(Page 3 of 6)
To preserve self-rule, church leaders quickly sought official status, petitioning Congress in 1849 first for territorial status, then for statehood. The land they sought was vast, running from the Rockies to the Sierra Nevada and from the new border with Mexico all the way to present-day Oregon. Congress, guided in part by the struggle between forces opposing and condoning slavery, designated a Utah Territory, but not before reducing the area to present-day Utah, Nevada, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming.
Territorial status gave the federal government greater authority over Utah affairs than statehood would have. But President Millard Fillmore inadvertently set the stage for a clash with his choice for the new territory's chief executive. In 1850, acting partly in response to lobbying from a lawyer named Thomas L. Kane, a non-Mormon who had advised Mormon leaders in previous ordeals, Fillmore named Brigham Young governor of the new Utah Territory.
Young ran the Utah Territory much as Smith had run Nauvoo, and conflicts between religious and secular authorities soon re-emerged. The Mormon leaders were suspicious of both the character and intent of federal appointees, such as a judge who was found to have abandoned his wife and children in Illinois and brought a prostitute to Utah. And over the next seven years, a succession of federal officers—judges, Indian agents, surveyors—came to the territory only to find that the governor would circumvent or reverse their decisions.
Young "has been so much in the habit of exercising his will which is supreme here, that no one will dare oppose anything he may say or do," Indian agent Jacob Holeman wrote to his superior in Washington, D.C. in 1851—in effect going over Young's head (Young was also the territory's superintendent of Indian affairs). Surveyor General David Burr reported that Young told him federal surveyors "shall not be suffered to trespass" on Mormon lands. Through the mid-1850s, federal appointees returned East frustrated or intimidated or both, and some of them wrote books or articles about their travails. Anti-Mormon sentiment spread, inflamed particularly by reports of polygamy.
By then, the practice of plural marriage had expanded beyond Joseph Smith's inner circle, and word of it had been passed by non-Mormon emigrants passing through Utah, where the evidence was in plain view. "During the first few years after their arrival in Utah," writes Young biographer M. R. Werner, "the fact that the Mormons practiced polygamy was an open secret."
The Mormons' embrace of plural marriage was based on a revelation that Smith said he had received. (It was written down in 1843, but most historians agree that Smith had begun taking multiple wives earlier.) With the example of polygamous biblical patriarchs such as Abraham and Jacob in mind, Smith concluded that "the possession of more than one wife was not only permissible, but actually necessary for complete salvation," Werner writes. Brigham Young, who took his first plural wife in 1842, after 18 years of monogamy, maintained that he had been a reluctant convert: "I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded," he wrote in a reminiscence that would be collected in the church compendium Journal of Discourses, "but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave." (By the time he died, at age 76 in 1877, he had taken 55 wives but shared no "earthly life" with 30 of them, according to Arrington.) For years Young and other church leaders had dismissed allegations of plural marriages as calumnies circulated by enemies, but by the early 1850s, such denials were no longer plausible.
On August 29, 1852, at a general conference of Mormons in Salt Lake City, the church leadership publicly acknowledged plural marriage for the first time. Orson Pratt, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, delivered a lengthy discourse, inviting the members to "look upon Abraham's blessings as your own, for the Lord blessed him with a promise of seed as numerous as the sand upon the seashore." After Pratt finished, Young read aloud Smith's revelation on plural marriage.
The disclosure was widely reported outside the church, and the effect was to quash any hopes the Utah Territory might have had for statehood under Young's leadership. And conflicts between Young's roles as governor of the territory and president of the church would only become more complicated.
