Recent Miller-Eccles Meeting Report
February 12, 2005 Meeting
by
Speaker
Richard Dutcher, Film Maker
We welcomed 72 people into our home to hear Richard Dutcher speak on
February 12, 2005. Lael Littke and I had the opportunity to have dinner with
Richard beforehand. I’d like to give you a report of our meeting. I
wish to apologize for the inadequacy of my note taking and my lack of
comprehension of his presentation, both of which are reflected in the summary
below. This report reflects the dialectic of the evening, with questions and
topics interspersed. Richard, I hope my report is not an act of violence to your
presentation.
Richard, thank you for visiting with us. With five boys of your own, from
ages 1 to 13, and with your wife home schooling your children, I know you must
have many demands on your time. I received several emails and compliments after
your visit expressing appreciation for efforts to meet with us. We appreciated
your sense of humor and candor.
Richard started out by shocking us, saying he would deal with the rumors
right at the very beginning. He confessed to an affair [this is Hollywood after
all – RMF] – it started 34 years ago at the age of seven. [We were all a
little slow in realizing his tongue-in-cheek humor.] It was an affair with the
movies and it has continued to this day. Richard grew up poor, living with his
grandmother in southern Illinois. He remembers well the use of the outhouse as a
child. At seven years of age, his grandmother took him to see his first movie in
a 1920s era art deco theatre – 300 seats, large screen and ornate. He had
watched television before – but had never experienced the movies. He was
entranced by “Mary Poppins”. They talked about it all the way as they walked
home after the movie. He decided his life’s work would be motion pictures.
For Richard, movies are not just entertainment. He believes the cinema
can be the most profound art form. Some of his most spiritual and profound
moments have been in the motion picture theatre.
The early movies took two courses. The first course consisted of the
documentary – moving pictures of life. The other course became the dominant
art form – telling stories.
As a freshman at BYU, he saw “The Blue Angel” with Marlene Dietrich.
It was a profound movie – he was moved deeply by something made over 60 years
earlier. The motion picture has the capacity to send profound messages across
time. He remembers vividly seeing “The Bicycle Thief”, an Italian film. He
felt a much closer connection to the rest of humanity and he felt closer to God.
During his freshman year, he was considering whether to go on a mission.
He had rationalized that he should not go on a mission – he could better serve
the Lord and the Church by going to Los Angeles and becoming a famous LDS sitcom
actor and influencing many more people than he could by knocking on doors. While
in St. George, he went with his friends to see “Return of the Jedi”. Richard
was perhaps preconditioned to respond to this movie because of his own
relationship with his father. In the movie, as Luke Skywalker struggled with his
father and Luke had to choose between the dark and the light, Richard started
weeping. He knew what was right and he decided to go on a mission within that
movie theatre amidst the tension of intergalactic war. So Richard thanks George
Lucas for helping him decide to go on a mission.
At his home each night, he gathers his children and they watch a bit of a
movie, such as Charlie Chaplin. He hopes to convey to them the power of what a
motion picture can be.
He likes to watch people watch his movies, to see how they live along
with the story, and to see who really gets what he is trying to communicate.
His first motion picture was “Girl Crazy”, but it was a light
entertainment that meant nothing. Yet the making of this motion picture,
particularly the fund raising, consumed four arduous years of his life. He
decided he would never waste his time on a trifling movie like that again. He
wanted to do meaningful work.
Richard is able to receive revelation in the cinema. He compared it to
sitting in the temple (of which cinema is a part). The theatre can be a temple
for him.
He spent two years in Mexico serving his mission, knocking on doors
asking people to listen to him, and often being turned away. But with “God’s
Army”, he had people lining up to pay money to hear him bear his testimony. He
was very excited to make “God’s Army”. Now as a Latter-day Saint he could
make a film to tell our story and doctrine, and it would be powerful. We asked
him when “God’s Army II – States of Grace” will be released. He said it
is a trade secret – but it will be toward the end of the year. He said it will
be much better than “God’s Army”. He can hardly wait for its release.
Nevertheless, Richard does sound a note of pessimism. In fact, he
prophesied the death of Mormon cinema. He went to see “The Singles Ward”. He
wanted to pull his hair out. Was Mormon cinemas already over, with such films
killing it artistically and financially. Such films have not been successful
financially, and LDS investors are now not willing to step forward and fund good
Mormon cinema.
When he made his movies, he said he was proud to call himself a Mormon
filmmaker. But after films like “The Singles Ward”, it has become an
epithet. “The Best Two Years” and “The Work and the Glory” are nice, but
they are good for family home evening.
“Saints and Soldiers” is a good movie, but it is not a Mormon movie.
The unique Mormon elements of the story have been removed. The original story
was so LDS, but the director neutered it. He said a Baptist minister commented
to him what a nice movie “Saints and Soldiers” was - about a Baptist
missionary!
Richard thinks that the more culturally significant the movie, the
greater the impact for others. He referred to “Fiddler on the Roof”. What
kind of a movie would that be without the Jewishness? He thinks we cannot make
profound Mormon movies without leaving in the culture. Mormon filmmakers should
not take out Mormon culture.
I
asked Richard whether he has had any input from general authorities either
officially or individually. He said he has not received any official input, but
he has privately received encouragement from general authorities.
He thinks there is nothing that cannot be treated in film (i.e., sex and
violence). How such themes are treated makes all the difference. It hurts him to
judge others. Seeing good films can allow us to empathize with the problems and
situations of others. It allows to experience their trauma and pain vicariously,
so that we can learn without actually experiencing such unfortunate elements of
life. We have too much judgmentalism in LDS culture, and films can help us
understand others better. A film like “Goodfellas”, which he praised, shows
another culture, and taught him to sympathize, but not to be like that culture.
Film should tell how people are, to tell a real story, with their mistakes and
their redemption.
He has a script ready for his motion picture of Joseph Smith. He thinks
it is a powerful and wonderful script. The script is completed, although he
occasionally works on it. He has finally raised all the money it will take to
make a quality film. [He didn’t tell me how much, but I understand “The Work
and the Glory” cost $7 million.] However, he has not been able to raise the
funds from LDS investors. All of the funding will be provided by non-LDS
investors. He hopes to start shooting this summer. Val Kilmer has expressed high
interest in playing the part of Joseph Smith and Richard would like to have Val
Kilmer play the part. The question is whether Val Klimer’s schedule will fit
with a summer shoot of the movie.
