In 1867, Brigham Young answered the question of a New Yorker –
You ask: “Can you not drop Polygamy, and still keep your present religion?”
It was not our wish to embrace or practice Polygamy. We had nothing to gain, – looking at the doctrine from the stand point which we occupied at the time of its revelation, – by its adoption. On the contrary, all our traditions and prejudices were opposed to it, and in favor of the institution of monogamy. But God revealed the principle and commanded His people to obey it, and we have done so.
We would be perfectly willing to drop Polygamy, or any other feature of our religion, if the Lord would command us to do so. But until He does so command we must practice the principle, and leave the consequences with Him. If the sustenance and defence of the principle depended upon us, then our position would be far from hopeful; but He has promised to sustain us and, up to the present, He has one so, and we still rely upon Him.
There is this fact connected with our history that is very noticeable: We are hated no worse, and treated no more harshly, since our adoption of this principle and its promulgation to the world, than we were before. The greatest persecutions that we have been subjected to we endured before polygamy was believed by us. When we were driven out of Missouri, and afterwards out of Illinois, and came to this country, those who were active in their persecution against us had not polygamy for the basis of their action. They could not then accuse us of being a “polygamous horde”; our marriage relations were strictly orthodox.
You say that if we do not drop polygamy, we little dream of the future that awaits our people. We have a pretty good idea of what the feelings of those are who are opposed to us, also of what our future will be. We have no fears for the future. We will trust in God for the future, as we have done in the past.
But the future of the wicked, of those who reject God and His truth, is not known to them; neither do they know our future; but we know theirs. When you wish to know what that future will be, we can tell you.
How very apropos.
Ardis, Is there a source for this quote?
No, I made it up!
Seriously, it’s from the Brigham Young office papers at Church History Library (CR 1234/1), a letter Brigham Young wrote in response to the New Yorker who sent him the original query. As with most of my posts, I don’t make full citations public — my material has been mined too often by historians who incorporate my research into their own work without acknowledgement.
Great post. And a terrific comment, Ardis!
This is really interesting. Thanks Ardis.
“There is this fact connected with our history that is very noticeable: We are hated no worse, and treated no more harshly, since our adoption of this principle and its promulgation to the world, than we were before. The greatest persecutions that we have been subjected to we endured before polygamy was believed by us. When we were driven out of Missouri, and afterwards out of Illinois, and came to this country, those who were active in their persecution against us had not polygamy for the basis of their action. They could not then accuse us of being a ‘polygamous horde’; our marriage relations were strictly orthodox.”
Um, wait what? Were they arguing that Joseph Smith and other early leaders did not practice polygamy? Or is this an example of outsider language versus insider language?
Neither of the above, EmJen. He’s saying that haters didn’t need to have polygamy as an excuse to hate — they hated before polygamy was ever an issue. True, he is fudging a little in mentioning Illinois, since the unacknowledged practice of polygamy in the Nauvoo years was obviously a factor in driving the Saints out — but they’d already driven us out of Missouri without the pretext.
Sorry, that’s not exactly what I was asking, which I didn’t make clear. I thought by this time they were admitting to polygamy practices of the early Saints to the Saints in Utah, but this looks like he was purposefully using outsider/insider language. So I’m focusing on that fudging. The use of “strictly orthodox marriage” also fascinates me.
I think it’s a mistake to EVER try to understand Brigham Young by approaching him as a deliberate manipulator of language, implied by the term “insider/outsider.” That approach leads to overthinking and missing his point entirely — BY was too frank and too sloppy with his speech (oral or written) most of the time to be even capable of conscious manipulation.
Yes, it’s technically accurate that polygamy was publicly known in Nauvoo, although it wouldn’t be officially acknowledged until 1852. But in the paragraph you quote, he isn’t trying to make any point about polygamy itself, and if you want to understand him, you can’t focus so narrowly on that point — that’s looking beyond the mark. His subject in this paragraph is the hatred directed toward Mormons, which was fully evident long before Joseph taught plural marriage. Adding “and afterwards out of Illinois” is an exaggeration on Brigham’s part, not an insider signal, not a denial of Nauvoo polygamy. It’s just embroidery on the facts. That’s Brigham.
