“Dear Sir,” the young man addressed Elder James E. Talmage in the summer of 1923. “You set me apart as a missionary,” he explained, and for that reason, the young man turned to Elder Talmage now after he had been told “emphatically” that the counsel of his bishop and stake president was wrong. “Don’t think that I lack faith in the local authorities because I do not, but I must know the right or wrong and know it quick.”
A year earlier he had returned from a mission, he said, and after some months at home he began keeping company with “a girl whom I had watched and thought of for several years, and whom I considered to be a match for the best of men.” They went together for a while until he decided he loved her. “I asked her to marry me and she consented.”
But within a few days, his world reeled. Their bishop came to see him and to say that there was something his fiancee needed to tell him. The young man accompanied the bishop back to his office and learned that his hoped-for bride was pregnant – and that she did not know which of three young Mormon boys in the neighborhood was the father. She asked the young man if he could forgive her.
“You may honestly know that this terribly surprised me and cut like a knife. What could I do? I thought and thought, I prayed, and asked the Bishop what I should do. I loved the girl and she confessed that she was wrong and only wished to do right and make good. I was and am confident that she could make good.” Instead of saying “Yes, I will still marry you” as if it were his sole right to decide, he showed the young woman how much he loved her by asking her all over again if she would marry him. “She consented, and we were married.” And now months later, after the birth of a son – who was given the first and last names of the man who loved his mother – the husband wrote, “I cannot say that I regret my marrying her. I did not marry her for lust’s sake, nor to shield her for her wrong, but because I loved her and wished to help her.”
Before the couple was married, both their bishop and stake president assured them that “after she had truly proved herself,” there would be no problem with his wife’s being recommended to go to the Temple.
But since that time, perhaps since people counted up the months and realized there was some irregularity in timing, people in his neighborhood were telling him otherwise. The bishop and stake president were wrong, they said; “she never could [go to the Temple], but is to be damned.”
They criticized the husband and father for living with the “damned” woman – so much so that he resigned his multiple ward callings (president of the M.I.A.; Sunday School teacher; Scoutmaster) so as not to give offense to ward members … only to be called again to all those positions by his bishop, who insisted the young man had done nothing wrong. But the accusations against the couple continued. Even a daughter of the late Joseph F. Smith insisted that he was unworthy of his positions because he lived with a woman who could never go to the temple.
And because people in his neighborhood contradicted his bishop and stake president so thoroughly, he wrote to Elder Talmage. “Please consider this and tell me what is what. I must know, if I am to do right. I want to do right if possible. I love the girl but I don’t wish to take her to the temple if it would not be right.”
Elder Talmage was out of town when the letter arrived at his office, but the very day he got home, despite the business that must have accumulated during his absence, he wrote to the young man. There was nothing in his story, the apostle assured the young man, that suggested any unworthiness on his part, and he should remain in his ward callings. “Plainly, your bishopric and stake presidency consider you worthy to hold these important offices, and they are the judges designated by the Lord to pass upon such matters.
Now as to the position of your wife and her future prospects in the Church, the fact stands that you have taken her in legal wedlock, with a full knowledge through confession and otherwise of the wrongdoing to which she was a party. The Church recognizes your marriage as legal, honorable, and as binding upon you both for the period of this life. If your wife is thoroughly repentant – and you surely must have considered her so or you would not have married her – and if she continues to manifest that repentance by good works, she may be adjudged worthy in time to receive the necessary recommend by which it will become your right and blessing to have her sealed to you for time and eternity in the Temple. When your bishop and the president of your stake are willing to issue such recommend the way will be fully opened for you and your wife to receive the sealing ordinance. If your wife’s child is living you will be justified in having the child sealed to you both.
Having responded so authoritatively and conclusively to the young man’s two urgent questions, Elder Talmage now went on to address an issue that raises this story from the merely personal account of one couple, to the illustration of a general principle of the gospel. How is it possible that so many people in the couple’s neighborhood missed this? or that the young man himself, a returned missionary, did not already understand what Elder Talmage next said?