Related topics: American History Religion 19th Century Utah
Additional Sources
Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows by William Bagley, University of Oklahoma Press (Norman, Oklahoma), 2002
Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West 1847-1896 by David L. Bigler, The Arthur H. Clark Company (Norman, Oklahoma), 1998
The Mormon Conflict, 1850-1859 by Norman F. Furniss, Greenwood Press (Westport, Connecticut), 1960
At Sword’s Point, Part 1: A Documentary History of the Utah War to 1858, edited by William P. MacKinnon, The Arthur H. Clark Company (Norman, Oklahoma), 2008


Comments
The article gives the impression that the Mormons were anxious to leave the United States and that their desires were frustrated when the United States won the war with Mexico. The article fails to mention that the Mormons played a relatively non-combative, yet substantial, military role in the war when it provided about 500 volunteers for military service, the so-called Mormon Batallion, which marched all the way to Tucson and on to San Diego where it established and maintained US control over that territory. While the Mormons certainly had hard feelings toward some in power in the US government as a result of their actions, the underlying principles upon which the nation was founded and even the doctrine of manifest destiny were looked upon by the Mormons as completely consistant with their religion.
Posted by Bill Johnson on May 30,2008 | 08:04AM
Why are we still quoting "historian" Fawn Brodie's outdated work. Especially, when in light of more recent work, it has become increasingly apparent that she had her own axe to grind against the LDS Church and in particular Joseph Smith. Indeed, many Latter Day Saints consider her work to be in the anti-Mormon realm. There are far more unbiased voices in contemporary historical research from which you could (and probably should) quote.
Posted by David Glick on May 30,2008 | 08:57AM
Interesting that the article glazes over the atrocities committed by leaders and mobcrats against the Mormons in their early history. Or how the President of the US told the leader of the LDS church he was powerless to help because he could not risk losing the Missouri vote. All in all really not that great of an article
Posted by Scott on May 30,2008 | 12:55PM
Interesting article.
Posted by Eric Morton on June 2,2008 | 12:10AM
Have often wondered why Brigham Young and subordinate members of his Theodemocracy were not indicted for treason.
Posted by S. Davis on June 4,2008 | 09:40AM
What is not true about Brodie's comments below. Do others have agenda to suppress all views of this issue? "Few episodes in American religious history parallel the barbarism of the anti-Mormon persecutions," historian Fawn Brodie wrote in her 1945 biography of Smith. At the same time, she added, the early Mormons' relationships with outsiders were characterized by "self-righteousness" and an "unwillingness to mingle with the world." To non-Mormons in Illinois, Brodie wrote, "the Nauvoo theocracy was a malignant tyranny that was spreading as swiftly and dangerously as a Mississippi flood." Amid continuing harassment in Illinois, the Mormons prepared to leave.
Posted by Wren Starkey on June 9,2008 | 08:19AM
My father grew up in Soldier Summit, Utah, now a ghost town I hear. His mother owned a chicken ranch serving the D&RG Railroad and his stepfather, a railroad engineer, worked for it out of Helper. They told me that a detachment of US soldiers had wintered there during a mexican standoff with the Utah Militia. Cooler heads prevailed and there was no fight but a number of U.S. troops died and are buried in a cemetary there - thus the name 'Soldier Summit'.
Posted by H. Stickley on June 10,2008 | 06:05AM
Bill: Both Smith and Young were anxious to leave the US, making plans to either create a buffer Mormon state between then-independent Texas and Mexico, or emmigrating to the then-Mexican unoccupied land in the Rockies. The Mormon Battallion was a financial necessity, and was undertaken begrudgingly by both the US Army and the Mormon "volunteers", who had to be commanded to go by Church hierarchy. Brigham (and to a lesser extent Joseph as well) displayed a pungent anti-American sentiment, and was pro-American only as a political expediency. He went so far as expressing the hope that the Civil War would utterly destroy both sides of the conflict!
Posted by Marcello Jun de Oliveira on June 10,2008 | 08:59AM
David: Brodie innaugurated an era of scholarship on Mormon studies in a way to be a watershed. Every single scholar in Mormon studies has had to respond to her in one way or another, and even if her research and conclusions are now dated, she cannot be dismissed with cavalierly. Such is the nature of scholarship. And even more than half a century away, and in the most precarious scholarly circumstances, it still amazes how much she got right or was on the right track! Scott: Mormons suffered a lot of injustice, to be sure, but nothing compared to what happened to other racial, ethnic, or religious minorities at the time. In the historical context, Mormons were treated relatively well, and a lot of the troubles heaped upon them in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois was provoked by themselves! There was also a State Rights issue that prohibited the Federal Government of much more than Van Buren could have offered. That, of course, changed after the Civil War, much to chagrin of Brigham Young!