Richard
means it to tell the Joseph Smith story in a profound way, certainly respectful
of the divine nature of his calling. But a profound film must also include
Joseph as a man. Richard mentioned another film in the making about Joseph Smith
from non-LDS filmmakers, one that would not be flattering or true. He said if
insiders do not tell the story with the depth that we understand, then others
will tell the story not to our liking. [I am reminded of Joseph's own prophecy
that his name will be held for good and ill throughout the world. This has
certainly been the case with books. I expect that this will also be the case
with movies.] We can expect an R-rated movies from a non-LDS producer that will
savage Joseph Smith and his divine calling. [The question is whether we can
profoundly tell the Joseph Smith story, as man and prophet, adequately without a
PG-13 or R-rated movie of our own. Perhaps there could be several profound
Joseph Smith movies, each one made for a different audience - perhaps a PG movie
that could reach the entire family, and perhaps a more mature movie that would
tell more or different aspects of his life and work. Perhaps his life should be
told in more than one movie.]
Richard, we look forward to many more of your films in the future.
Recent Miller-Eccles Meeting Report
October 2003 Meeting
by
First,
I wish to thank Todd Compton for making time to present to The Miller Eccles
Study Group. We were fascinated by his sketch of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, one
of the leading ladies of Zion. Second, I wish to apologize for the inadequacy of
my note taking and my lack of comprehension of his presentation, both of which
are reflected in the summary below.
Todd is the author of In
Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
and editor of A
Widow's Tale: The 1884-1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney.
Todd’s
work on the Helen Mar Kimball Whitney diaries illustrates both the craft, the
sacrifice, and the dedication required for top-flight history, particularly one
who does it out of avocation rather than vocation.
Helen had written extensively during her years, including articles for Women’s
Exponent and an autobiographical sketch. Todd had thoroughly studied
all of these materials in connection with writing In
Sacred Loneliness. As he finished this book, he learned from Michael
Marquardt that Chick Hatch at the Merrill Library at Utah State had 11 hand
written diaries of Helen penned during the final years of her life, 1884-1896.
After the publication of In Sacred
Loneliness, Todd turned to these diaries. Todd transcribed the
diaries, studied the contemporary affairs mentioned in the diaries, identified
each person mentioned in the diaries, and studied the political and religious
climate in Utah, the nation, and the Church for the necessary background and
context. From this research, he prepared the notes for published diaries. After
years of painstaking work, untold hours, the expenditure of his own money (much
great history is written by devoted historians who are not paid either a salary
or a grant for their work, but are paid by the satisfaction of writing history)
and many sacrifices, Todd has produced another masterpiece.
The diaries comprise a continuous narrative from 1884, beginning with her
husband’s death, through 1896, ending with Utah’s statehood parade. Helen
might have started the diaries as self-therapy after the death of her husband,
so not much is held back in the diaries. The diaries have some dramatic
elements, but many entries are about daily mundane matters. After reading the
diaries, Todd had a feeling of knowing Helen Mar well.
Helen Mar married Horace Whitney and she is the mother of Orson Whitney.
She referred to Brigham Young as “Uncle Brigham”. She was one of the leading
women of Zion and was knew the state and church leaders very well.
Helen Mar would read the Deseret News. She would then often comment on
the news and happenings of the day. She commented on the “underground
railroad,” her description of the polygamists going underground. The diaries
chronicle part of a lost or neglected period of Mormon History.
We read a number of excerpts from the diaries; all were interesting,
curious, insightful, or poignant. However, I will not summarize these excerpts
here – you will have to read the book for yourselves.
Todd pointed out some of the curious differences between the every day
experiences of Latter-day Saints in the late 19th Century and in the
modern church. Back then, wards would hold going away parties for the men who
were going off to prison on convictions of polygamy. The preferred refreshments
would be cake and wine. The Sisters would often meet together for tea. Washing
and anointing were common, particularly for childbirth and healing, and the
washing and anointing would be performed by other Sisters. On the other hand,
the diaries mention many similarities, including her fervent prayers, opinions
on politics, and the central role of the church in her life.
Thank you Dr. Compton. I hope my summary is not viewed as an act of
violence to your presentation.
July's Meetings
by
I
wish to thank Terryl Givens for making time to present to The Miller Eccles
Study Group. We were stimulated by his brief report on the Yale Conference on
Mormonism, and then his general remarks on the Book of Mormon, Mormon themes in
general, and the recent scholarly consideration of the Book of Mormon and things
Mormon. Second, I wish to apologize for the inadequacy of my note taking and my
lack of comprehension of his presentation, both of which are reflected in the
summary below.
Yale Conference. The Yale conference was the first major
conference at a research university in the United States examining things
Mormon, attracting 350 conference-goers. Prof. Givens was disappointed at the
relative lack of non-LDS attendees and participants. Most of the “A List”
scholars declined to attend.
Walter
Storpf of Yale was dismissive of the topic- why Latter-day Saints have no
theology. He did not think Latter-day Saints’ distinctiveness was important.
He was somewhat unprepared, never having read any Mormon materials.
A
number of evangelical scholars came, but they were mainly polemical.
Douglas
Davies has studied the Latter-day Saints. He challenged LDS scholars to drop the
angel stories – the Latter-day Saints must look at their sacred texts as
metaphor and allegory. Prof. Givens thinks that there is no real parallel
between the Biblical texts and traditional Christianity on the one hand, and the
Latter-day Saints and the Book of Mormon on the other. The Latter-day Saints
have a much deeper foundation in the historicity of their non-Biblical texts.
Prof. Givens expressed some disappointment at the quality of some of the
Latter-day Saint participants’ presentations. Some were not prepared for the
vigorous debates and contradicting viewpoints.
By the Hand of Mormon. Prof. Givens then commented on his recent
book published by Oxford University Press. Prof. Richard Bushman, who has
presented to The Miller Eccles Study Group, read the pre-publication manuscript
and commented, “There is something in there to offend everyone.”
Prof. Givens recounted an anecdote connected with an Editor at Cambridge.
Prof. Givens prepared an entry on the Book of Mormon for a dictionary of
religion in preparation. They worked on the entry, and had agreed on the text.
However, as the editor sent back the final text, he added what he thought was an
innocuous closing sentence: “The Book of Mormon is clearly a response to 19th
Century religious debates.” Prof. Givens explained to the editor that he had
put his foot right into the middle of the most contentious debate connected with
things Mormon. The Book of Mormon’s status as scripture is the very foundation
of Joseph Smith’s authority. The historicity of the Book of Mormon is crucial
to the LDS belief system. This anecdote further illustrates the danger of making
assumptions about the relationship between cultural influences and inspiration.