It is a regrettable fact to find people having membership in the Church denying the mercies of God, and passing judgment upon their fellows without the semblance of authority, and likewise without knowledge of the matter about which they express such uncharitable and unscriptural views. The purpose of the church of Jesus Christ is to save not destroy, to build up not tear down, to gather in not to cast out; and while the Lord cannot look upon sin with allowance, he is very merciful to the repentant sinner. In all the points on which you report the action of your bishopric and stake presidency, those presiding brethren have acted wisely and properly under the order of the church; and they are the ones whose right it is to decide in such cases.
The letter closed with a bit of marriage counseling for the young man. “It is your duty to honor her as your wife and assist her in every way to prepare for the prospective blessing of sealing for time and eternity through her repentance and good works.” He suggested that the man avoid frequent mention of her past behavior to his wife, because by marrying her he had demonstrated his willingness to forgive; let it all stay in the past. “Strive to live together in unity and harmony, and seek constantly the blessings of the Lord to assist you.”
And he suggested that the young man show the letter to his bishop and stake president. “Should it be that any person or persons circulate false statements concerning yourself and wife, the matter should be brought to the attention of your presiding officers,” who should “correct the matter by kind admonition and counsel.”
“There is a life of happiness and joy before you and wife, and eternal blessings shall yet be yours,” he closed.
Epilogue: The couple did go to the Temple the following year, and their first son was sealed to them. He died before his second birthday. Numerous other children were born to the couple, and they have descendants in the Church today. Dates as they appear on Family Search have been adjusted to mask the irregularities in timing, which tells me that someone recognized the problem and may even know the story, but does not wish younger generations to be aware of it. That – and the fact that the greater issue that the “mercies of God” extend to every repentant sinner – is why I have been careful to exclude any detail that might identify the couple to anyone who did not already know the history.
Ardis, This is a great story on many levels. I’d like to ask a possibly tangential question. What do you think of attempts, however well intentioned, to mask such potentially embarrassing, difficult information? My own feeling is that, while I may understand the impulse, doing so invariably tends to make a situation worse. I tend to favor as truthful a record as possible and to try to contextualize such information as best I can (much as you do with this story). How do you recommend approaching these kinds of things? Thanks. (If this is too much of a “hijack,” please don’t hesitate to ignore.)
Gary, in theory, I favor a wide-open approach to all information, everywhere, all the time. But when it comes down to individual cases, I realize that other people have a far greater stake in some information than I do.
I would hope that the family involved would take the initiative not to disguise their records. But the timing of that matters, too. The child in this case died young so has no descendants — but if he had lived he could easily have living children today. What would it be like to learn from a blog post that you weren’t really quite who you thought you were? Or for any of this couple’s grandchildren to learn something perhaps shocking about their dearly beloved grandmother? I just don’t feel that I have the right to expose that when it is still relatively recent. Another generation, perhaps, but now it is the family’s decision.
On the other hand, if the people most affected are willing to face the truth, they can sometimes relieve themselves of a great burden of secrecy and misunderstanding. I’ve told at great length here at Keepa the story of my great-grandmother’s sister Cora, and her mental illness and excommunication, and her father’s leaving the Church, something that had been concealed, leaving only vague and distorted rumors, until I dug it out. I think I told it with tact and sympathy, especially in the first brief account I shared with family. Yet my mother’s cousin was angry that I aired the story, even among family. He was filled with shame and fearful of my “destroying testimonies.” He was too close to it. I’m one generation down, less personally involved, and think that the secrets in that case can all stand to be aired out, with benefit to the family. A lie my grandmother told my mother about my grandfather was a burden to my mother most of her life, and she “protected” me from learning of it; when I accidentally stumbled over something that cleared my grandfather (without my even knowing there was something to clear), my mother’s relief was incredible — had I known there was such a scandal, I would have researched it and found the truth much earlier. Secrets *can* hurt.