Posted by Marcello Jun de Oliveira on June 10,2008 | 09:05AM
Mr. Jun de Oliveira: You state that "[Brigham Young] went so far as expressing the hope that the Civil War would utterly destroy both sides of the conflict!" It's true that Young harbored a distrust of the US Government. Who could blame him? His people had to desert their homes and property and flee the country with only what they could carry with them to avoid extermination, to avoid enforcement of Illinois Governer Lilburn Boggs' infamous extermination order. In spite of high-minded rhetoric about the national government's guarantee of the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, no protection or assistance of any substance was forthcoming, even after appeal to the President himself. Yet, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the LDS people have always regarded the Constitution as an God-inspired document. I've read many speeches by Young, and all of his public speeches are on record and easily researched. Your statement as quoted above seems uncharacteristic of him. I'd like to know the source of your information.
Posted by Larry W. Bastian on June 11,2008 | 01:43PM
The history of Mormons can only be best found by the Mormons. I study my Greek and Italian history by the same route. I respect that of any people. As a language student you learn the key to a culture is it's language. In the case of pioneers and colonists of any type it is best to study the journals of their own experiences for me its a beautiful thing to read someone's own story. I know that you can not put a good man/woman down. All different peoples have made mistakes. But some are justified at having made their mistakes while others are unjustified. I agree with the truth that the Mormon's were being harassed more than any other people at that time. I believe the kind of trials they went through were not unlike the founding fathers/colonists who sought freedom from the afrontery that was in Europe for certain.
Posted by Thomas D. Furlano on June 15,2008 | 06:53PM
I have always found it odd that a nation which was built upon the principles of religious freedom, freedom of the press, and the right to vote, could spawn citizens who could even attempt to justify burning printing presses that never printed a word of libel (as opposed to the singular event one-sidedly mentioned in the article), and driving out a distinct majority group of pacifists under pain of death solely on the basis of their beliefs and the unity of voting that those beliefs inspired. Say what you will about their habits, but I find it hard to believe that a group large enough and cohesive enough that the existing settlers "felt threatened by the Mormons' practices of settling in concentrated numbers and voting as a bloc" could have been driven out without severe losses were the Mormons truly as "self-righteous" and dangerous as so many here seem to believe. Ignored is the fact that the Mormons Forged the trail to the west and settled there first, after even draining the Nauvoo swamp to build their previous evacuated home. But accepting that Joseph never intended to evade the United States would entail admitting evidence which might support his claim to prophecy, for no mere man could have predicted such a situation. And this "financial necessity" was really a threat from the U.S. Gov of sending in troops if they couldn't raise them. The Mormons were living Months away from any other civilization. What financial need could they realistically entertain? There is very definitely a glazing-over of facts here, and it surprises me that one who invokes the cause of "scholarship" should be so persistent in his evasion of the other side of the story. The reason for this I am convinced, is that like then, this is not a matter of merely sorting out the events. The Mormons then were a thorn in the conscience of their neighbors, as they are now. My question in response is, "What history do you have with the church that makes you condemn it so?"
Posted by Trevor O'Dell on June 17,2008 | 01:03AM
I find hard to believe that Brigham Young authorized 500 of his militia to fight for the U.S. federal goverment? Basically they probably never fought a battle and were sent home a few months later if they did!
Posted by D on June 21,2008 | 05:26PM
Brigham Young's message of terror as practiced in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and the Territory of Utah: "I have frequently told you, and I tell you again, that the very report of the Church and kingdom of God on earth is a terror to all nations, wheresoever the sound thereof goeth. The sound of "Mormonism" is a terror to towns, counties, states, the pretended republican governments, and to all the world. Why? Because, as the Lord Almighty lives and the Prophets have ever written the truth, this work is destined to revolutionize the world and bring all under subjection to the law of God, who is our lawgiver". Journal of Discourses 4:41 August 31, 1856
Posted by JC on June 24,2008 | 02:31PM
This is to do with a major proof of United States hypocrisy:The prime nature of paradox between The United States Constitution as allowing it self(We...the people)to tolerate being violated and contradicted by the quintessence of Morman law and practice for over a hundred years unchallenged as a high crime of defiance and treason. Senator Prescott Bush would have been so proud of us all.
