Posted by:
steve benson
(
)
Date: June 01, 2017 03:18AM
--When It Comes to Marriage Break-ups, Mormons are right up There with the "Gentiles"
"The general Latter-day Saint divorce rate is at or slightly lower than the national average for all marriages in which both partners are Latter-day Saints, if the figures include temple and non-temple marriages and both active and non-active Latter-day Saints.
"These statistics underscore the important distinction Latter-day Saints make between temple marriages (believed to be eternal and valid beyond death) and non-temple marriages (valid only in this life, comparable to civil marriage or marriage in other denominations).
"Sources:
*"Daniel K. Judd, 'Religion, Mental Health and the Latter-day Saints' (online article about book).
Other sources, however, cite the 6% Latter-day Saint temple marriage divorce rate:
*"William Lobdell, 'Holy Matrimony: In an Era of Divorce Mormon Temple Weddings are Built to Last in Los Angeles Times,' 8 April 2000; Dave Condren, New Temple Marks Origin of Mormons in "Buffalo News," 27 March 2000"
*"Sampling of Latter-day Saint/Utah Demographics and Social Statistics from National Sources")
*The “New York Times” reported in 2012 that “the state of Utah has . . . a relatively low divorce rate . . . of any state. (“Does Mormonism Have a Marriage Problem?,” byRoss Douthat, “New York Times,” 13 June 2012)
That kind of statistical praise from the outside world has (in combination with an obnoxious, ingrained, smug and institutionalized Mormon attitude of self-righteous exceptionalism) led boastful Latter-day Sainters--such as Mormon Church president Joseph F. Smith--to proudly pontificate:
“ . . . [T]he Latter-day Saints are the best people in the world. We are living nearer to this standard than any other people in the world today, with all our weaknesses and imperfections.”
(Joseph F. Smith, quoted in “Chapter 48: Finding Rest in Christ," from “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, (2011),” pp. 424–32, published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and available on its official website)
The best people in the world, eh? You mean, of course, when it comes to the LDS Church's so-called “divinely-led prophets of God” setting an example from the get-go of marital commitment to their own, as well as to the planet's congegation of potentially necro-baptizable Mormons?
Uh-huh. Time for a much-needed (not to mention deserved) humility break.
-----
The Utah Territory, under Multi-Wifer and Supporter of Divorcers or Brigham Young, was a Divorce Mill
Author Glenda Riley, in her book, “Divorce: An American Tradition,” presents a compelling historical case of immoral Mormonism from the annals of the 19th-century Utah Territory—doing so through an examination of the attitudes and actions of westward-ho Mormons and their parading "prophets” on matters of polygamy, divorce, spousal equality, partner committment and marital stability.
In particular, Riley examines the marital life and times of Brigham Young and his followers in their primitive polygamous enclave of “Deseret”:
“Western divorce mills 0in the 19th-century] seemed to be the height of laxity and permissiveness: the ultimate inducement to divorce-seekers to flee strict laws in their home stats and seek a divorce in more lenient jurisdictions. Consequently, divorce mills elicited impassioned criticism and indignant responses.
“During mid-century, Utah was branded a divorce mill as a result of Mormon policies concerning marriage and divorce. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded by Joseph Smith in Fayette, New York, in 1830, . . . [i]t was at Nauvoo, Illinois, on July 12, 1843, that [founder Joseph] Smith received a revelation saying that Mormons must practice polygamy—meaning that one husband wed several wives. This innovation drew enormous enmity from outsidcrs; in 1844, an anti-Mormon mob lynched Joseph Smith.
“After this calamity, thousands of Mormons trekked to a desert in Utah that lay outside the boundaries of the United States. They hoped to live . . . free from . . . regulation by laws stipulating that marriages be monogamous. . . . In 1850, the United States Congress recognized Deseret as the Territory of Utah, which brought Mormons back within the jurisdiction of the United States. . . . Although the U.S. Congress enacted anti-polygamy statues in 1862, 1882 and 1884, Church officials refused until 1890 to abandon the practice.
“During these years, many Americans harshly criticized Mormon practices, for they saw polygamy as a threat to long-held and widely-cherished conceptions of marriage. In 1850, John Gunnison, an army officer stationed in Salt Lake City, wrote his wife that ‘some things happen in this polygamy-loving community would astonish the people in the States.’ He added that it was easy to see ‘the influence of polygamy in degrading the female sex.’ Some years later, another anti-polygamist, Philip Van Zile, though about running for Congress so he could ‘do this country good’ by eradicating ‘that relic of barbarism from its fair name.’
