The September 6

[Freedom]

Well, for starters, statements from nineteenth-century general authorities sanctioning extra-judicial killings, castrations, lynchings, and marriage between siblings, post-Manifesto marriages of general authorities, J. Reuben Clark's extreme antisemitism, etc.

Yes, I am aware of many of these references - perhaps due to their controversial nature there is not a lot know about them so we don't have a lot of context. I suppose I should seek out their books and refresh myself.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, for starters, statements from nineteenth-century general authorities sanctioning extra-judicial killings, castrations, lynchings, and marriage between siblings, post-Manifesto marriages of general authorities, J. Reuben Clark's extreme antisemitism, etc.

 

As to "extra-judicial killings, castrations, lynchings," it reads like 19th century hyperbole to me.   After all, St. Paul made a pun of castration when referring to excommunicating members who troubled the church.   Jesus talked about throwing child molesters into the sea.

 

J. Reuben Clark's antisemitism was not extreme.  It was rather ordinary for the times.  One of the reasons the U.S. did not act quickly to protect the Jews in the 1940s is that politicians didn't like Jews and didn't believe them.  In my home town, Los Angeles, major law firms wouldn't hire Jews up to the 1970s.  

 

Regarding post-Manifesto marriages of general authorities, there were a few.  Apparently, they thought Wilford Woodruff was equivocating and he wasn't around to clarify things.  So there were things like marriages in Mexico, or the high seas, to take advantage of that.  But one of my ancestors tried to take advantage of equivocation and was excommunicated for his troubles.   

[Freedom]

As to "extra-judicial killings, castrations, lynchings," it reads like 19th century hyperbole to me.   After all, St. Paul made a pun of castration when referring to excommunicating members who troubled the church.   Jesus talked about throwing child molesters into the sea.

  

This has been the common criticism of Quinn's scholarship - finding problems where none exist. Sort of like 'No Man Knows My History'.

[Nevo]

As to "extra-judicial killings, castrations, lynchings," it reads like 19th century hyperbole to me.   After all, St. Paul made a pun of castration when referring to excommunicating members who troubled the church.   Jesus talked about throwing child molesters into the sea.

 

I'm not talking about blood atonement rhetoric. I'm talking about actual acts of violence that were authorized or sanctioned by church authorities.

 

J. Reuben Clark's antisemitism was not extreme.  It was rather ordinary for the times.  One of the reasons the U.S. did not act quickly to protect the Jews in the 1940s is that politicians didn't like Jews and didn't believe them.  In my home town, Los Angeles, major law firms wouldn't hire Jews up to the 1970s.

 

I guess "extreme" is a relative term. Clark's antisemitism may not have been out of the ordinary in the US State Department when he was there, but it was certainly unusual among the ranks of the general authorities. In any case, ordering large numbers of antisemitic pamphlets and gifting copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to friends doesn't strike me as "rather ordinary" behavior even for an average citizen let alone a member of the First Presidency.

 

 

Regarding post-Manifesto marriages of general authorities, there were a few.  Apparently, they thought Wilford Woodruff was equivocating and he wasn't around to clarify things.

 

Well, one of them was Woodruff's apostle son, Abraham O. Woodruff. And possibly even Woodruff himself married after the Manifesto. So I don't think we can chalk it all up to a big misunderstanding.

[JLHPROF]

Regarding post-Manifesto marriages of general authorities, there were a few.  Apparently, they thought Wilford Woodruff was equivocating and he wasn't around to clarify things.  So there were things like marriages in Mexico, or the high seas, to take advantage of that.  But one of my ancestors tried to take advantage of equivocation and was excommunicated for his troubles.   

 

If by few you mean 250+, including at least 15 general authorities plus President Woodruff himself.  And if by not around you mean he sent Apostles and Seventies to Canada and Mexico to keep plural marriage going.

I don't think Woodruff was equivocating at all.  I don't think he had any real plan to end plural marriage for those willing to take their chances.