Prof. Givens then turned to the text of the Book of Mormon. One important
key to interpreting a text is to determine both the author and the intended
audience. In the Book of Mormon, both the authors and the intended audiences
shift. Nephi writes mainly to his posterity, the Nephites. The audience shifts
with Jacob. With Enos, the audience has become the Lamanites in the future (he
has foreseen the destruction of the Nephites), and his sons write to Lamanites
in the future, not including the Nephites. They speak to the Lamanites about
“those Nephites”. At the visit of Christ, the audience changes to the
gentiles and to remnants of the house of Israel. At the end of the Book of
Mormon, Moroni speaks to anonymous gentiles in the distant future, rescuers of
Israel.
The Book of Mormon might profitably be explored as narrative theology-
illustrating theology through stories. The story of Christ is retold again and
again as new settlements are founded and the Church must be restarted. Rather
than relying on a kingly figure who speaks to God on the people’s behalf, the
Book of Mormon teaches the autonomy of faithful individuals and their direct
access to spiritual matters (e.g., Lehi and his vision, Nephi and his vision,
Enos and his vision, Alma the Elder, etc.)
From 3 Nephi on, the Nephites are no longer defined by “genes”, but
by a Christ-centered tradition.
Prof. Givens then discussed the current dialogue among the LDS and other
scholars of religion. He recounted an anecdote about conversing with a devout
Christian colleague. Prof. Givens asked his colleague to critique some of his
writings. After reading the texts, his colleague said that reading Prof. Givens
writings made his colleague convulse! His colleague asked Prof. Givens if he
really believed he would be begetting children in a million years. Prof. Givens
said he would answer his colleague, if his colleague would answer a question
first. Prof. Givens asked, “What will you be doing in a million years?”
Quickly his colleague answered, “Growing in the grace of Christ.” “No,”
Prof. Givens said, “What will you be doing on Thursday evening, 8:00 pm,
October 14, in one million years?” His colleague was taken aback, pondered a
while, then replied, “I see that anything I say will be equally absurd.”
Prof. Givens finds a common theme running through the objections of
scholars of religion and believing theologians, based in part on Neo-Platonism.
The objection is that the Latter-day Saints do not have a sense of
“sanctity” that manifests itself in the discontinuity of the sacred from
this world. For contemporary theology of the last few centuries, there can be no
understanding of the sacred. Edmund Burke reacted against Locke’s rationality,
saying that “God cannot be a clear idea”. Orthodoxy is defined by what makes
belief possible – namely the lack of specificity. There must be sacred
mysteries, awe, the incomprehensible divine.
Prof. Givens referred to the parable of Frankenstein’s monster. Dr.
Frankenstein in creating his monster was taking on the role of God, and in a
material and concrete way attempted to create a perfect man. But things turned
out horribly wrong, and Dr. Frankenstein created a monster instead. This parable
is a reaction to the rationality of the 18th and 19th
centuries. For contemporary theology, the grandeur of a sublime chimera is
preferable to concreteness, specificity, bounded in time, and materiality.
For Latter-day Saints, there is no immateriality, only finer matter. The
restoration has opened such a flood of knowledge and answers and filled in so
many blanks that we do not share the divine bafflement of much contemporary
theology. Thus we are separated by a wide gulf.
Latter-day Saints have a particular challenge to reach for the sublime
when we are nevertheless grounded in concreteness. Perhaps we have lost a bit of
the awe and grandeur we should feel in approaching God.
Thank you Prof. Givens. I hope my summary is not viewed as an act of
violence to your presentation.
March's Meeting
by
First,
I wish to thank Richard Holzapfel for making time to present to The Miller
Eccles Study Group. We were fascinated by the images he has collected and read,
and the insights on history contained in the images.
Brigham
Young was born on June 1, 1801. By the time he became prominent in the 1840s, he
was mature and middle aged. The first half of his life is completely lacking in
graphic images. The daguerreotype process was invented in the late 1830s and
soon appeared in the U.S. By the 1840s, the process had arrived in Nauvoo. The
intriguing question is what daguerreotypes exist from the Nauvoo period that
might include both Brigham Young and/or Joseph Smith. So far, none has been
found with an authenticated image of Joseph Smith. One daguerreotype of Brigham
Young from 1846 has survived.
Throughout
his life, Brigham Young was generally clean-shaven, except for the last
approximately 16 years of his life, from about 1861 until his death in 1877.
Then he wore a beard, fairly closely cropped, that followed the jaw and chin
line. He wore a long beard for only a short time, less than a year, in the
period 1874-75. The last period of his life is the period of greatest notoriety,
and therefore the period when the most photographs and graphic images were
produced, thus fixing the popular image of Brigham Young as a man with a beard.
In growing his beard, Brigham Young and other LDS leaders were following the
style of the period (compare Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant).
As
with many (or most) 19th century photographs, the images never
capture a smile. Brigham, as with many (or most) 19th century men and
women, had severe dental problems. By the end of his life, he had lost all of
his natural teeth and used dentures. Accordingly, teeth are seldom seen in the
pictures.
Very
few images of Brigham Young with his wives exist. Brigham intentionally avoided
such images, as he did not want his family to become objects of ridicule.
Richard
Holzapfel is a young scholar. He demonstrates that there is still a lot of
history to be written. He conceived the idea for his book on Brigham Young in
the mid-1990s when he inquired of archivists about existing graphic images of
Brigham Young. When he discovered that no one had published a collection, and in
fact no comprehensive collection existed, he decided to collect and publish a
collection. What he thought would be a relatively short project turned into a
multi-year task. He has produced a beautiful book, Brigham Young – Images
of a Mormon Prophet. So young scholars should take heart, there is plenty of
work to do.
I
asked him what personal insights he had gained about Brigham Young in his work
on the book. I said Brigham is a puzzle. He was known as “Brother Brigham”
and beloved of the Saints, yet he was also known as a stern taskmaster who could
publicly humiliate the Saints. Richard responded with several insights. First,
Brigham Young was a man of the 19th century. He used the paradigm of
a 19th Century father, stern with his family members but entirely
devoted to their welfare. He perhaps saw himself as a father figure to the 19th
century Latter-day Saints in the Great Basin. He would concern himself about
playgrounds for the children and their safety on the playgrounds, but would also
be unsparing to those he felt did not measure up. Richard also suggested that as
the Latter-day Saints moved away from civilization into the wilderness, where
survival was often in question or a matter of concentrated hard work in
primitive conditions, many of the refinements of civilization also fell away.
Many aspects of life became coarser, including language and conduct. Richard
felt that Brigham would use harsh and seemingly coarse language in order to make
a point, and to make it stick in the harsh and primitive life in the 19th
Century Great Basin.
