The 1857 debate on 'The Mormon Problem'

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Most Lincoln historians know about the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, but historian William P. MacKinnon focused on the little-known first Lincoln-Douglas debate in Springfield in June 1857. It specifically addresses "what was then called 'The Mormon Problem.'"

MacKinnon, using his paper titled "Stephen A. Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Mormon Problem: The 1857 Debate" gave the Mormon History Association Conference Annual Membership Luncheon presentation May 23.

A little background is needed. Soon after James Buchanan became the 15th president in 1857, the Utah territory became a hot political topic. MacKinnon explained that "by the end of March 1857, Buchanan had resolved to replace (Brigham) Young as governor and to provide his as yet unnamed successor with a substantial army escort." Also Douglas, as the senator from Illinois, was the representative of those Mormons who remained in Illinois. MacKinnon remarked that "LDS leaders saw Douglas as a 'thin reed,' rather than a 'fearless champion of Mormon rights.'"

So on June 12, 1857, with an invitation to "entertain them with the most important issues of the day," Stephen A. Douglas stood up to address the House chamber in the Old Springfield Capital. He hoped to bolster his upcoming re-election campaign with a well-received speech on three different subjects including "the condition of things in Utah and the appropriate remedies for existing evils."

Trying hard not to mention polygamy since he had just minutes before advocated for popular sovereignty, Douglas instead focused on "Mormon disloyalty and other unacceptable behaviors based on 'rumors and reports.'" Douglas had three main inflammatory accusations: First, the Utah inhabitants refuse to take an oath of allegiance or otherwise recognize the United States government; second, the Mormons are "bound" to only recognize Brigham Young as their authority and will "use all means in their power to subvert the power of the United States and resist its authority;" and third, the Mormons were forming alliances with the Indian tribes and "stimulating the hostility."

So what was Douglas' "remedy" for this "Mormon Problem?" Douglas said, "I think the duty of the President ... to remove Brigham Young and all his followers from office and to fill their places with bold, able and true men, and to cause a thorough and searching investigation into all the crimes and enormities that are alleged to be perpetrated in that territory daily ... and to use all the military force necessary to protect the officers in the discharge of their duties and to enforce the laws of the land."

MacKinnon believed that what Douglas said next "was enough to spawn 150 years of Mormon enmity." Douglas vividly described, "When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts that believe to exist, it will be the duty of Congress to apply the knife and cut out this loathsome and disgusting ulcer."

Abraham Lincoln, an attorney in Springfield, sat in the audience. MacKinnon explained that "there were few signs that (Lincoln) had strong feelings one way or the other about Mormons." His law firm had occasionally represented Mormons in Illinois, and yet had also worked for "plaintiffs bringing legal action against Latter-day Saints." A few days after Douglas' speech, Lincoln's law partner advertised that Lincoln would give a rebuttal; he said, "Lincoln is a gentleman, Douglas is an unscrupulous dog."

On June 26, Lincoln stood in the House chamber of the Old Springfield Capital to give his answer. MacKinnon explained that "without defending the Mormons or Utah's territorial integrity, Lincoln pressed hard on Douglas' harsh remedy of the 'Mormon Problem,'" trying to find holes in Douglas' argument.

Lincoln concluded that "If the people of Utah shall peacefully form a state constitution tolerating polygamy, will the democracy admit them into the Union? These questions, so far as I know, (Douglas) never answers. It might require democracy to answer them either way."

MacKinnon explained that the "Utah leaders were scathing in their condemnation of Douglas, whose remarks ... were viewed as a gross betrayal of their past support for him in Illinois." MacKinnon could find no reference to Lincoln in the Mormon reaction. But MacKinnon found an interesting parallel to the LDS leaders drafting both a Deseret News editorial, which was a "point-by-point demolition of Douglas' speech" alongside "the text of an even more momentous document: the governor's extraordinary proclamation of martial law" leading up to the Utah War.

The editorial also reminded the readers of a prophecy by Joseph Smith, given to Douglas in person in 1843, which said "Judge, you will aspire to the presidency of the United States and if you ever turn your hand against me, or the Latter-day Saints, you will feel the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon you."

Douglas went on to win the debates of 1858 and kept his Senate seat that year; however, as history played out, in 1860 Abraham Lincoln would win the presidential seat.

Later, as the president dealing with the national crisis of the Civil War, Lincoln would summarize his Mormon policy to a visiting Mormon newspaper editor: In effect, he would leave Brigham Young alone if Brigham Young would leave Lincoln alone.

Date of this debate? June, 1857.

According to the article, presidential candidate Stephen A. Douglas had three concerns about Mormons at that time:

First, the Utah inhabitants refuse to take an oath of allegiance or otherwise recognize the United States government; second, the Mormons are "bound" to only recognize Brigham Young as their authority and will "use all means in their power to subvert the power of the United States and resist its authority;" and third, the Mormons were forming alliances with the Indian tribes and "stimulating the hostility."

Well, guess what happened three months later regarding points #2 & #3? (The first 9/11 terrorist massacre in this nation -- The Mountain Meadows Massacre)

Re pt #3: the Mormons were forming alliances with the Indian tribes and "stimulating the hostility." -- that's exactly what happaned with the MM Massacre. The siege was begun with Lds bribing Indians to be involved in the attack upon the CA-headed Fancher party. (Indeed, Lds were "stimulating the hostility" -- Douglas was dead-on.

Re: point #2 the Mormons are "bound" to only recognize Brigham Young as their authority what needs to be comprehended here is that Young had a double tight fist over Utah Territory at this point in history: First, he was Utah governor...and indeed nothing of significance was done minus his knowledge/consent (many say including the MM Massacre); second, he was the reigning "prophet" of Mormons...and he had just taken them through what was called a "reformation" of cult-like dimensions.

Blood atonement was being preached from the pulpit where people had to shed their blood for some of their own sins. He had started preaching the doctrine just several years earlier that "Adam was God" -- and then he continued preaching that for the next 20 years. And polygamy had finally been unveiled in writing and so the first mass Mormon polygamy had been accelerating for five years.

MacKinnon remarked that "LDS leaders saw Douglas as a 'thin reed,' rather than a 'fearless champion of Mormon rights.'"

Looks like they shou;d have purged THEIR ranks!!

When push finally came to shove, the MORMONs were more worried about the Government than GOD...

1890: Manifesto (a statement denouncing polygamy)

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage...I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws..."
~ Wilford Woodruff, 4th LDS President

The Mormon church Organization; based in Salt Lake City, does not practice Polygamy any more.

They decided to stop the practice for fear of losing all their worldly goods.

It was banned in 1890!.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES BY
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF
REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us.

(Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.

(From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

What kind of 'Leadership' is THIS???

compared to...

Hebrews 11:35-40
35. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
36. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison.
37. They were stoned ; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated--
38. the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

or compared to...

Acts 4:19. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.

So much for an 'Everlasting Covenant' that thundered out of Heaven!!!

Well; it DID last about 47 years!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.