Edited October 1, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Duncan]

If by few you mean 500 hundred+, including at least 15 general authorities plus President Woodruff himself.  And if by not around you mean he sent Apostles and Seventies to Canada and Mexico to keep plural marriage going.

I don't think Woodruff was equivocating at all.  I don't think he had any real plan to end plural marriage for those willing to take their chances.

 

 

correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Church send folks to Mexico and Alberta prior to the manifesto? I know for Alberta they went to Alberta because the land was better and the Gov't wanted good people at farming

 

correction!!! after 1890 when they cancelled polygamy their was more migrations to Alberta due to the farming and economy but prior to that it was due to Polygamy persecution but I doubt there would have been a ton of them fleeing to S. Alberta. I don't think it was a cut and dry case of Alberta at least was founded by Mormons wanting to practice polygamy

Edited October 1, 2013 by Duncan

[JLHPROF]

correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Church send folks to Mexico and Alberta prior to the manifesto? I know for Alberta they went to Alberta because the land was better and the Gov't wanted good people at farming

 

correction!!! after 1890 when they cancelled polygamy their was more migrations to Alberta due to the farming and economy but prior to that it was due to Polygamy persecution but I doubt there would have been a ton of them fleeing to S. Alberta. I don't think it was a cut and dry case of Alberta at least was founded by Mormons wanting to practice polygamy

 

Yes, they sent people to Mexico & Alberta prior to the manifesto.  However, there were plenty of post-manifesto marriages performed and encouraged.

Apostle John W. Taylor, Stake President Heber Allen, and Stake President Edward Wood who became Cardston Temple's first president in 1923 were all Alberta residents and post-manifesto polygamists.  The reasons for moving to Canada may have varied, but they were definitely used for post-manifesto polygamy.

Edited October 1, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

If by few you mean 500 hundred+, including at least 15 general authorities plus President Woodruff himself.  And if by not around you mean he sent Apostles and Seventies to Canada and Mexico to keep plural marriage going.

I don't think Woodruff was equivocating at all.  I don't think he had any real plan to end plural marriage for those willing to take their chances.

Cfr on the 500+ please. I have heard the number was around 250.

[JLHPROF]

Cfr on the 500+ please. I have heard the number was around 250.

 

My apologies - 500 was the number of people who entered into marriages (husbands and wives).  Number of marriages was actually 262.  I have corrected my original post.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3001453/posts - 500 people enter into plural marriages.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6177 - 262 marriages featuring the 500 names documented.

 

But the bigger issue here isn't how many or where.  It's that the GA's didn't believe the manifesto ended polygamy.  Even Pres. Woodruff didn't really believe it.  A very large number of them ignored it completely for over a decade.

Edited October 1, 2013 by JLHPROF

[omni]

correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Church send folks to Mexico and Alberta prior to the manifesto? I know for Alberta they went to Alberta because the land was better and the Gov't wanted good people at farming

correction!!! after 1890 when they cancelled polygamy their was more migrations to Alberta due to the farming and economy but prior to that it was due to Polygamy persecution but I doubt there would have been a ton of them fleeing to S. Alberta. I don't think it was a cut and dry case of Alberta at least was founded by Mormons wanting to practice polygamy

Ha ha! I knew at the mere mention of Canada you would be in here.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled program...

Edited October 1, 2013 by omni

[Duncan]

Ha ha! I knew at the mere mention of Canada you would be in here.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

 

hahaha! yes, I can get a bit annoying about it!

[Stargazer]

hahaha! yes, I can get a bit annoying about it!

 

No, you're never annoying about Canada.  I lived in Toronto for 2.5 years and loved it.  My favorite daughter in law is from Victoria, BC.  I love visiting Canada, especially Victoria, BC.  I was a "landed immigrant" once for a brief time -- because my Dad was trying to clarify his income tax situation (back in 1967) while we lived there. 

 

O Canada!

[Calm]

My apologies - 500 was the number of people who entered into marriages (husbands and wives).  Number of marriages was actually 262.  I have corrected my original post.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3001453/posts - 500 people enter into plural marriages.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6177 - 262 marriages featuring the 500 names documented.