“In addition to polygamy, the divorce practices of the Latter-day Saints shocked Gentiles, as Mormons called non-Mormons. Beginning in 1847, Mormon Church leaders regularly granted divorces. Because they lacked the legal power to terminate marriages, they claimed they limited themselves to divorcing polygamous couples whose marriages fell within the jurisdiction of the Church. Brigham Young reportedly granted over 1, 600 divorces during his presidency of the Church between 1847 and 1876. Although Young theoretically opposed divorce because it contradicted the Mormon belief in eternal marriage, he was willing to terminate contentious and other unworkable marriages. On one day, he relieved George D. Grant of three wives and a few weeks later parted him from a fourth.
“Young personally lacked sympathy for men such as Grant: ‘[I]t is not right for men to divorce their wives the way they do,’ he stated in 1858. He had slightly more compassion for women. Although he often counseled a distraught wife to stay with her husband as long ‘as she could bear with him,’ he instructed her to seek a divorce if life became ‘too burdensome.’ In 1861, Young instructed husbands to release discontent wives.
“As news of Mormon Church divorces reached the Gentile world, public outrage against Mormons flared. After 1852, when the first Utah territorial legislature adopted a statute that permitted probate courts to grant divorces, many people became highly critical of lenient civil divorces as well.
“The 1852 Utah Territory statute was objectionable because in addition to listing the usual grounds of impotence, adultery, willful desertion for one year, habitual drunkenness, conviction for a felony, [and] inhumane treatment, it included an omnibus clause. According to this clause, judges could grant divorces ‘when it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction and conviction of the court that the parties cannot live in peace and union together and that their welfare requires a separation.’ In addition, the 1852 statute contained a loose residency requirement: a court need only be satisfied that a petitioner was ‘a resident of the Territory, or wished to become one.’
“As a result of the 1852 statute, civil divorces were easy to obtain in Utah Territory; a couple could even receive a divorce on the same day they applied for it. Unlike most other jurisdictions, Utah judges accepted collusion—an agreement to divorce between husband and wife. A married couple could appear in court, testify that they agreed to divorce, and receive a decree. Records of Washington County probate court between 1856 and 1867 contain several such cases. On February 12, 1856, John and Sarah Wardall petitioned for divorce and requested equal division of their children and property. The judge agreed; John received custody of the two oldest boys and Sarah got custody of their daughter and youngest boy. The Wardalls also amicably split two beds, four pillows, two bolsters, two blankets, and other household equipment down-the-middle. What could have been a difficult divorce turned out to be an administrative matter completed in a few minutes.
“In an unusual case of mutual agreement, a woman’s father appeared before a Washington County judge. He testified that his daughter and her husband had asked him to apply for a divorce on their behalves. The judge, who knew the couple, stated that the husband and wife wanted to divorce so that the could ‘marry whomsoever they will or can.’ Because he believed that mutual agreement resulted ‘in the most good to both Parties,’ he granted the divorce. It became final four days later, when the couple submitted a property settlement.
“When Jacob Smith Boreman, a non-Mormon from Virginia, became United States district court judge in the Salt Lake City region in 1872, he was shocked by Utah divorce laws and procedures. Boreman was especially surprised that judges accepted collusion and that divorce-seekers could file petitions, enter proof of grounds, and receive divorce decrees ‘all on the same day.’ Boreman remarked that such practices ‘made it no difficult matter to secure a divorce in a probate court,’ especially when most judges ‘had no legal training, but on the contrary were densely ignorant of the rules of law.’
“Boreman himself heard a petition of one of the most dramatic divorce cases in Mormon history. In 1873, Ann Eliza Webb Young brought suit against her husband, Brigham Young. Young seemed willing to divorce Ann Eliza, but unwilling to pay the requested alimony: $20,000 costs plus $200,000 to support Ann Eliza and her children. Young, who had once offered to divorce any wife who wished to leave him, fought Eliza’s petition by arguing that their marriage was illegal because it was polygamous, thus unrecognized by United States law. According to Boremen, Young believed that if he won, he would be free from alimony; if he lost, polygamous marriages would have garnered legal recognition, for if a judge gave Ann Eliza a divorce he would have also inadvertently declared the Youngs’ polygamous marriage valid.
“After an 1874 law moved Utah divorce cases from probate to district courts, Boreman became the presiding judge in the case of ‘Young v. Young.’ Boreman ordered Brigham Young to pay temporary alimony to Ann Eliza, but he had to imprison Young to make him pay. The suit was dismissed in 1877 by another district court judge who refused to recognize Brigham Young’s polygamous marriage to Ann Eliza. Consequently, Ann Eliza Young failed to get a divorce decree and alimony, while Brigham Young failed to get recognition of polygamous marriages.
