Exchange between LeGrand Richards and Juanita Brooks Concerning Her Book "The Mountain Meadows Massacre"

  

During the fall of 1955 a friend of Juanita’s requested the opinion of Elder LeGrand Richards regarding The Mountain Meadows Massacre. In his reply the apostle cast doubt upon Juanita’s friendliness toward the Church. Perhaps unwisely, the friend forwarded the letter to Juanita, who immediately wrote the apostle defending herself: “Anyone who knows me will tell you that I have always been active in the Church: MIA Ward President, MIA Stake Board, Stake S.S. Board, Stake Pres. of Relief Society. I financed, practically alone, a brother and a sister on missions; we have sent two sons on missions and have three more growing up to go. I went to the Temple just last Saturday” (JB to LeGrand Richards, 28 November 1955, [originals or photocopies in possession of]L[evi]S[.]P[eterson]).

 

In his prompt reply, Richards complimented Juanita’s good deeds but reiterated his negative judgment. Even if her interpretation of the massacre, he asserted, it was not in the interest of the Church “to bring it up at this late date.” He was reminded of a mother who cautioned a tactless son who wished to inform a man that his nose was big and red: “All the truth does not always need to be told” (LeGrand Richards to JB, 30 November 1955, LSP). Quickly mailing a rebuttal, Juanita claimed that time would prove her book to have been in the best interest of the Church. As for the man with the red nose, it seemed “that if he had a mirror, no one would need to tell him of it. He could see plainly enough himself” (JB to LeGrand Richards, 5 December 1955, LSP). Richards agreed to accept the test of time but affirmed his prior position: “I love the church so much and defended it so many times that I don’t like to see statements coming from within that in any way that cast a shadow upon the integrity of the leaders of the church.” He declared that he intended to read the book, “hoping that by so doing I will obtain a more favorable impression than I now have” (LeGrand Richards to JB, 7 December 1955, LSP).

 

Some weeks later, his reading completed, Richards wrote that he was unwilling to believe that Brigham Young and other leaders had inflamed their zealous followers before the massacre, had concealed their misdeed afterwards, and had sacrificed John D. Lee in the interest of the Church at large. “I am at a loss to understand your motive for writing the book,” he asserted. “In view of your statements that you are a loyal member of the church, and interested in its reputation, surely you cannot truthfully say that your book does not injure the reputation of your church and its leaders.” He exhorted her to turn her gifted pen to a work that promoted rather than destroyed faith. With that, he insisted the matter be closed (Ibid., 13 January 1956, LSP). (Levi S. Peterson, Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1988], 245-46)

 

The Purposes of the Early Latter-day Saint Practice of Rebaptism

The early Latter-day Saint practice of rebaptism was an external act of being (re)commitment to the Church. It also had an ecclesiastical dimension at times, evidenced by the following from 1857:

 

There is quite [a] reformation going on here at present. All the true hearted Mormons are being baptized over again, those who are not, are not considered members of the church. (Letter from Ellen Pratt McGary to Ellen Spencer Clawson, 8 January 1857, as cited in S. George Ellsworth, ed., Dear Ellen: Two Mormon Women and Their Letters [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Tanner Trust Fund, 1974], 37)

 

In his biography of his grandfather (based on a lot of research by his father, Spencer), Edward Kimball recounted Andrew’s rebaptism:

 

In his teen years Andrew, then fatherless, may have been somewhat careless in his conduct, experimenting with smoking and drinking and avoiding Church duties. At least in one of his first meetings as a twenty-year-old deacon he is quoted as saying “that he was glad to meet with us . . . much better than when he was out and about the streets learning to smoke and swear” (Salt Lake City Nineteenth Ward, Deacons Minutes, October 25, 1878). His twin, Alice, accused him of being sometimes irritable and cross with his mother (Alice K. Smith to Andrew Kimball, January 6 or 7, 1878, Church History Library).

 

In 1898, Alice, asking Andrew to be more patient with her sixteen-year-old-son, Coulsen, who had given Andrew some difficulty, wrote, “You will remember when you was just his age you went out to the Half Way House You wanted to start out for your self. If you had someone then to take you kindly by the hand and shew you a few things you would have missed many hardships” (Alice K. Smith to Andrew Kimball, May 15, 1898, Church History Library). And she wrote several months later,

 

He is more like you when that age than any one I know of. He had the same spirit as you had at his age. Nothing would do you must go away from home, you must have a change, a new experience . . . –Since writing the above I received a letter from Coulsen telling of his careless accident and how bad he feels. Let him come home with good feelings about being with you. (Alice K. Smith to Andrew Kimball, November 22, 1898, Church History Library)

 

To Alice’s comment about his youthful behavior, Andrew responded,

 

I have always been a clean boy, [but] there has been times when I was a little uncertain about sacred things. You, my sisters and my sainted mother, tried to get me to have my endowments just before they closed the old [Endowment] house [in 1889], when the Temple in St. George was completed [in 1877]. I told you I was unworthy. I did not mean that I had done anything wrong, but I had not been under an environment that would prepare me for such a sacred ordinance; because I refused, Mother thot I had done something wrong, and until I told her I would take the right course in life she could not die in peace. I have kept my word and my angel mother is honored today. That’s all, Alice.