 

But the bigger issue here isn't how many or where.  It's that the GA's didn't believe the manifesto ended polygamy.  Even Pres. Woodruff didn't really believe it.  A very large number of them ignored it completely for over a decade.

Just to be clear, I wasn't debating your argument, just curious about the number.

[Duncan]

No, you're never annoying about Canada.  I lived in Toronto for 2.5 years and loved it.  My favorite daughter in law is from Victoria, BC.  I love visiting Canada, especially Victoria, BC.  I was a "landed immigrant" once for a brief time -- because my Dad was trying to clarify his income tax situation (back in 1967) while we lived there. 

 

O Canada!

 

thank you for your kind words!

[Helen47]

I received a copy of Quinn's paper where at a recent MHA meeting he responding to a paper by Hales on polyandry. It is long and typical of Quinn full of long footnotes.I liked his book on Early Magic.

[webbles]

My apologies - 500 was the number of people who entered into marriages (husbands and wives).  Number of marriages was actually 262.  I have corrected my original post.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3001453/posts - 500 people enter into plural marriages.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6177 - 262 marriages featuring the 500 names documented.

 

But the bigger issue here isn't how many or where.  It's that the GA's didn't believe the manifesto ended polygamy.  Even Pres. Woodruff didn't really believe it.  A very large number of them ignored it completely for over a decade.

Some GA's did, some didn't.  I think a lot of them just hoped that the manifesto would leave them alone, let them gain statehood, and then restart polygamy.  If it wasn't for the Smoot hearings, polygamy might still be around.

 

I wonder if the 262 is all the marriages or just the ones that they've found.  I know of 2 in my family and I even know of 2 post 2nd manifestos (one resulted in excommunicated but active members, the other doesn't seem to have resulted in excommunication but we aren't really even sure if it was a polygamous relationship).

[JLHPROF]

Some GA's did, some didn't.  I think a lot of them just hoped that the manifesto would leave them alone, let them gain statehood, and then restart polygamy.  If it wasn't for the Smoot hearings, polygamy might still be around.

 

I think that there is a very good chance that it would still be around.

The point here again is that despite what is publicly thought by the majority of the church, the people that issued the manifesto did not consider it a divine commandment to end polygamy.  They kept living it and as you said, probably expected it to come back after statehood.

[Freedom]

I think that there is a very good chance that it would still be around.

The point here again is that despite what is publicly thought by the majority of the church, the people that issued the manifesto did not consider it a divine commandment to end polygamy.  They kept living it and as you said, probably expected it to come back after statehood.

In terms of the topic of the thread, this was already well known - if people were not aware of it, it was because they were willfully ignorant. None of these are revelations that would lead to excommunication. It is how the author interpreted it that was a problem. It was bad scholarship and presenting the data in the worst possible light.

[rockpond]

In terms of the topic of the thread, this was already well known - if people were not aware of it, it was because they were willfully ignorant. None of these are revelations that would lead to excommunication. It is how the author interpreted it that was a problem. It was bad scholarship and presenting the data in the worst possible light.

 

Is this just a blanket statement that all five (of the Sept 6 that were ex'd) were bad scholars, presenting the data in the worse possible light?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think that there is a very good chance that it would still be around.

The point here again is that despite what is publicly thought by the majority of the church, the people that issued the manifesto did not consider it a divine commandment to end polygamy.  They kept living it and as you said, probably expected it to come back after statehood.

 

In terms of the topic of the thread, this was already well known - if people were not aware of it, it was because they were willfully ignorant. None of these are revelations that would lead to excommunication. It is how the author interpreted it that was a problem. It was bad scholarship and presenting the data in the worst possible light.

CFR that officially sanctioned post manifesto plural marriage was well known prior to Quinn's article (one or two well circulated published references would suffice).  Also you really think that those in the church who don't know that the manifesto is not a divine commandment to end polygamy are "willfully ignorant?" Really? And from the way you worded this, you were talking about people in the church pre-1985? From OD 1 heading: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

 

After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

 

Note it says revelation and binding.