“Despite its lenient divorce laws, it is unclear whether Utah was a divorce mill. Between 1867 and 1886, Utah courts granted 4,078 divorces. Of these, 1,267 couples had married in Utah. It is impossible to know how many of the remaining 2,811 cases involve migratory divorce-seekers or those who were converts anxious to join the Latter-day Saints after they freed themselves from unwilling mates;. High migration rates into Utah during these years, however, suggest that most divorces were probably obtained by would-be converts rather than migratory divorce-seekers.”
(Glenda Riley, “Divorce: An American Tradition,” Chapter 4, "Divorce and Divorce Mills in the American West" [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1991], pp. 95-98)
Brigham Young--Mormonism’s bizarre, bullying, bigoted, blood-atoning, Utah Mormon-Church touted “prophet of God”--was (how to put this gently?) not the most righteous priesthood-holding example of marital harmony, success, stability, respect, longevity or devotion.
From an essay titled, “Brigham Young's Wives and
His Divorce From Ann Eliza Webb”:
“In 1868, Brigham Young, at age 67 , married Ann Eliza Webb, an attractive 24-year-old divorcee with two children. Young had already married dozens of other women. LDS scholar Jeffery Johnson, writing on Brigham Young and his wives, explained:
“’16 women gave birth to Brigham Young's 57 children; Emmeline Free had 10; six wives had only one child. The oldest child, Elizabeth Young Ellsworth, was 52 at Brigham's death and the youngest, Fannie Young Clayton, was seven. 11 of the 16 women survived him. None of the women who bore him children canceled their sealings or remarried. . . .
"The first documented divorce [of Brigham Young] was from Mary Woodward on 13 December 1846, his wife of less than a year. In a brief but warm letter that day, he wrote: ‘In answer to your letter of yesterday, . . . I will say, you may consider yourself discharged from me and my counsel’ and added that he would be glad to help her if she and her children were ever hungry. (Brigham Young papers)
"Divorce records are sketchy for the emigration period, but two women who had been sealed to him in the Nauvoo Temple left him then to marry other men. . . .
"On 18 June 1851, Mary Ann Clark Powers wrote from Kanesville, Iowa: ‘I wish you to release me from all engagements with you for time and eternity. . . .’ (Brigham Young papers). This request was granted.
"After the Church began recording divorces in 1851, Mary Ann Turley and Mary Jane Bigelow obtained divorces in 1851, Eliza Babcock in 1853, and Elizabeth Fairchild in 1855 (Divorce Certificates, Brigham Young papers). They were under 20 when they married Brigham Young and had never become part of his household. They all remarried; and Mary Jane, Eliza, and Elizabeth remained in Utah. ‘Almost 20 years later in 1873, Ann Eliza Webb applied for a civil divorce. The case came to trial in 1875, and the court ordered Brigham to pay $500 per month allowance and $3,000 court costs. When he refused, he was fined $25 and sentenced to a day in prison for contempt of court (Arrington 1985, p. 373). There is no record of application for a Church divorce, but she was excommunicated 10 October 1874 and devoted much of the rest of her life to publishing her somewhat sensational memoirs and giving anti-Mormon lectures.
"21 of Brigham Young's 55 wives had never been married, six were separated or divorced from their husbands, 16 were widows, and six had living husbands from whom divorces had apparently not been obtained. Marital information is unavailable for six.
"From a 20th-century perspective, the polyandrous marriages seem most problematic. Three of these women (Mary Ann Clark Powers, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, and Hannah Tapfield King) were married to non-Mormons, which meant, according to the theological understanding of the times, that their salvation could not be assured. Mary Ann Clark Powers, married to Brigham Young 15 January 1845, later said she had not ‘been a wife to’ Powers after the sealing and expressed relief when Powers went to California. She received a divorce from Brigham Young in 1851 (Powers to Young, 18 June 1851, Brigham Young papers)." (‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’ ("Defining 'Wife': The Brigham Young Households," by Jeffrey Johnson, 1987, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. .62-63)
“Brigham Young commented at various times about the struggles in a polygamist relationship:
“’A few years ago one of my wives, when talking about wives leaving their husbands said, “I wish my husband's wives would leave him, every soul of them except myself.” That is the way they all feel, more or less, at times, both old and young.’ (‘Journal of Discourses,’ vol. 9, p. 195)
“On another occasion Young claimed:
“’Sisters, do you wish to make yourselves happy? Then what is your duty? It is for you to bear children, . . . [A]re you tormenting yourselves by thinking that your husbands do not love you? I would not care whether they loved a particle or not; but I would cry out, like one of old, in the joy of my heart, “I have got a man from the Lord.’ 'Hallelujah! I am a mother . . . ‘ (‘Journal of Discourses,‘ vol. 9, p.37)
“Obviously there were problems even in Brigham's home.