We will have another stimulating meeting on April 12, 2003, when Prof. Elizabeth Seawell of the BYU law school will speak on the legal challenges to the church, both internationally and in some cases domestically. Please plan to attend our next meeting!
February's Meeting
by
First, I wish to extend a very heartfelt “Thank You!” to Will Bagley
and Robb Briggs for a most interesting, stimulating, and sobering meeting. Your
presentations were “worth our time” (the highest compliment I can give).
I will attempt to summarize some of the points discussed in the Miller
Eccles Study Group on Saturday, February 8, 2003. Summarizing expert viewpoints
is a hazardous venture. My summary undoubtedly misses the mark of what the
experts intended, and reflects what impressed me, thus providing a commentary on
my own state-of-mind. With these caveats, here goes:
Will Bagley presented a paper treating mainly the first and second trials
of John D. Lee. He set the stage by briefly with an impassioned recounting the
horrific massacre that culminated on September 11, 1857, at Mountain Meadows
with the killing of 123 men, women and children. Will stated that although there
is no direct evidence, he believes the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
establish that “the buck stops at the desk of the Governor, the Commander of
the Nauvoo Legion, and the Superintendent of Indian Affairs.” Will believes
Brigham Young instigated and ordered the massacre.
Will presented his thesis that during the Utah war and its immediate
aftermath, and extending for 18 years to 1875, Brigham Young sought to cover up
the massacre and frustrate the investigation. However, with the continuing
passage of the federal legislation, federal prosecutors were empowered to
investigate and prosecute those involved in the massacre. As the net began to
close, Brigham Young cast off those whom he had protected and who had protected
him, including John D. Lee.
Robert N. Baskin, Harvard trained lawyer, prosecuted the first trial in
1875. Baskin had vowed to break the political power of the church and
accordingly turned the first trial into a trial of the church and Brigham Young.
The first trial riveted the nation. John D. Lee said he would not implicate an
innocent man like Brigham Young. John D. Lee offered to plead guilty in a plea
bargain. However, since John D. Lee did not implicate Brigham Young, Baskin
rejected the plea bargain. The trial ended in a hung jury, splitting along
denominational lines. Although Baskin did not obtain a conviction, Will believes
that he accomplished his purposes in attacking Brigham Young and the church. The
trial was notorious and the publicity accomplished Baskins’ purposes.
The federal legislation grew ever more onerous until at last the
political power of the church was broken in the 1880s.
The attorneys defending Lee in the first trial were Brigham Young’s
divorce attorneys and other attorneys. The church paid the defense costs.
The second Lee trial commenced in 1876. Sumner Howard prosecuted the
second trial. Will believes that Howard entered into a corrupt deal with Brigham
Young to convict Lee and drop the other defendants, and Brigham Young would
deliver the documents and witnesses for the conviction. The second trial ended
in the conviction of John D. Lee, and no one else was ever convicted.
Will cited some of the circumstantial evidence that he interprets as
implicating Brigham Young. First, he believes that all the stories about the
troublesome behavior of the Arkansas emigrants are entirely fabricated. He sees
these stories as part of the cover-up. Isaac Haight and William Dane were John
D. Lee’s superior commanders in the militia. Haight and Dane never testified
that Brigham Young had no part in the massacre. Will asked the question why they
would not so testify unless they were acting on orders? How did Brigham Young
manage this? Will, with his oratorical passion, claimed that Brigham Young
“knew where every sparrow flies in Southern Utah”. Will says that Brigham
Young asked Haight to take responsibility, but that Haight would not and
responded that “he would put the saddle on the right horse.” Nephi Johnson
provided the key testimony against Lee, and Will believes Nephi Johnson’s
testimony was perjured. Nephi Johnson later told Lee’s wife that he was told
to do it. Finally, Will cites a statement by Sumner Howard in which Howard
referred the “evil deed that he was doing.”
There was virtually no coverage of the second trial. The second trial
occurred just three months after Custer’s last stand (and the second trial
cast much of the blame on the Paiutes), and it occurred during a presidential
election [and during the Centennial Year celebration of the Declaration of
Independence.]
Rob Briggs then addressed the Group. Initially Rob responded to Will’s
conclusion that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Rob does not believe the
evidence warrants the conclusion. He presented the following summary of Will’s
argument concerning Brigham Young’s responsibility and his critique of
Will’s argument:
2.
Orders were brought south. 3.
Mormons
“runners” brought word south 4.
There
was advanced planning against Fanchers. 5.
Iron
Co. militia & Paiutes killed the Fancher company Conclusion
– Brigham
Young ordered MMM. |
Response
3.
Source
error – Will relied on secondary source; primary source says something
different. 4.
Source
error – Will misconstrued the chronology Conclusion
– The premises are problematic so the conclusion does not follow. |
Rob then turned to a discussion of how to fit the Massacre into a larger
historical and social context. The Hemoclysm of the 20th Century saw
180 million people killed – the bloodiest century in human history. Rob
applied an explanatory model of mass violence from the social sciences to try to
understand how the Massacre could have happened. The following chart summarizes
some of these points.
Escalating
Violence –
The Process
nBias
nPrejudice
nDiscrimination
nDenunciation
nFighting
Words
nPhysical
Attacks
nOrganized
Attacks
nDispossession
nKillings
nMass
Killings
Rob then illustrated how each of these elements is prominent in the
persecution of the Mormons in their history, and how these factors might have
come into play in a role-reversal in the microcosm of Southern Utah.
Rob examined the interrelationship of the effect of the Mormon War on the
Mormons in Southern Utah and how, in the circumstances in Southern Utah, it led
to the Massacre. Rob sees the perceived impending attack by Johnston’s Army
and perhaps other elements of the U.S. Army (in the minds of the Southern Utah
settlers) as central to any understanding of the causes of the Massacre. He
used a chart to recap possible conditions and causes that we are unable to
duplicate on this web site.
Will’s and Rob’s presentations were followed by a lively Question and
Answer session. Group members tested their theses and conclusions, contrasted
them with those of Juanita Brooks and Leonard Arrington, and sought greater
understanding throughout.
Although
we formally ended the meeting at 9:30 pm, the informal discussions and questions
continued until almost 10:30 pm.
January's Meeting
by
Dr.
Carol Cornwall Madsen presented a stimulating and informative discussion to our
study group on the contributions of Emmeline B. Wells.
Emmeline
B. Wells was Mormondom’s most well-known and respected woman to the outside
world in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century.