Edited October 1, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[thesometimesaint]

Is this just a blanket statement that all five (of the Sept 6 that were ex'd) were bad scholars, presenting the data in the worse possible light?

 

Very close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

[rockpond]

Very close to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

 

What in that articles supports Freedom's statement that the Sept 6 produced bad scholarship?

[thesometimesaint]

What in that articles supports Freedom's statement that the Sept 6 produced bad scholarship?

 

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides is a feminist noted for speaking on the Mother in Heaven. While we acknowledge we have a mother in heaven, we know very little to nothing about her. Ms. Whitesides advocated that the Church pray to her.

 

Avraham Gileadi's "books interpreting Mormon scripture challenged the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine."

All doctrine comes from the leadership, sustained by the membership.

 

In 2007, Toscano wrote that he lost his faith "like losing your eyesight after an accident" and that he regrets that LDS Church leaders have disregarded his criticisms of what he considers the Church's growing anti-intellectualism, homophobia, misogyny, and elitism. That by definition is apostacy, and as I see it poor scholarship into what the LDS really believe.

 

Maxine Hanks is a feminist theologian who compiled and edited the book Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. The role of women in the Church is essential but not authoritative.

 

Anderson pushed the mother-in-heaven theme beyond which Church leadership was willing to go.

 

Quinn aslo authored the 1987 book Early Mormonism and Majic world View, which argues that early Mormon leaders were greatly influenced by folk majic, and superstitious beliefs including stone looking, charms, and devining rods. I believe a fair reading of early Church history doesn't support a "greatly influenced" reading. Indeed my position is/has always been that those early leader Saints were very pragmatic, and far more concerned with survival and fleeing murderous mobs.

Edited October 1, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[JLHPROF]

From OD 1 heading: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

Quote

After receiving revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the following Manifesto, which was accepted by the Church as authoritative and binding on October 6, 1890. This led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.

 

Note it says revelation and binding.

 

 

 

But here again is the issue - regardless of what Quinn wrote or didn't write on the issue the information and facts on post-manifesto polygamy do not fit with this quote.

Why (if this was a binding revelation that ended plural marriage in the church) did Pres. Wilford Woodruff himself and several apostles, and other general authorities, continue to enter into new marriages?  There can only be two possibilities:

 

1. They knew that God had spoken on the issue by revelation to end the practice and yet chose to break or ignore that commandment of the Lord.

2. They knew that the revelation received and the manifesto issued never intended the end of plural marriage and it was still a necessary practice.

[rockpond]

Lynne Kanavel Whitesides is a feminist noted for speaking on the Mother in Heaven. While we acknowledge we have a mother in heaven, we know very little to nothing about her. Ms. Whitesides advocated that the Church pray to her.

 

Avraham Gileadi's "books interpreting Mormon scripture challenged the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine."

All doctrine comes from the leadership, sustained by the membership.

 

In 2007, Toscano wrote that he lost his faith "like losing your eyesight after an accident" and that he regrets that LDS Church leaders have disregarded his criticisms of what he considers the Church's growing anti-intellectualism, homophobia, misogyny, and elitism. That by definition is apostacy, and as I see it poor scholarship into what the LDS really believe.

 

Maxine Hanks is a feminist theologian who compiled and edited the book Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. The role of women in the Church is essential but not authoritative.

 

Anderson pushed the mother-in-heaven theme beyond which Church leadership was willing to go.

 

Quinn aslo authored the 1987 book Early Mormonism and Majic world View, which argues that early Mormon leaders were greatly influenced by folk majic, and superstitious beliefs including stone looking, charms, and devining rods. I believe a fair reading of early Church history doesn't support a "greatly influenced" reading. Indeed my position is/has always been that those early leader Saints were very pragmatic, and far more concerned with survival and fleeing murderous mobs.

 

While I tend to agree that those are likely reasons for their excommunications, your (or my, or church leadership) disagreement with them does not make their work "bad scholarship".