to have such a large family and for her father to live with more than a dozen wives. In fact, her family was not typical even among plural families, which were usually far smaller by comparison. Unlike her father, most men in the Church who practiced plural marriage had only two wives . . . The Lion House was not always free of conflict, but the family tried to make their living arrangement a success. Brigham did not like comparing plural marriage to the customs of the world. “It is from heaven,” he told the Saints. “The Lord has instituted it for an express purpose of raising up a royal nation, a holy priesthood, a nation peculiar to Himself, one that He can own and bless.”
“If I ever had a trial on the earth of my faith, it was when Joseph Smith revealed this doctrine to me,” he testified further. “I had to pray unceasingly and I had to exercise faith, and the Lord revealed to me the truth of it, and that satisfied me.” (pp. 332, 333)
[On the topic of the then-RLDS denial that Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriage]:
Like Joseph III, Alexander and David believed that their father had never taught or practiced plural marriage. They claimed instead that Brigham Young had introduced the principle after their father’s death . . . In 1866, Joseph F. [Smith] had wanted to counter his cousin’s claims, but he was at a loss. To his surprise, he could find little documented evidence connecting the prophet Joseph to plural marriage. He knew that Joseph Smith had taught the principle to several faithful Saints, including Brigham Young and others now living in Utah Territory. But he found that they had documented almost nothing about the experience . . .To remedy this gap in the historical record, Joseph F. began collecting signed statements from people who had been involved in early plural marriages. Some of the women he spoke to had been sealed to Joseph Smith for this life and the next. Others had been sealed to the prophet for eternity alone. Joseph F. also gathered information about what his aunt Emma knew about the practice. His oldest sister, Lovina, had lived with Emma for a time after most of the Saints had traveled west. She testified that Emma had once told her that she consented to and witnessed her husband’s sealings to some of his plural wives. (pp. 355, 357)
Brigham’s estranged plural wife Ann Eliza Young moreover had lately joined forces with critics of the Church to sue the prophet for divorce. When she demanded more than $200,000 in alimony and other claims, Brigham’s lawyers rejected her suit, believing it extravagant. They also argued that Ann Eliza could no divorce Brigham in court because the United States did not recognize plural marriage as legal. Judge James McKean ruled in All Eliza’s favour, however, and sent Brigham to jail for one night when he, on the advice of his lawyers, refused to pay until they had appealed the ruling in a higher court. (p. 412)
But leaders also believe that any woman who wanted a divorce from an unhappy marriage should receive one. This was no less true for women who struggled to adapt to the challenges of plural marriage. Since the local court system did not recognize these marriages, local Church leaders handled divorce cases involving plural wives. (pp. 446-47)
Though most Saints accepted and defended plural marriage, the number of plural families in the Church were in decline. The practice was largely limited to Saints in the American West, and plural marriages between Church members were not performed in Europe, Hawaii, or other places throughout the world.
At the height of the practice in the late 1850, about half of the people in Utah could expect to be part of a plural family during their lives. That number had since dropped to around twenty or thirty percent, and it continued to shrink. Since plural marriage was not required of Church members, Saints could remain in good standing with God and the Church is they chose not to practice it. (p. 481)
Under these new policies [e.g., various laws against plural marriage], fewer and fewer Saints entered plural marriages. Yet some Saints still hoped to follow the principle as it had been previously taught. They were usually encouraged to go to Mexico or Canada, where Church leaders quietly performed the marriages beyond the reach of the United States government. Occasionally, though, plural marriages were still performed in Utah territory.
In September 1889, while visiting Saints north of Salt Lake City, Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon met with a stake president who asked if he should issue temple recommends to Saints who wanted to enter plural marriage. (p. 580)
[On the 1890 Manifesto]
The Manifesto had given no direction for how Saints in existing plural marriages should act, but Wilford Woodruff had privately counseled stake presidencies and general authorities on how to interpret its message. "The manifesto only refers to future marriages and does not affect past conditions," he said. "I did not, and could not, and would not promise that you would desert your wives and children. This you cannot do in honor." (pp. 623-24)
John D. Lee’s prevarication regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre
Around this time, John D. Lee met with Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff in Salt Lake City to report on the massacre that had taken place at Mountain Meadows. Much of what John told them about the Arkansas company was misleading. “Many of them belonged to the mob in Missouri and Illinois,” he lied. “As they traveled along south, they went damning Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and the heads of the Church.”
John also repeated a false rumor about the emigrants poisoning cattle and provoking the Paiutes. “The Indians fought them five days until they killed all their men,” he claimed, saying nothing about the Saints’ own participation. “They then rushed into their corral and cut the throats of their women and children, except some eight or ten children which they bought and sold to the whites.”
Concealing his own role in the attack, John claimed that he had gone to the meadows only after the massacre to help bury the bodies. “It was a horrid, awful job,” he reported. “The whole air was filled with an awful stench.”
“It is heartrending,” Brigham said, believing the report. John wrote out his account of the massacre two months later and sent it to Salt Lake City. Brigham then included long extracts from the letter in his official report on the massacre to the commissioner of Indian affairs in Washington, DC. (pp. 272-73)
As with volume 1, I would recommend this resource for any LDS library, both personal and ward/branch, especially for the Church’s youth who wish to learn about the history of the faith.