Posted by Donald Mark on June 25,2008 | 05:58PM
Dear Sir or Madam: I wanted to suggest you correct the inaccurate reference to the polygamist sect in Texas as Mormon. Please see the church website for the correct way to describe the groups that have no affiliation with the Mormon church. When articles refer to those groups as Mormon, like in this article, we continually get questioned by friends as if we are part of that group of creeps in Texas. It's a hugely different religion and I would appreciate it you would make the distinction. Thank you! http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group
Posted by Carolynn on July 10,2008 | 09:29PM
Larry: I apologize for not having read your query. I was never forwarded a notice of reply of any sort. Charles Walker diary entry, 1861: "The Virginians are prepared to seize the Capital at Washington, and where it will end they know not, but the Saints know and understand it all... Bro. Brigham spoke of the things in the East, said he hoped they would both gain the victory, said he had as much sympathy for them as the Gods and Angels had for the Devils in Hell." What most LDS fail to grasp is that LDS leaders had a knack to say one thing in public and an other in private, especially during the 19th century. All the while there was praise heaped on the Constitution, Smith had drafted an other Constitution in its lieu, which in form resembled the U.S. magna carta, but in essence wholly defiled and defaced it. All the while there was canonized instructions to uphold the law, Smith introduced illegal marriage practices in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. Smith and Young's Constitution established a monarchy, eliminated checks and balances, and the tri-partite power structure. No Constitutional scholar would ever call it a "tribute" to the Constitution, or even an manifestation of the belief in its "inspiration".
Posted by Marcello Jun de Oliveira on October 5,2008 | 01:10PM
Carolynn: Texas Mormons are entitled to be called Mormons as much as LDS from Utah-based LDS Church. They believe in Joseph Smith, they believe in the Book of Mormon, and all in all, their church and their beliefs are a lot more similar to the Church Joseph Smith led up until his death, then the current LDS Church. Fundamentalist Mormons, of which of you are so ashamed, believe that polygamy is the highest law of God. So did Joseph Smith. They believe in no separation of Church and State. So did Joseph Smith. They believe in Gathering. So did Joseph Smith. They believe in hereditary patriarchal structures. So did Joseph Smith. They are just as Mormons as you or I. The main difference is that the LDS have moved away from Joseph Smith's more radical innovations, and they haven't.
Posted by Marcello Jun de Oliveira on October 5,2008 | 01:16PM
Mr. Jun de Oliveira: The LDS church hasn't denounced any of Joseph Smith's teachings or prophecies. It embraces him as the first prophet of the Restoration. Church leaders have, however, agreed to follow the law of the land. When polygamy was outlawed by the federal government, the LDS church followed the law and stopped plural marriages in the church. The difference between the Fundamentalists and the "Mormons" is that the LDS church believes in following the law. This teaching was taught in the church long before the polygamy issue. In "The Articles of Faith," written by Joseph Smith in 1842, he states "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Posted by D Barret on November 1,2008 | 02:59PM
On polygamy, a major issue: It was practical in both a theological and earthly sense. Joseph Smith taught that the Church was a Restoration of all teachings. As Abraham and his descendants practiced polygamy, polygamy would have to be taught in this last dispensation/time period before the Second Coming. In a more practical sense, the persecution of Latter-Day Saints resulted mostly in the deaths of LDS men. That left many widows and children alone with no one to care for them on the long trek to Utah. With multiple marriages, the widows were provided for and watched over.
Posted by D Barret on November 1,2008 | 03:02PM
i think that this is a cool thing that we are learning about people that were very famous back in the day. i just wanted too say thank you!!!!
Posted by ben genzmen on October 21,2009 | 05:39AM