“On September 21, 1856, Apostle J.M. Grant preached a fiery sermon rebuking those Mormons who were engaging in all manner of sin. He even called for personal blood atonement and chastised the women for complaining about polygamy:
“’Some have received the Priesthood and a knowledge of the things of God, and still they dishonor the cause of truth, commit adultery, and every other abomination beneath the heavens, and then meet you here or in the street and deny it. . . .
“’I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood.
“’We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye.
“’You may think that I am not teaching you Bible doctrine, but what says the apostle Paul? I would ask how may covenant breakers there are in this city and in this kingdom. I believe that there are a great many' and if they are covenant breakers we need a place designated, where we can shed their blood. . . .
“’And we have women here who like any thing but the celestial law of God; and if they could break asunder the cable of the Church of Christ, there is scarcely a mother in Israel but would do it this day. And they talk it to their husbands, to their daughters, and to their neighbors, and say they have not seen a week's happiness since they became acquainted with that law [plural marriage], or since their husbands took a second wife. . . . .
“’We have been trying long enough with this people, and I go in for letting the sword of the Almighty be unsheathed, not only in word, but in deed.
“’I go in for letting the wrath of the Almighty burn up the dross and the filth; and if the people will not glorify the Lord by sanctifying themselves, let the wrath of the Almighty God burn against them, and the wrath of Joseph and of Brigham, and of Heber, and of high heaven. . . .
"’Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for your sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid.’ (‘Journal of Discourses, ‘ vol. 4, pp. 49-51)
“This sermon was followed by President Young, who gave similar exhortations. In fact, he went so far as to threaten to set all the women free from their marriages if they didn't shape up and stop complaining:
“’I want all the people to say what they will do, and I know that God wishes all His servants, all His faithful sons and daughters, the men and the women that inhabit this city, to repent of their wickedness, or we will cut them off. . . .
“’There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
“’I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but is to save them, not to destroy them. . . .
"’I do know that there are sins committed, of such a nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
"’It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; . . . There are sins that can be atoned for . . . by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it. . . . .
"’Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, “My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;” “No, not a happy day for a year,” says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the liberty they Ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men, together with their own folly.
"’I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, “Now go your way, my women, with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty.” 'What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all.
"’I know what my women will say; they will say, “You can have as many women as you please, Brigham.” But I want to go somewhere and do something to get rid of the whiners; I do not want them to receive a part of the truth and spurn the rest out of doors.
"’I wish my women and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel--the whole of it. Tell the Gentiles that I will free every woman in this Territory at our next Conference. “What, the first wife, too?” Yes, there shall not be one held in bondage, all shall be set free. And then let the father be the head of the family, the master of his own household; and let him treat them as an angel would treat them; and let the wives and the children say amen to what he says, and be subject to his dictates, instead of their dictating the man, instead of their trying to govern him.
"’No doubt some are thinking, “I wish brother Brigham would say what would become of the children.” I will tell you what my feelings are; I will let my wives take the children, and I have property enough to support them, and can educate them, and then give them a good fortune, and I can take a fresh start.
"’I do not desire to keep a particle of my property, except enough to protect me from a state of nudity. And I would say, wives, you are welcome to the children, only do not teach them iniquity; for if you do, I will send an Elder, or come myself, to teach them the Gospel. You teach them life and salvation, or I will send Elders to instruct them.”
"’Let every man thus treat his wives, keeping raiment enough to clothe his body; and say to your wives, “Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without any murmuring and whining. You must fulfill the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting.”
"’Now, recollect that two weeks from tomorrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, “It is hard, for I have lived with my husband 20 years, or 30, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;” then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children. . . .
"’This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth. ...
"’Sisters, I am not joking, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. But I do know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this Territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. . . .
“'"But," says one, “I want to have my paradise now.” And says another, “I did think I should be in paradise if I was sealed to brother Brigham, and I thought I should be happy when I became his wife, or brother Heber's. I loved you so much, that I thought I was going to have a heaven right off, right here on the spot.”
"’What a curious doctrine it is, that we are preparing to enjoy! The only heaven for you is that which you make yourselves. My heaven is herw--laying his hand upon his heart]. I carry it with me. When do I expect it in its perfection? When I come up in the resurrection; then I shall have it, and not till then. . . . .
