Review: Afternoon Session of UVSC’s Mormon Studies Conference

By April 2, 2008

Christopher has already ably outlined the morning session of today’s conference at UVU on Mormon schismatics. Here I will summarize the proceedings from the afternoon.

The afternoon session was comprised of three speakers on three different and important groups that traced their origins to Joseph Smith, Jr. R. Jean Addams presented on the Church of Christ, Temple Lot (Hedrickites), Vickie Cleverley Speek spoke about the Strangites, and Michael Van Wagenen summarized his research on the Wightites in Texas. Like the morning session, the three speakers first presented their individual papers and then combined for a panel and Q/A session. This format allowed for questions that examined the three groups in comparison to one another, which was one major objective of the conference.

R. Jean Addams is a history buff living in Washington state and his presentation was a summary of Hedrickite history from the 1860s, when they first began gathering to Jackson County, through the controversies with the RLDS in the 1890s, and culminating with the present day church. The Hedrickites grew out of a group of Latter Day Saints that had remained in the midwest after the death of Joseph Smith in 1844. Granville Hedrick, their charismatic leader, reported in 1864 that an angel had appeared to him with the instructions to return to Jackson County, re-acquire the temple lot, and build the temple. In the late 1860s his followers began gathering in Independence and bit by bit bought title to the land set apart by Smith in 1831 as the future site of the temple. The group was unable begin construction of the temple and by the late 1880s the much larger Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had begun settling in the region. Joseph Smith III believed that the temple lot rightfully belonged to the RLDS, which an Ohio court had declared in 1867 to be the true successor of the original Mormon church. The 1890s saw what came to be known as the Temple Lot Case, which formally involved the RLDS and the Hedrickites as parties, but the Utah church also provided witnesses (including Wilford Woodruff and other prominent Brighamites) and money to the Hedrickites. Although the court initially granted the land to the RLDS, on appeal the decision was reversed and the Hedrickites retained title. Addams also discussed the controversies over Hedrickite apostle Otto Fetting’s revelations during the 1920s, which resulted in Fetting leaving the church. Addams indicated that there are perhaps 8,000 Hedrickites today, many of whom are third-world converts.

Vickie Cleverley Speek is a former journalist that recently wrote God Has Made Us a Kingdom: James Strang and Midwest Mormons, a fine examination of Strang, his wives, and the early Strangite movement. Strang was Brigham Young’s greatest challenger during the aftermath of Smith’s death, presenting a charismatic alternative to the more pragmatic and authoritarian Young. Strang claimed an angel had appointed him to be Smith’s successor and was able to produce a letter from Smith directing Strang to establish a stake in Wisconsin. In addition, Strang translated a set of purportedly ancient plates which several witnesses testified were real. Strang was able to attract thousands of followers that yearned for a charismatic leader that paralleled in many ways the founder. Speek narrated first the establishment of a major Strangite settlement in Voree, Wisconsin, and then the founding of Beaver Island in Michigan, where Strang was crowned king, initiated an endowment ceremony, instituted polygamy, and even served in the state legislature. In 1856, Strang was martyred by a former follower, providing yet another parallel to Joseph Smith. Speek indicated that perhaps 100 Strangites remain today.

Michael Van Wagenen is a PhD. candidate at the University of Utah who wrote a master’s thesis on the negotiations between Sam Houston and Mormon representatives to buy a considerable piece of Texas land during the early 1840s. The Texas plan was one of several such plans instituted by Smith and the Council of Fifty to move the church if necessary to an isolated region and establish an independent government. Houston was open to the idea because if his efforts to annex Texas to the United States failed, he needed a buffer between his republic and Mexico. Van Wagenen presented evidence that in the last weeks of Smith’s life Smith rejected the idea of going to Texas, and after his martyrdom Brigham Young completely rejected the plan. Apostle Lyman Wight, who had been involved in the negotiations, led a group of Latter Day Saints to Texas and presided over a Mormon settlement there until his death in 1858. There are no Wightites today.

Addams, Speek, and Van Wagenen then assembled for a panel and Q/A. Some of the questions revolved around the Temple Lot Case, the views of the Hedrickites on Blacks and the Priesthood and African polygamy, and other queries about the specific groups. But other questions such as views of the Pearl of Great Price as scripture, understandings of Joseph Smith, Jr.’s status as a prophet/fallen prophet, and positions on Smith’s temple ceremonies allowed the panelists to bring the three groups into dialog with each other by comparing and contrasting views. This was perhaps the greatest benefit of the conference format and I think it successfully allowed the presenters and the audience to think in new ways about these groups that were both united and divided by their understandings of Joseph Smith’s legacy.

Article filed under Announcements and Events


Comments

  1. Great review, David; I’m sad I had to leave before this session. This almost makes up for it…..ok, maybe not, but its still good.

    As an overall note on the conference: I love this type of discussion between the various Mormon groups and I really hope to see more scholarship on this in the coming years.

    Comment by Ben — April 2, 2008 @ 1:13 am

  2. Terrific, David, thank you.

    Comment by Kevin Barney — April 2, 2008 @ 11:09 am

  3. Great report, David, it saves me the trouble of having to do a write-up, when I should be grading papers. I am glad we got to hang out for a bit.

    I would have to nominate myself for worst question during the Q and A period. I thought van Wagenen gave the most interesting presentation of the day, but was underused in the panel discussion since the Wightites didn’t last. So I tossed him a question about Joseph Smith’s platform about freeing the slaves and giving them their own land to act as a buffer between the United States and Mexico. However I phrased it badly and didn’t have a source handy to clarify so van Wagenen didn’t know what I was talking about.