“an exaggeration on Brigham’s part”
An exaggeration, perhaps, but not a fabrication, since plural marriage was only one of the stresses existing in the region and nation.
Thank you, it’s insights like this one that make keep me coming back to this blog.
I am not an expert on BY and may be way off on this but my first impression is that certain things he says could be considered indicative of and attempt to obscuring the truth.
There is a theory that on a sub-conscious level when people say things that are at harmony with their internal perceptions of truth they do so succinctly and unambiguously. When people try and make assertions which are not in harmony with their perceptions of truth it appears in their use of language.
For example
He wants to give the impression that polygamy is currently viewed negatively by the church itself and it is only practiced under compulsion. Because he cannot truthfully state that proposition in the present tense he makes his point by implication. Referring to past opinions followed with completely truthful statements which leave the wanted impression without actually stating it.
He then wants to say that polygamy is not a core part of the religion. He doesn’t believe that so he refers to it as a “feature” which is technically true but implies to the listener that it may be insignificant. Rather than clarify the relation of polygamy to the religion he follows with more lamentations about how hard it is to follow God’s commands. Thereby leaving that impression that polygamy is a trivial thing that the church would drop if it were not for the pesky commands of God, all without ever saying it…..
So all all of his statements are true to him but made in a way to imply things which he does not believe.
For me the kicker is at the end where he essentially says that anyone challenging the doctrines of the church is wicked and going to hell. A classic technique of obfuscation: If you want someone to stop thinking about what you said, start insulting them.
I had to go back and reread the letter, to be sure I had posted the one I thought I had posted. There’s no hint in your comment, MonkeyKing (or in comments that have been deleted — seriously, people, haven’t you learned by now that leaving a drive-by potshot is not the way to have your comments appear on Keepa??) that we are reading the same letter.
The only thing expertise — familiarity with BY’s voice through reading thousands of his letters and sermons — could add that isn’t apparent on the face of this letter is its breezy, friendly, wide-open response to someone who challenged BY’s religion. BY does not ordinarily take that kind of criticism cheerfully. It is far more common for him to respond with thunder and sarcasm and contempt, the degree depending on how offensively the letterwriter had expressed his views.
Really, people, you are overthinking the whole thing, and reading into this letter preconceived and faulty ideas of Brigham Young as a villain. He’s not lying here, not using double-speak, not trying to signal one thing to his correspondent and another thing to a Mormon audience (a Mormon audience, which, obviously, was not expected to read his private mail to a single correspondent). He is saying only that God commanded plural marriage, and plural marriage will go away only when God commands its end. I can hardly believe my eyes that anyone has gone to the lengths you have gone, MonkeyKing, to bring such sophistry to bear on this. You’re “not an expert,” yet you can deduce over and over what Brigham Young “wants to say”? This is Bizarro World, a trip down the rabbit hole, a twisty funhouse mirror analysis of a few words, all necessary, apparently, to support your negative view of BY. (I see from your email address that you may be an attorney. Perhaps you are applying some technique here that you use to gauge the truthfulness of witnesses, or for jury selection. If so, I hope for the sake of justice that this isn’t the only tool you use.)
Try reading this letter substituting for polygamy something characteristically Mormon that you don’t object to: belief that God has a physical body (something deeply offensive to many Christians), or temple rites (the closed nature of the temple raises suspicions, then and now), or anything else. Try reading it as if the letterwriter were some ward member using a bit of rhetoric in his Sacrament Meeting talk to explain why we follow the Word of Wisdom. Under those circumstances, is it as nefarious, as untruthful, as Machiavellian, as it is when you read it as BY’s words on polygamy?
… they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand … (Jacob 4:14)
Ardis, Good comeback.