Eliza R. Snow was Mormondom’s most well-known and respected woman within
Mormondom. They were colleagues for a long period of time. Emmeline outlived
Eliza R. Snow. Emmeline is honored with a bust in the Capitol Rotunda in Salt
Lake City.
Emmeline
was born in 1828. She converted to Mormonism in 1842. She married James Harris
in 1843 and they migrated to Nauvoo it 1944. After the martyrdom of Joseph
Smith, her young infant died and her husband deserted her. She married Newel K.
Whitney as a plural wife and traveled to Utah as a pioneer. Newel Whitney died
in 1850. She married Daniel H. Wells in 1852 as his sixth plural wife. She bore
two daughters by Newell K. Whitney and three daughters by Daniel H. Wells. Most
of the years of her marriage to Daniel H. Wells were characterized by both
physical and emotional separation from him. She felt this loss acutely. After
the death of Brigham Young when Daniel H. Wells was released as a counselor in
the First Presidency and became the President of the Manti temple, she finally
was able to establish a close personal relationship with Daniel H. Wells.
Emmeline passed away in 1921.
Emmeline
was born and grew up in a social milieu far from the early 21st
century. An understanding for her cultural context and the status of women is
essential for understanding Emmeline. In the first half of the 19th
century, education for women did not extend beyond elementary school. Toward the
middle of the 19th century, some women were admitted to land grant
colleges for “normal school” – for training of teachers. Emmeline had a
life-long passion for the education of women. In the first part of the 19th
century, women’s property rights were greatly restricted. At marriage, their
property came under the jurisdiction of their husbands. Women could not write
wills. Under common law, a woman’s wages did not belong to her. Upon divorce
women could not have custody of children. They could not vote.
On a personal level, Emmeline’s mother was widowed twice and struggled
under women’s disabilities of the time. Emmeline, herself, was deserted by her
husband at the age of 16. Her marriages to Newell K. Whitney and Daniel H. Wells
occurred during times of high stress when they could not provide much support to
her. As a result, Emmeline was required to be independent most of her life.
Emmeline
B. Wells worked for the “advancement of women”. She wrote, “I believe in
women, especially thinking women.” Training of women was an important
life-long theme.
19th
Century feminists can be categorized into three groups: 1) One group was
conservative, not seeking to change much of the social order, but to fill in the
gaps in the social order and help the poor. 2) One group consisted of Reformers
who wanted to change some of the laws. 3) The third group consisted of
transformers who wanted to change the view of women. They wanted to dash the
stereotypes. They wanted to change such beliefs as that women’s brains were
smaller because of their smaller physical stature compared to men and therefore
their brains were inferior. They challenged the stereotypes that men are the
head and women are the hearts, and that men are the sturdy oaks and women the
clinging vines. Emmeline fit into all three categories.
Emmeline
became the editor of The Woman’s Exponent in
1877. This publication was an attempt to give the world a view of LDS women as
intelligent individuals and responsible wives and mothers. They hoped to change
the popular image of themselves as “stupid, degraded, heart-broken” victims
of polygamy. The Exponent advocated
women’s rights.
In
the latter 19th century, Utah was more progressive than other states.
Utah first granted women the right to vote, although women in Wyoming were the
first to actually cast votes.
Emmeline
looked outside Utah for support. She was a good friend of Elizabeth Cady Stanton
and Susan B. Anthony, who were “transformers”. These women were theorists,
who stressed thinking for women, intellectualism, and egalitarianism. Emmeline
was influenced by Mary Walston Kraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Women,
written in response to the writings of Rousseau. Kraft stressed the intellectual
abilities of women.
Emmeline
and other feminists at the time were influenced by Romanticism, particularly
Ralph Waldo Emerson, the transcendentalist and romanticist. Margaret Fuller, who
worked closely with Emerson, edited the journal of the transcendentalists.
Emmeline drew from the writings of Fuller. Emmeline stressed that women should
grow as an intellect and soul, to grow unimpeded. There was no particular
emphasis on a will to political power.
Emmeline
thought that with education, women would be as entirely equal to all tasks as
men. Emmeline believed in self-reliance, in “self-made women”, and
independence.
Emmeline
was also profoundly influenced in her feminism by the teachings of Joseph Smith,
the early Relief Society, and her experiences as a Latter-day Saint. When she
married Newell K. Whitney, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, a plural wife of Newell K.
Whitney and the secretary of the Relief Society, became almost a surrogate
mother to her and taught her much of the founding of the Relief Society and the
addresses of Joseph Smith to the Relief Society. She became thoroughly familiar
with the minutes of the Nauvoo Relief Society. Her observations of the uprooting
of the women of the church as the Saints moved so often strengthen her view of
the need for self-reliance and independence for women. Emmeline came to believe
that the Relief Society could be a great organization for the advancement of
women.
Emmeline
was one of the first women to receive the endowment, about year after its
introduction to Joseph Smith’s closest Priesthood colleagues. She then helped
administer the endowment to the women of the church after the completion of the
Nauvoo temple.
Emmeline
believed there was a correlation of the flowering of reform within the United
States at mid-century with respect to women, on the one hand, and the
establishment of the Relief Society and Joseph Smith “turning the key” to
women on the other hand.
Emmeline
and her feminism related comfortably to the leadership of the church. She knew
each president of the church very well. She had the same experiences in the
church that they had had. She respected them. She saw an “equivalency”
between them and the Relief Society, not necessarily an “equality”.
For
two decades she was on emissary for the Church to Washington D.C. and the wider
national scene on the East Coast. When she traveled to the East Coast, she
attended women’s conventions and met with members of congress and the
administration. After 1870, congressional legislation cut back on the rights of
women in Utah, including the right to vote. The national suffragettes opposed
the repeal of the women’s vote and thus became an unexpected ally of the
Saints on some issues. In 1884, Emmeline met with John Edmunds, who seemed
open-minded and unbiased. She felt betrayed when Edmunds added his name to the
Edmunds Tucker bill a few months later.
The
elections of B.H. Roberts and Reed Smoot to Congress were setbacks for the
Women’s Movement in Utah. Corrine Allen, wife of the first Utah
representative, strongly opposed polygamy and sought to disenfranchise women and
advocated other anti-Mormon measures. She sought the assistance of the national
women’s movement leaders. However, Emmeline’s friendship with Susan B.
Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were enough to keep them from endorsing such
measures. Emmeline wore a gold ring that she had received from Susan B. Anthony
and Susan B. Anthony wore a black dress that she had received from the women of
Utah.