"’But the women come and say, “Really brother John and brother William, I thought you were going to make a heaven for me,” and they get into trouble because a heaven is not made for them by the men, even though agency is upon women as well as upon men. True, there is a curse upon the woman that is not upon the man, namely, that 'her whole affections shall be towards her husband,' and what is the next? ‘He shall rule over you.”
"’But how is it now? Your desire is to your husband, but you strive to rule over him, whereas the man should rule over you.
"’Some may ask whether that is the case with me; go to my house and live, and then you will learn that I am very kind, but know how to rule. . . .
"’Prepare yourselves for two weeks from tomorrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from to-morrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.’ (‘Journal of Discourses,’ Vol. 4, 1856, pp. 55-57)
“Such sermons may have kept the majority of women in line, but there were still those who could not endure a life in polygamy and ended up leaving their husbands.
“In 1873, Ann Eliza filed for a divorce from Brigham Young. The book, ‘Zion in the Courts- A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900,’ gives an account of this proceeding:
“’In “Young v. Young,” Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (‘ Comprehensive History of the Church,’ vol. 5, pp. 442-43). . . . Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized.’ (‘Zion in the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900,’ by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, University of Illinois Press, p. 249)
“LDS historian Thomas Alexander commented on the peculiar problems of plural marriage and divorce:
“’Several civil cases involving Brigham Young came before McKean's court, but undoubtedly the most celebrated was the attempt of Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young, the Prophet's 27th wife, to sue for divorce. The facts of the case are well known and need not be reiterated here. Judge Emerson at first referred the case to the probate courts. After the passage of the Poland Act, it was again returned to the Third District Court where McKean heard it. Brigham Young filed a counter petition stating that, though it was unknown to him previously, Ann Eliza was not divorced at the time of the marriage, which was at any rate a 'plural or celestial marriage' and thus not legal. The defendant was, in addition, legally married to Mary Ann Angell.
"’McKean placed the burden of proof on Young and ordered him to pay $500 per month alimony pending the outcome. He rightly pointed out that no matter what sort of marriage his union with Ann Eliza had been, it was a legal marriage, provided both parties were competent to marry, because Utah had no laws governing marriage. In Utah, it was incumbent upon Young to prove, either that Ann Eliza was not divorced from James L. Dee at the time of the plural marriage, or that he was legally married to Mary Ann Angell. If he could do so, McKean said that he would sustain Young's position.
"’This ruling, of course, placed Brigham Young on the horns of a dilemma. It would be impossible to prove that Dee and Ann Eliza were not legally divorced because the Poland Act had legalized all action of probate courts where their divorce had taken place. On the other hand, if he were actually to prove he was legally married to Mary Ann Angell, he would be bringing evidence which might have led to his conviction under the Morrill Act because of his prior admission under oath that he had also married Ann Eliza. Young chose simply to appeal to the territorial supreme court. He failed, however, to follow the proper procedure and on March 11, 1875, McKean sentenced the Prophet to a fine of $25 and one day imprisonment for contempt of court. Later, the divorce suit was thrown out after the intervention of the United States Attorney General on the ground that Ann Eliza could not have been Brigham Young's legal wife.
"’In addition to demonstrating McKean's poor judgment in some matters, the Ann Eliza case served to show that the Mormons never bothered to define any legal status for plural wives. The only sanctions which the Church imposed were moral and religious, and anyone who chose to disregard them could do so with legal, and sometimes even religious, impunity. Brigham Young argued that the marriage could have no validity at law--that it was only an ecclesiastical affair. Yet on other occasions, Mormons argued that plural wives should have the same rights as did legal wives and they complained at the prosecution for adultery with plural wives. On occasion, as when George Q. Cannon was indicted for polygamy, they took the position that each polygamous wife was also a legal wife.’ (‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,’ vol.1, no.3, pp. 91-92, 'Federal Authority Versus Polygamic Theocracy: James B. McKean and the Mormons 1870-1875,' by Thomas G. Alexander)
(“Brigham Young's Wives and
His Divorce From Ann Eliza Webb;” also contains chart titled, “Wives of Brigham Young: Determining and Defining 'Wife': The Brigham Young Households," by Jeffery Ogden Johnson, from ‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,’ vol. 20, no. 3, p. 64)
**********
Yessirree. You can always count on the historically trail-blazing “prophets" of Mormonism and their divorce-happy, godly and faithful followers to have held their standard high throughout time as, yes, “the best people in the world"--as they continue forth in their earnest, public, self-promotional quest to seize the Holy Grail of Morality.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 12:30PM by steve benson.