    Someone in the back came close, but not quite. So I spent a few minutes yesterday tracing my source down, which I became aware of by reading Connell O’Donovan’s article on Walker Lewis.

    He writes:

    When Smith campaigned for president as a Jeffersonian Democrat in the spring and summer of 1844, it was on a platform that included a plan to abolish slavery by 1850 by compensated emancipation “for a reasonable price”, through the sale of public lands; the resulting freed slaves would then be settled in Texas.[69]

    And later:

    At a meeting at the Nauvoo Temple on March 7, 1844, William W. Phelps, a member of the Council of the Fifty sitting on Joseph Smith?s “central campaign committee”, read General Smith?s Views and Smith was “unanimously, with one exception” nominated as a candidate for President of the United States. Explaining his views on slavery and westward expansion, Smith said that he would free the slaves from a few states, compensate their owners, annex Texas, and settle the freed slaves in Texas, where they would act as a buffer of human flesh against the British, who were also attempting to gain control of Texas:

    “British officers are now running all over Texas to establish British influence in that country…. It will be more honorable for us to receive Texas and set the negroes free, and use the negroes and Indians against our foes….How much better it is for the nation to bear a little expense than to have the Indians and British upon us and destroy us all…. The South holds the balance of power. By annexing Texas, I can do away with this evil. As soon as Texas was annexed, I would liberate the slaves in two or three States, indemnifying [i.e. compensating] their owners, and send the negroes to Texas, and from Texas to Mexico, where all colors are alike. And if that was not sufficient, I would call upon Canada, and annex it.[74]”

    I went and read the sources that O’Donovan refers to. The platform pamphlet “General Smith’s Views . . .” doesn’t promote the idea to create an Freed slave buffer state in Texas, but the discussion on March 7, 1844, does. See http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI

    So that idea shows that Joseph Smith was thinking like Sam Houston was, only on the contingency that Joseph made a successful bid for the Presidency, the freed slaves and not the Mormons would settle and defend the territory between the Rio Grande and Neuces River.

    Comment by Keller — April 2, 2008 @ 11:26 am

  4. Thanks for tracking down those sources, Keller. Indeed, fascinating.

    Comment by David G. — April 2, 2008 @ 11:29 am

  5. Thanks for the summary, David. I’m sorry I had to miss the afternoon presentations.

    Comment by Christopher — April 2, 2008 @ 11:55 am

  6. Thanks for the report David. Great stuff.

    Comment by Steve Evans — April 2, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

  7. Will these presentations be published in any format?

    Comment by BHodges — April 3, 2008 @ 9:20 am

  8. Blair: I’m not sure. All of the material presented has been published previously by these historians in one form or another. I’d say check out Brighurst and Hamer’s Scattering of the Saints, to which all three of these individuals contributed, for more information on the topics.

    Comment by David G. — April 3, 2008 @ 9:27 am

  9. In terms of publications, Jean Addams’ work on the Hedrickites has been published in Scattering of the Saints. He is currently working on a comprehensive history of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), which is probably 2 years away from being on your bookshelf. Vickie Speek’s book is already out and I absolutely recommend it. It won MHA’s Best 1st Book award last year and was runner up for JWHA’s Best Book the year before. Michael Van Wagenen’s remarks were very similar to the article he published in Scattering of the Saints and his book is also already available. Steve Shields’ remarks were original, but similar to an essay that was published in vol. 27 of the JWHA Journal. Steve is currently at work on a new edition of Divergent Paths of the Restoration. However, the new book will be almost encyclopedic ? perhaps 900 pages long. That’s probably 2 years away from your bookcase.

    I’ve been very seriously kicking around the idea of writing an introductory/summary book ? maybe 120 pages + 20 pages of charts and such, so that there is an accessible, narrative overview. That would be similar to the very brief intro I gave at this conference, but obviously more detailed. If that gets to the head of the queue, that might be available relatively soon. We’ll see.

    Comment by John Hamer — April 3, 2008 @ 10:26 am

  10. John, that sounds like a fantastic idea. I say go for it.

    Comment by David G. — April 3, 2008 @ 10:32 am

  11. John: I echo David’s encouragement. “Thou art the man” for this specific project.

    Comment by Ben — April 3, 2008 @ 10:42 am

  12. silly I know but I snickered as I read aloud Wightites.

    Comment by JonW — April 5, 2008 @ 1:05 am


Series

Recent Comments

wvs on 7 Takeaways from #MHA2018: “Really enjoyed MHA this year. It's my 5th MHA conference and in many ways it was the best yet. Looking forward to SLC next year.”


Steve Fleming on Taves's Revelatory Events, pt.: “Yes, stones (the UT) acting as a figurative key that had the same purpose: unlocking divine knowledge. Lucy referred to JS's other seer stones as…”


Clark on Taves's Revelatory Events, pt.: “Steve, I may be misunderstanding you then. Certainly I have no problem reading Leads as speaking more mystically or analogically ala what was common in…”


Rachel on 7 Takeaways from #MHA2018: “Thanks for sharing these thoughts. They were so nice to read.”


Steve Fleming on Taves's Revelatory Events, pt.: “I would just reiterate that insisting that Lead's key be literal is problematic in the context of her writings generally.”


Clark on Taves's Revelatory Events, pt.: “Just to be clear, since there may be some confusion, I was only addressing the idea of the U&T as a literal key put into…”

Topics


juvenileinstructor.org