By
1910, at 82 years of age, she had turned her attention to local matters. At the
age of 82, she was called as the General President of the Relief Society. She
served for 11 years, and often drew on the Nauvoo period for inspiration. In
1921, when she was 93 years of age, Joseph F. Smith told her it was time to be
released. She started telling him all about the Relief Society, from the Nauvoo
period on, to show him that her mind worked well even if her body was frail. She
was still released. In 1918, when he became President of the Church, Emmeline
had told him that she would die if he ever released her. In fact she passed away
shortly after her release. Thousands came to mourn her. She was the first woman
honored with a weekday funeral in the Tabernacle. Her death was noted in
Washington, D.C., and in the New York Times. On her 100th birthday, a
sculpture of her was commissioned and it is now in the Utah State Capitol
Rotunda.
Although
we formally ended the meeting at 9:00 pm, the informal discussions and questions
continued until almost 10:00 pm. We are grateful to Dr. Cornwall for spending
the evening with us. We look forward to extending another invitation to her in
the future.
Please
plan to attend our next meeting.
November's Meeting
by
Re: November 2002 Program – Newell Bringhurst: Joseph Smith’s 1844 Election Campaign
Newell Bringhurst presented another stimulating discussion to our study group on Joseph Smith’s campaign for the presidency in 1844.
In October 1843, the Times and Seasons asked who would be the next president of the United States. The newspaper answered that it should be someone who would give redress to the Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith then wrote to the five leading candidates soliciting their views on various issues, including the Latter-day Saints. Three candidates responded, but the responses were unsatisfactory in the eyes of the Latter-day Saints. In January 1944, Joseph Smith decided to run for the presidency. The Nauvoo Neighbor made the announcement in February 1844. He ran as “General Joseph Smith”, rather than as president of the church. Initially, the “anointed quorum” (which included both men and women) promoted the campaign and the choosing of a vice president. Joseph wanted James Arlington Bennett, a recently baptized New York Newspaper editor, but since he was not born in the United States, he was not eligible under the Constitution. Sidney Rigdon was chosen to run. Thereafter, the newly organized Council of Fifty became active in the campaign. The nominating convention was held in May 1844.
Joseph’s platform consisted of a number of statements suggesting practical solutions to the country’s problems. He urged the suppression of mobs by the federal government, the ending of slavery, the reduction of the salaries paid to members of congress, the reform of prisons and other institutions, and the annexation of Texas and Canada.
The Council of Fifty recruited 586 missionaries to electioneer and preach the gospel to all the states and territories. This is an astounding number for the population of the church at the time. This number of missionaries was not reached again until 1895. The campaign ended with Joseph’s martyrdom on June 27, 1944.
Newell then discussed four issues about this campaign.
First, Why did Joseph decide to run for president? Fawn Brodie claimed Joseph was drunk with power. But virtually all subsequent historians have rejected that view. Most view the motivation as the desire to plead the Mormon cause, since the Federal government had offered no assistance at all to the Latter-day Saints. Martin Van Buren had famously said, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.” Accordingly, the Latter-day Saints did not like the Democrats. Klaus Hansen suggests that in Illinois, the Latter-day Saints voted as a block, and voted with the party that offered the most concessions to the Saints. This made enemies of both parties. Thus Joseph decided to run independently rather than align with either party.
Second, did Joseph Smith and his followers believe that he had a realistic chance of winning? They probably did not think Joseph had a realistic chance to win that particular election. Michael Quinn suggests that Joseph anticipated that the two major parties might be stalemated with neither obtaining an Electoral College majority. If that were to happen, then Joseph might swing the balance and could extract concessions favorable to the Latter-day Saints, thus playing out on the national scale what the Latter-day Saints had done in Illinois politics. Other historians accept the view that the Latter-day Saints did not expect Joseph to win, but it was an opportunity to plead the cause of the Latter-day Saints. In any event, the Church put forth a tremendous effort, as evidenced by the 586 missionaries and ten of the Twelve who went electioneering. Third, what did Joseph Smith and the Saints expect to accomplish? The Saints believed the millennium was near at hand. The Council of Fifty had been organized as the precursor to the Kingdom of God when Christ would come to reign. The Council of Fifty sent ambassadors to various nations of the world. Even if Joseph did not win this election, they were building a base for the future, and perhaps Joseph could be elected in future elections. Thus the Latter-day Saints might have been expecting to start building the foundation of the Kingdom of God on earth, namely an actual government to function during the Millennium. Fourth, what were the results of the campaign? The results appear to be completely negative. Robert V. Remini, a distinguished non-Mormon Jacksonian scholar who recently completed a short biography of Joseph Smith for Penguin Press, believes the campaign led directly to Joseph’s martyrdom. The mob saw Joseph as not only a religious threat, but now as a political threat to the freedoms and traditions. This led directly to the attack of the mob. Obviously, as with any historical subject, there are other points of view, some entirely at odds with the summary presented here. Indeed, during the presentation and discussion, other alternative views were voiced and discussed. In all, it was a delightful and informative evening. Please plan to attend our next meeting.
September's Meeting
Dear Miller-Eccles friends,
Thank you again for inviting me to speak. My Sea Trek talk Saturday night went plenty long as it was, but I didn't have time to share with you some of the lessons that I, the historian, learned from doing the 59 days of Sea Trek last year. Several asked me afterwards about these. So, for anyone interested, here are some:
19TH CENTURY LDS IMMIGRATION:
LESSONS FROM SEA TREK FOR TELLING THE STORY BETTER
by
William G. Hartley
Sea Trek was not meant to be an recreation of the 19th century immigrants’ experience; it was a commemoration. Nevertheless, the tall sailing ships provided us a feel, some sense at least of what it was like. I went on Sea Trek as a historian who wanted to gain insights into what our immigrants experienced, so I can write about that experience better. Some observations
TO UNDERSTAND REALITIES OF SHIPBOARD LIFE, HISTORIAN NEEDS TO READ MANY ACCOUNTS, NOT JUST 3 OR 4.
It’s easy to think that every ship voyage, as with every wagon train trek, were like the others. Certainly each company had experiences common to every voyage. Conway Sonne pulled together many of those in his Ensign article about Saints on the Seas. But Sea Trek made clear to me, when I compared notes with people on the other 7 ships, that each LDS company’s experience in 19th C was unique: each captain and crew and how they operated a ship was unique, the mix of passengers varied from voyage to voyage; and each crossing had distinct treatment from ocean and weather. So, to consider the account of one ship journey as being typical is historically reckless.
ARMCHAIR HISTORIANS CAN READ DIARY ACCOUNTS ABOUT THE WORKINGS OF A PARTICULAR SHIP, BUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THOSE ACCOUNTS REALLY ARE SAYING COMES ONLY THRU WORKING THE ROPES AND SAILS, STEERING, BEING ON DECK, AND PARTICIPATING BELOW DECK.