We’ve dealt with historical polygamy much better in recent generations, with the distance of time. Less shame, fewer living people to be harmed, and a growing need to understand that is greater than the need to preserve a polite fiction. I think it probably works the same with most family secrets — you might be terribly ashamed of a parent who was a drug runner last year, but (rightly or wrongly) a little amused by a rum-runner during Prohibition, and there is no shame whatsoever, and possibly a little pride, in an even more distant ancestor who did something shady in his own day.
In other words, if there are people vulnerable to emotional or other kinds of pain by revealing secrets, I tend to err on the side of mercy: If there is no urgent need to expose the truth, it can wait. There are a few secrets that I have been careful to outline in my own family records to help future generations untangle the questions; once, when it was for the best good of one person to know such a secret, I quietly shared it. Time passes, and what may hurt to tell now will lose its sting, eventually.
I think I have enough respect for the truth not to create a cover story, though, or not to pass along something I know to be untrue if I can possibly avoid it. And I don’t share scandal solely because I could.
That’s my general guide.
Really appreciate the discussion on your guiding principles for privacy considerations.
I haven’t been reading Keepa recently, and the thing that struck me most was how civil and gentle all the communication was, at least by all those who were in the right. So different from our era, when outrage is the order of the day for any injustice.
It is sad that the little boy died so young. I’m sure that was a trial to his parents.
I’m glad Elder Talmage straightened things out for his parents.
And I wonder about the people that were judging them so harshly. Besides completely contradicting the teachings of the gospel, I can’t help wondering where they got the time. By the time I finish judging myself, I don’t have a lot of time or energy left over.
I was also struck by the civility of the writer, in the midst of what must have been an extremely aggravating situation.
In line with the young man’s civility, this is all he says about the three boys who were involved with his wife:
“As far as I know, they are trying to make good. They are from respectable families as is she.”
I admit I cried while reading this. Partly because I have several friends who are in the same situation as the girl – who broke the law of chastity and got pregnant, were thoroughly repentant and found wonderful men whom they have now been sealed to along with their first child. Reading Elder Talmage’s caring response was beautiful.
I can’t help but wonder if those “three young Mormon boys in the neighborhood” were treated as the young woman was or if they were given a pass. (That will open up a can of worms I am sure.)
My 2nd great-grandmother was never married but had four children. She NEVER divulged what was happening in her life during those child bearing years. My great-grandmother knew nothing of her father. One time when she was about 5 she was in the market and her mother pointed to a man and told her, “There is your father.” That was it. No name. No explanation. This was in beginning of the 1900s is Barcelona, Spain. It’s one of those family secrets that has quite literally been taken to the grave.
Ah, should have refreshed the page before posting my comment. The young man’s civility is certainly admirable on all accounts!
Thank you for sharing this great story. There is so much to learn from this.
Thanks for your insights, Ardis. I assume that every family has one or more closets populated with these and similar kinds of skeleton stories. My oldest uncle, now deceased, was born about six months after his parents married. Some of the family’s genealogical records were altered to change either the marriage or the birth date. However, not all were. One of my cousins stumbled upon the discrepancy while doing family history and asked about it. I think my uncle’s siblings had a harder time talking about it than did we grandchildren.
I was a little amused that he “ratted out” the daughter of the previous President of the Church as being one of the “stone-throwers”.
Mebbe — but he didn’t do it to slam her for being wrong, but only to show the source of his confusion. If someone presumably so well taught in the gospel could say his bishop and stake president were wrong, who exactly was he supposed to believe?
#13 Agreed. I really liked your tender treatment of this little piece of history from 94 years ago. Thanks for providing.
Beautiful account and strong presentation. Thanks, Ardis!
A very illuminating piece of the past, Ardis, and one that I would hope can be instructive in the present.