 

After he promised his mother he “would take the right course in life,” he was rebaptized as a symbol of recommitment and ordained a deacon (in 1878). She died in 1879. (Edward L. Kimball, Father of a Prophet: Andrew Kimball [Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2011], 11-12)

 

Genesis 12:5, Abraham 2:15, and Abraham the Missionary

In Gen 12:5, we read:

 

And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

 

In Abraham 2:15, we learn that the "souls that they had gotten in Haran" refers to people they had converted:

 

And I took Sarai, whom I took to wife when I was in Ur, in Chaldea, and Lot, my brother's son, and all our substance that we had gathered, and the souls that we had won in Haran, and came forth in the way to the land of Canaan, and dwelt in tents as we came on our way.

 

Interestingly, Jewish commentators understood Gen 12:5 in like-manner. The following comes from the (very useful!) Sefaria Website:

 

Rashi:

 

אשר עשו בחרן [THE SOULS] THAT THEY HAD GOTTEN (literally, made) IN HARAN — The souls which he had brought beneath the sheltering wings of the Shechinah. Abraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women and Scripture accounts it unto them as if they had made them (Genesis Rabbah 39:14). However, the real sense of the text is that it refers to the men-servants and to the maidservants whom they had acquired for themselves. The word “עשה” is used here as (in Genesis 31:1), “he has acquired (עשה) all this wealth”, and (Numbers 24:8), “And Israel acquires (עושה) wealth” — an expression for acquiring and amassing.

 

Chizkuni

 

ואת הנפש עשו בחרן “and the proselyte (to monotheism) they had made in Charan.” Our sages Avodah Zarah 9, claim that this is the first stage of Matan Torah, the giving (revealing) of the Torah. The manner in which Targum Onkelos renders this phrase is further evidence of this. [He speaks of Avraham communicating, i.e. converting to Torah. Ed.]

 

Rabbeinu Bahya

 

A Midrashic approach to the word עשו is found in Bereshit Rabbah 39,14 where it is understood as applying to the converts Avraham and Sarah managed to make in Charan and whom they took with them to the land of Canaan. Avraham converted the males, Sarah the females. This is why the Torah speaks of that phenomenon in the plural, i.e. “they had made, each one separately.” If only Avraham had been busy proselytising the Torah should have written אשר עשה “whom he had made.” We also find that Yaakov did the same as his grandfather Avraham as the Torah speaks of his sojourn in the land of Canaan in these words (Genesis 37,1) וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו, “and Yaakov settled in the land in which his (grand)father had had succeeded in making converts” (Bereshit Rabbah 84,4). From this you learn that Yaakov was also making converts.

 

Radak

 

ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, the male and female servants they had acquired in Charan. The word עשו must be understood as similar to Deuteronomy 8,17 עשה לי את כל החיל הזה, “has gotten me this wealth.” According to Onkelos, the word עשו refers to the people whom Avram and Lot had succeeded in bringing back to monotheism, i.e. the same religion as that professed by Avram. Lot too, professed the belief in the one and only invisible G’d, the Creator of the universe Lot did not merely join Avram because he was his uncle and much younger than his grandfather, but he shared his religious beliefs and was active as an evangelist for that faith himself. This is the reason why the Torah wrote the word עשו in the plural mode instead of the singular. According to our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 39,14) the plural mode of the word עשו is meant to prove that both Avram and Sarai, each were active in converting their respective friends to monotheism. The use of the root עשה to describe such “brainwashing,” is also found in Samuel I 12,6 אשר עשה משה את משה ואת אהרן, where it refers to G’d having been the mentor of both Moses and Aaron.