How can we in our century know how fragile or precarious some ventures were that are described in diary accounts, without having a good sense of the ship’s parts and workings? Knowing such also lets us know how capable or ignorant our own people were on board those ships. How else can this diary entry by Wilford Woodruff, while aboard the ship “Rochester” in 1841, make sense to anyone?:
“May 1st A fine beautiful pleasant May’s morning. A fair northeast wind or light breeze. Water smooth. We have 19 pieces of canvass spread. A jib, flying gib, 8 pieces upon the foremast, 5 upon the main mast, & 4 upon the mizzen mast including the spanker. It was truly a beautiful sight.”
We on Sea Trek entered a real world of ships, barks, brigs, and brigantines; of foremasts, mainmasts, and mizzenmasts, of sails and ropes, each with a name and purpose.
VITAL ROLE PLAYED BY LDS EMIGRATION AGENTS
I came home convinced that among unsung heroes in LDS history are the immigration agents the Church had at each port. These need study and recognition. We on Sea Trek had major challenges at each port, involving paperwork, money exchange, buying on shore, and communication, and when Sea Trek had a representative there to meet our ship, which didn’t always happen, and give us information, what a difference that made! Church back then had agents in each port who managed the arrivals and transfers of our thousands of immigrants.
VITAL ROLE PLAYED BY COMPANY PRESIDENCIES
I was the ecclesiastical president on the ship “Europa.” I thought my job was just to hold morning and evening prayers and Sunday church services. I chose two men to be counselors and a woman to be Relief Society president. But, having someone “in charge” meant the company had someone to make decisions, to coordinate communications, to monitor the well being of everyone, to be the contact person between the captain and the company so that not everyone contacted the captain or every crew member contacted any of us–there was a proper channel for getting things done or corrected. If such were needed in our small company, which varied from 23 to 48, how much more vital were officers in those days who helped bring order and smoothness to day to day operations for companies of 300 or 700 or 900?
FOR TRAVELERS, MONEY PROBLEMS ARE MONUMENTAL
People didn’t just pay their money and then take the journey. Each port involved money exchange challenges. Each port involved cost surprises. I ran out of money by day 27 of the 59 day voyage. I’m sensing that money surprises–costs that exceeded expectations when the immigrant left home–caused many to stop in New Orleans, New York, St. Louis, etc. even though they had planned to go straight through to Utah. Thefts can be disastrous, as one of our passengers learned when her purse was stolen in the Canary Islands–losing a passport is worse
than losing money. Likewise, Sea Trek made clear how each ship operates
on its own terms
financially, which means our LDS agents who chartered ships had some major contractual terms to work out with that ship, which varied from ship to ship. This contractual challenge explains why our agents in 19th century booked repeat voyages on several ships that gave us good deals and service.
DAILY LIVING IN A CRAMPED SHIP CAN BE EXTREMELY HARD ON PEOPLE
Our Sea Trek ships were larger than most of those the Church used in the 19th Century. Yet we felt crowded and inconvenienced. I now have better understanding of how densely packed those earlier ships were, and what such crowding meant in terms of just moving about–changing clothes, washing hands and face, bathroom tasks, storing belongings, lacks of privacy, closeness of people all the time, sleeping, eating meals, even reading, what to do when the ship is rocking and rolling, etc. The simplest daily tasks were hard. Laundry limitations meant fewer changes of clothes. Water shortages impacted personal cleanliness. (Mid-way across the Atlantic I had great fear I would run out of deodorant by the time we reached New
York.) And it wasn’t just being cramped for a couple days but being cramped for weeks on end, and how that can wear a person down physically and mentally.
A SHIP’S DIET FOR 5-8 WEEKS MUST HAVE HAD NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON SAINTS’ HEALTH LATER IN THE STATES OR CROSSING THE PLAINS
We had regular meals. Our cook was Dutch. After a couple weeks I had trouble eating the food because of how it was seasoned. For the crossing I had to monitor myself and take pills for high blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes. I lost 20 pounds on Sea Trek. Unable to exercise on ship, due to how small our main deck was, I was physically weakened by the voyage. It became clear to me that our 19th century immigrants had poor diets on the ocean crossing in terms of vitamins and minerals we now know are vital to good health. I think many became debilitated physically, a state that became worse during the 2 month journey across the plains. We have underestimated the nutritional damage the emigration to Zion caused. This needs some solid study.
CROSSING THE ATLANTIC ON SAILING SHIPS HAS DANGERS BEYOND STORMS OR TOTAL CALMS
I came to realize there were two levels of danger on sailing ships. The first was the normal ones involving navigating–handling storms and navigating tricky channels and bays. Here, the lessons is that it mattered what ship and what captain, and our agents probably factored that into their decisions to book our people onto a particular ship. The second level was personal safety. Because ships rock, sometimes unexpectedly, it is easy to fall and hurt yourself when walking, sleeping, eating, doing bathroom duties, or just standing on deck. Unsteadiness also causes valued items to fall and break. Even a slight injury or sickness at sea could produce terrible consequences. We had no doctor on our ship and we faced a couple of major crisis because of that. We did need to use the priesthood a time or two when there were no other options.
WE NEED TO LOOK CLOSER AT WHAT THE LONG TERMS EFFECTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN OF THE LONG VOYAGE’S FEELINGS OF LONELINESS, DEPRESSION, AND CUT- OFFNESS.
Our ship, of the 3 that crossed the Atlantic, lacked email or phone capacity; we were totally cut off from the rest of the world, unless the captain shared something with us from his short wave radio. On the Atlantic we felt isolated. We could go three days and not see another ship or an airplane or anything at all except sea and sky. When Linda left the ship, after 17 days, I felt great discouragement. Was this my version of what the immigrants went through when
they said goodbye forever to a mom or dad or best friends? As we look
at those immigrants, we
need to consider what impacts the long voyage had in terms of how debilitating psychologically the farewells, homesickness, and loneliness was. For many of them this was compounded by not being able to understand languages others used in the ports or on the ships. I believe it was easy for our people to get depressed during those long, long days at sea, isolated from everyday living and normal experiences.
WE LEARNED THAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY VITAL THAT WE GENERATE SOCIABILITY AMONG OURSELVES.
Sociability saved us from insanity. Wisely, our ships on Sea Trek were training ships, on which everyone was assigned two work shifts. This gave us something to do twice a day. Otherwise it would be eat, sleep, and watch the sea. People need something to do. On our ship I taught a class or more each day, we had a morning devotional, an hour long entertainment hour in evening before prayer, and church services on Sunday. We drew out talents from people, we talked and talked constantly, we came up with activities to do. We had to find ways to fend off boredom and the weariness of the long time at sea. We sewed school bags as a humanitarian project.
A corollary: we discovered that the ship’s crew members needed sociability, too, and that they were not a self contained group but wanted to intermingle with us.
THE FRIENDSHIP FACTOR NEEDS MORE RESEARCH
On our ship, as was the case in 19th century voyages, passengers came on board not knowing one another. We blended together one way or another. During our voyage, people formed new friendships, some of which are long term ones. I believe that the long Atlantic crossing caused many 19th C Saints to bond together, such that they stayed together to cross America and to go to Utah, and settled in the same communities together. That aspect of LDS immigration needs to be explored.
THE ATLANTIC CROSSING GAVE NEW CONVERTS TIME TO DEEPEN THEIR GOSPEL UNDERSTANDING AND COMMITMENTS
The crossing was a “time out” period away from normal work demands and daily routines, and gave the immigrants hours and hours of time to think about their conversion and what it meant to be a Saint going to Zion. Those converts must have had many long and penetrating discussions of the Gospel as they passed the time. We did in our company. Being at sea is a spiritually deepening experience anyway, when it is only you, the sky and the sea, and nothing else. God’s grandeur surround you 360 degrees. The sea is a meditation zone. The power of worship is enhanced there.
July's Meeting
by
We had another fine program in July. Steve Rizley, CEO of Cox Communications in Arizona and an avid historian, presented a stimulating summary of early Mormon settlement in southeast Arizona. It was a fascinating presentation with ground-breaking research. He had several slides to go along with it.
Southern Arizona was the most extensive Mormon interaction with the "wild west" of any Mormon community. St. David is just 7 miles from Tombstone and the wild and lawless mining towns that grew up in that vicinity. The early Mormon settlers came from Cache Valley. Upon arrival, they built a fort, since they were in the middle of Apache territory. Fortunately, as I understand it, they never had to rely on it in hostilities with the Apaches. An interesting note, this was the last fort built in the United States because of possible hostilities with Indian tribes. The fort was built in the late 1870s.They tried to recreate the protypical agricultural-based Mormon community in southeast Arizona, but the climate and water resources did not support that type of agricultural economic base. Much to the chagrin of church leaders in Salt Lake City, these Arizona saints turned to lumbering, freighting, and construction to maintain themselves in the early years. They built most of the early substantial buildings in the area. They built the first school. After a few years, a large earthquake in southern Arizona destroyed many buildings, including the first school built. Fortunately school was not in session and there were no casualties reported.
At one point during the early years, Erastus Snow (my memory might be failing on the name) prophesied that if the saints were faithful, they would find crystal clear water running down theirs streets and canals. This was a bold prophecy in light of the vagaries of the San Pedro river. But after the earthquake, one of the saints thought she heard running water underground. The saints started digging and soon discovered large artesian wells that provided large amounts of water to sustain an agriculturally economy. Thereafter, the Mormon communities developed more along the lines of other Mormon settlements.
Steve Rizley told us about about the Mormon interaction with the legends of the west, including the peripheral involvement of the LDS in Tombstone with Wyatt Earp and the local cattle and horse rustlers. Because of the Mormon reputation for peace and good neighbors, and because of the otherwise anything goes attitudes in the gentile towns, the "raid" on polygamy never reached southern Arizona. There are no records of any prosecutions in the area.
Steve Rizley pointed out how the Mormon community's interaction with all types of peoples in southern Arizona, including Indians, Mexicans, and others, provided a cultural milieu for young Spencer W. Kimball. Perhaps it was this Arizona upbringing that helped prepare Pres. Kimball for the 1978 Priesthood Revelation. Armand Mauss will have more to say on this topic when his new book comes out.
Steve Rizley will be preparing a book on these topics. The University of Arizona is interested, as well as other presses. He has yet to choose. I have probably distorted beyond recognition the cogent and well-prepared presentation by Steve Rizley, so you will have to get his book when it comes out.
I am sure all of you would really have enjoyed the evening.
Please attend our next meeting on Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. at my house. Our speaker will be Bill Hartley. He recently completed the Atlantic Voyages commemorating Mormon immigration across the Atlantic. If you heard Bill's address at MHA in Tuscon, you will recognize how important yet little understood this phenomenon in Mormon history is. Please mark you calendars and come out on September 7.
If you attend often, you will not miss these wonderful gems that are so frequently presented to us by our speakers.
=========================
June's Meeting
by
We had a fabulous program in June2002. Richard
K. Behrens presented cutting edge ground-breaking research on the Joseph Smith
family, particularly as it relates to Hyrum Smith and the Academyat Hannover –
what later became Dartmouth College. Just when I thought there is nothing new to
be discovered about the Joseph Smith Family, Richard stunned us all with his
research and finds.
He has combed
the archives of Dartmouth College – volumes over 200 years old. He has found
the records showing Hyrum Smith’s enrollment at Dartmouth. He has found the
names of a substantial number of early church leaders or family names of early church leaders.
It appears that the Smiths made connections through Dartmouth that were very
fruitful for future missionary work and leadership in the church. Based on this
new information, Mike Quinn will have to update his work on early church
leaders. Richard gave us sketches of Eleazar Wheelock and his son, JohnWheelock,
who served as president of Dartmouth. Eleazar Wheelock was a visionary cleric
and an important figure in the First Great Awakening. He was a liberal
theologian, and a number of his lectures foreshadow later doctrines enunciated
by Joseph Smith.
These early
connections suggest many intriguing lines of questions and inquiries, including
a more detailed comparison of the teachings of John Wheelock and the revelations
and insights God bestowed through Joseph Smith, and the influence of Hyrum Smith
on Joseph Smith's own spiritual growth. Hyrum Smith spent two or three years at the Academy
and undoubtedly heard many of Eleazer Wheelock’s lectures read by his son,
John. In their days, months, and years together, how much of Hyrum's formal
education influence Joseph’s receptiveness to revelations from God? Ilook
forward to some exploration of these themes in Richard Bushman's forthcoming
biography of Joseph Smith.
I am sure all
of you would really have enjoyed the evening.
Please attend
our next meeting this coming Saturday, July 20, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. at my house.
Our speaker is SteveRizley, an expert on church history in Arizona and the west.
I am sure you will enjoy it!
If you attend
often, you will not miss these wonderful gems that are so frequently presented
to us by our speakers.