 

Siftei Chakhamim

 

And Sarah would convert the women. Rashi knows this because it is written אשר עשו בחרן, in plural — referring to both Avraham and Sarah. It seems that [Rashi knew they made converts because] a convert is regarded as a newborn. Thus it is considered as if they “made” them. (Nachalas Yaakov)

 

Robert Bellarmine vs. John Calvin on De Fide Dogmas not Affecting Salvation Directly

In many formulations of Sola Scriptura, we are told that the Bible is formally sufficient when it comes to matters of salvation. Further, we are told that doctrines that do not affect salvation can never be necessary to be believed under pain of sin and even heresy. On this, note the following from Robert Bellarmine in his interaction with John Calvin:

 

Calvin says that the famous proposition, “The Church cannot err,” is true with a two-fold restriction. 1) If the Church does not propose doctrines outside of Scripture, i.e. if it rejects traditions not written and only faithfully proposes what is contained in the Scriptures. Moreover, if you ask whether we might be certain that the Church always faithfully proposes those things that are in the Scriptures, Calvin responds by applying a second restriction, the Scriptures in matters necessary to salvation, still not in other matters and consequently some blemishes of error always remain in the Church.” (Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: Tomus II On the Church, Volume 1: On Councils, on the Church Militant, On the Marks of the Church [trans. Ryan Grant; Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2017], Book 3 Chapter XIV, p. 321)

 

In response to Calvin’s belief in the formal sufficiency of Scripture and the Church not being authorised to propose doctrines outside of Scripture, Bellarmine wrote the following, which I found to be an excellent counter to Sola Scriptura advocates even today:

 

If Calvin’s opinion were true, then a great part of dogmas of faith could be called into doubt, for there are many de fide teachings which are not absolutely necessary to salvation. Duly, to believe in the histories of the Old Testament, or that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are canonical writings, nay more than any of the Scriptures, is not altogether necessary for salvation, since without this faith many were saved before the Scriptures were read; afterward, in the time of the New Testament, many barbarian nations were saved without them, as Irenaeus writes ([Against Heresies] lib. 3, cap. 4). But this is most absurd, nor would Calvin admit there can be any doubt about Scripture, therefore it is not true that the Church cannot err only in those matters necessary for salvation. (Ibid., 324)

 

 For more, see my book-length refutation of Sola Scriptura:

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Robert Bellarmine on Councils being Called if a Pope is Suspected of Heresy or to Elect a Pope

In a chapter, “On the utility or even the necessity of celebrating Councils,” Bellarmine wrote the following which would tie into his discussion of a possibility of a heretical pope as well as the Sedevacantist debate within traditional Catholic circles:

 

d) The fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals. As it is related in the 8^th Council, act. ult. can. 21, general Councils ought to impose judgment on controversies arising in regard to the Roman Pontiff—albeit not rashly. For this reason we read that the Council of Sinvessano in the case of St. Marcellinus, as well as Roman Councils in the cases of Pope Damasus, Sixtus III, and Symmachus, as well as Leo III and IV, none of whom were condemned by a Council; Marcellinus enjoined penance upon himself in the presence of the Council, and the rest purged themselves (See Platina and the volumes of Councils).

 

e) The fifth reason is doubt about the election of a Roman Pontiff. For if the cardinals could not or would not create a Pope, or certainly if they all died at the same time, or a true doubt should arise for another reason to whom an election of this sort would pertain, would look to a general Council to discern in regard to the election of a future Pope, although it does not seem to be realistic to expect this would ever happen. (Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: Tomus II On the Church, Volume 1: On Councils, on the Church Militant, On the Marks of the Church [trans. Ryan Grant; Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2017], Book 1 Chapter IX, p. 40)

 

Robert Bellarmine on the Council of Constance (1414-1418) being "Partially Confirmed" and "Partially Condemned"

In a chapter entitled “Councils that were partially confirmed and partially condemned,” Robert Bellarmine wrote the following about Constance:

 

The fifth Council of the Council of Constance. Nearly a thousand Fathers were present from which over 300 were Bishops. It was begun in the year 1414 under [anti-pope] John 23, and in the year 1418 it was ended by Pope Martin V and Sigismund the Emperor (Platina, Palmerius). This Council was condemned in regard to its first sessions, where it defined a Council was above a Pope both by the Council of Florence and the last Lateran Council, while in regard to its last sessions all of which were approved by Martin V, it is received by all Catholics. (Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis: Tomus II On the Church, Volume 1: On Councils, on the Church Militant, On the Marks of the Church [trans. Ryan Grant; Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2017], Book 1 Chapter VI, p. 37)

 

For more, see:

 Roberto de Mattei (Catholic), Haec Sancta (1415): A conciliar document condemned by the Church

 

"Orthodoxidation" (Eastern Orthodox), Haec Sancta: The Forgotten Hypocrisy

Evagrius Scholasticus on the Tome of Leo at Chalcedon

Evagrius Scholasticus (535-590), a Syrian Church historian wrote the following about the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. It shows that the council Fathers did not believe that Leo’s tome had immediate binding authority on those at the Council, thus it being debated and discussed:

 

. . .with regard to the passage of Leo’s letter which contains: ‘For, in communion with the other, each form is active in respect to that its particular nature is, the Word accomplishing that which is of the Word, while the body achieves what is of the body. And of these the former shines forth in the miracles, while the latter is subjected to the insults . . . ‘, when the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops expressed doubt, the same Aetius read a chapter of Cyril which contained the following: ‘Whereas there are some of the expressions which are particularly appropriate to Divinity, thus again there are others which are appropriate to humanity, while others occupy a sort of middle rank and represent the Son of God as being God and man together in the same.

 

And after this when the aforesaid bishops expressed doubts about another part of Leo’s letter, which contained: ‘For if most certainly indeed in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man, nevertheless the thing through which the insult is common in each is one thing, and that through which the glory is established in common is another thing. For from us He has the humanity which is inferior to the Father, but from the Father He has the Divinity in which He is equal with the Father . . . ‘, Theodoret weighed matters up and said that the blessed Cyril too had said as follows, word for word: ‘And after becoming man and not laying aside his own nature, He remained what He was, and one thing dwelt in something different, namely the divine nature with men.;

 

After this, when the illustrious officials enquired whether anyone was still doubtful, they all said that they were no longer in doubt. After this Atticus, Bishop of Nicopolis, requested that they have an adjournment of a few days so that what seemed right to God and the holy Fathers might be formulated with unruffled through and untroubled consideration. He requested that they also take the letter of Cyril which was written to Nestorious, in which he exhorted him to agree to his Twelve Chapters, to which everyone agreed. And after the official proposed that they should have an adjournment of five days to assemble with Anatolius, the prelate of Constantinople, all the bishops acclaimed, saying, ‘We believe thus, we all believe thus; just as Leo, thus do we believe. None of us is doubtful; we have all subscribed.’

 

With regard to this the following was proposed in these terms: ‘It is not necessary for all of you to assemble; but since it is appropriate that the doubtful should be assured, the most devout archbishop Anatolius should selected from the subscribers those whom he esteems for instruction of the doubtful.’ To this those in the Synod added as follows: ‘We beg concerning the Fathers: the Fathers in the Synod, those who share Leo’s views in the Synod, the Fathers in the Synod; our voices to the emperor, our pleas to the orthodox one, our pleas to the Augusta. We have all done wrong, let there be forgiveness for all.’

 

Those of the Church of Constantinople cried out: ‘Few are shouting, the Synod does not speak.’ After this the Easterners shouted out: ‘The Egyptian into exile.’ The Illyrians roared: ‘We beg, mercy for all.’ After this the Easterners, ‘The Egyptians into exile.’ And as the Illyrians were making similar requests, the clergy of Constantinople cried out: ‘Dioscorus into exile, the Egyptian into exile, the heretic into exile; Christ deposed Dioscorus,’ After this the Illyrians and their associate bishops again: ‘We have all done wrong, forgive all. Dioscorus to the Synod, Dioscorus to the churches.’ And after similar proceedings the business of this gathering was terminated.

 

At the subsequent gathering, when the senate proposed that the formulae which had already been presented should be read out, the secretary Constantine read out the following from a paper, word for word:

 

Concerning the orthodox and universal faith we resolve that a more precise investigation should be made at the next opportunity, after one day when the assembly is more complete. But as for Flavian of pious memory and Eusebius, the most devout bishop from examination of what was done and decided and from the very words of some who were leaders of the Council then, who confess that they were mistaken and had deposed these men invalidly, since they are revealed to have been unjustly deposed in that they committed no error concerning the faith, in accordance with the pleasure of God it seems to us to be just, if it is upheld by our most sacred and pious master, that with the same penalty Dioscorus, the most devout bishop of Alexandria, and Juvenal, the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Eusebius, the most devout bishop of Anakara, and Eustathius, the most devout bishop of Beirut, and Basil, the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who had held authority and were leaders at the Synod then, should in accordance with the canons be estranged from the dignity of bishop, and all consequentials should be decided by the sacred eminence.

 

Then after other things had been read, the assembled bishops, on being asked if the writings of Leo were in accord with the faith of the 318 holy Fathers who had assembled at Nicaea, and with that of the 150 at the imperial city, Anatolius, the prelate of Constantinople, and all those gathered together, replied that the letter of Leo was in accord with what the aforesaid holy Fathers said. (The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus [trans. Michael Whitby; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000], Book 2, 83-87, pp. 116-19)