Mormon History Podcast – Gospel Tangents – Mormon History Podcast

Following the dissolution of her marriage, Sonia Johnson came up with her own view of gender essentialism and had some lesbian relationships. Was she bisexual, or a political lesbian? Dr Chris Talbot explains. Check out our conversation…

Don’t miss our other episodes with Dr Chris Talbot! https://gospeltangents.com/people/chris-talbot/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

In a fascinating deep dive with biographer Dr. Chris Talbot, we’ll dive into the life of Mormon feminist Sonia Johnson, particularly after her divorce and excommunication from the LDS Church, we gain intriguing insights into her evolving relationships, her radical philosophy, and the church’s complex involvement in the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) debate.

One of the most striking ironies discussed is how the church and conservatives worried that passing the ERA would lead to widespread lesbianism and homosexuality, only for Sonia Johnson herself to become a lesbian. This development, however, was framed less as a sexual reorientation in the conventional sense and more as a “political lesbianism.” This phenomenon, as described by historians, involved a conscious choice to devote oneself to women as a collective or “species,” building one’s life around these devotions, which inherently meant avoiding intimate relationships with men. For Johnson, this commitment stemmed from her profound desire to reject male-centered, patriarchal societal structures; she declared, “No man will ever become the center of my life again”.

The nature of her sexuality is explored with nuance, acknowledging that sexuality is fluid and not always confined to “discrete categories”. While Johnson had four children and didn’t seem to have a history of sexual attraction to women prior to her excommunication, this attraction reportedly “grew in her as she moved along” after the traumatic experience. The question of whether she was a “fake lesbian” or “real lesbian” is dismissed as largely a matter of “socially constructed categories”.

Sonia Johnson’s post-excommunication relationships were not without their challenges. Her first lesbian relationship, with her therapist, ended poorly due to ethical issues and her partner’s managerial role. This experience profoundly shaped Johnson’s philosophy on relationships, culminating in her fourth book, The Ship That Sailed into the Living Room.

At the heart of her critique was the idea that relationships, by their very nature, are built around hierarchy. Johnson articulated a discomfort with the “driving and being driven” dynamic in sexual encounters, finding it personally, politically, and philosophically troubling. She argued that even in alternating roles, relationships inherently embed a power imbalance.

This anti-hierarchy stance extended to her view on monogamy and marriage. She didn’t want anyone to marry anyone, viewing monogamous commitments as inherently “restrictive and controlling” of one’s sexuality and love. Interestingly, her critique resonated with a small polyamory community in Salt Lake City, who saw her work as a guide to why monogamy was problematic due to its inherent hierarchy.

After another unsuccessful relationship, Johnson eventually found a long-term partner, Jade Deforest. Their relationship is built on a unique “touching experiment,” detailed in her fifth book, Out of This World. The core principle is self-motivated touching – touching for the pleasure of the act itself, rather than to elicit a specific feeling in the other person. This approach aims to eliminate the perceived hierarchy, as “someone’s driving and someone’s being driven”. This experimental approach has led to a seemingly successful and lasting relationship for Johnson.

The discussion also delved into the highly contested facts surrounding the LDS Church’s involvement in the ERA movement. The exact extent and nature of the church’s activism are “mushy” and disputed, with even basic facts like the appointment of official spokesperson Beverly Campbell being unclear.

A significant point of contention is “plausible deniability.” While church leaders like Beverly Campbell claimed that “citizens councils” were not official arms of the church, they openly admitted to using the church’s existing hierarchy, such as phone trees, because “it’s there”. This mirrors the arguments used during California’s Prop 8 campaign, where the Church similarly denied direct involvement despite evidence of significant influence and similar funding models.

A key figure repeatedly mentioned in these events is President Hinckley, who appears to be a “common denominator” in Special Affairs, the ERA controversy, and later discussions around gay marriage. However, without a “smoking gun” like his diaries, definitive scholarly statements about his intent for plausible deniability cannot be made.

The complexity boils down to how one defines “the Church”. If the Church is viewed solely as a formal, structural organization, then arguments for its non-involvement in citizens’ councils hold some weight. However, if “the Church” is understood as a broader “culture, a community, an imagined community,” with unspoken expectations and rules, then it becomes much harder to argue that the Church wasn’t involved. The situation is likened to a “grassy knoll” scenario, where the truth remains ambiguous and depends on one’s perspective.

This conversation offers a rare glimpse into the personal and political life of Sonia Johnson, highlighting her unconventional path and her profound philosophical critiques of societal norms, particularly regarding relationships. It also underscores the enduring ambiguity surrounding the historical actions of institutions like the LDS Church when engaging in political movements.

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

This is a rebroadcast. The 1838 Mormon Missouri War remains a pivotal and often tragic chapter in Latter-day Saint history. We’re revisiting an interview with Steven LeSueur, an esteemed historian and author of what is considered by many to be the definitive book on the conflict, “The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.” LeSueur, who sadly passed away in July 2025, was remembered for his significant contributions to understanding this complex period.

LeSueur, who lived in Arlington, Virginia, was not a full-time historian. He described his career primarily as a journalist, covering national defense issues, editing a technology magazine, and working as a freelance writer for businesses before his retirement. Despite this, his historical expertise was profound. His seminal book, published in 1987 by the University of Missouri Press, originated from his master’s thesis in American history at George Mason University.

His interest in Missouri history stemmed from early research work he did for Lamar Barrett at BYU in 1976-1977, immediately after graduating with his undergraduate history degree from BYU. This early work involved delving into diaries and letters to find references to “Adam’s altar” (Adam-ondi-Ahman) and exploring various historical sites in Missouri. For his book, LeSueur conducted extensive research at the Library of Congress, Utah archives, and multiple trips to Missouri, even staying with prominent Community of Christ historian Bill Russell, who, along with Valeen Tippets Avery, reviewed his manuscript.

LeSueur also lent his expertise to a documentary called “Trouble in Zion,” where he was one of several “talking heads” discussing the Mormon experience in Missouri, sharing his interpretations of the events.

LeSueur’s approach to the Mormon Missouri War focuses on understanding how events unfolded, emphasizing a snowball effect of reactions rather than a grand conspiracy. While recognizing the immense suffering of the Mormons, he seeks to explain why Missourians reacted as they did.

◦ The Gallatin Election Battle in August 1838 saw Missourians attempt to prevent Mormons from voting in Davies County, leading to Danite involvement.

◦ The Siege of Dewitt by Carroll County vigilantes led to Mormons surrendering and retreating to Far West after Governor Boggs refused to provide state aid.

◦ In response, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon rallied Mormons on October 14, declaring they would “live off the land of our enemies”. Mormon forces, including many Danites, then engaged in widespread burning and plundering of non-Mormon properties in Davies County, including Gallatin and Millport, actions that occurred while Joseph Smith was present. LeSueur differs from some historians by asserting these actions were not just by “extremists” but were known and condoned by Joseph Smith, leading Missourians to view Mormons as being in rebellion.

◦ The Battle of Crooked River on October 25 occurred when Mormons, led by David W. Patten, attacked Captain Samuel Bogart’s militia to free captured Mormon spies. Patten was killed. LeSueur believes the Missourians were genuinely defending themselves, not “baiting” the Mormons.

◦ This culminated in Governor Lilburn Boggs issuing the infamous “Extermination Order” on October 27, declaring Mormons “enemies of the state”.

◦ The Hawn’s Mill Massacre on October 30, where 17 Mormons were killed, occurred before the extermination order was widely known. LeSueur agrees that had the order reached the attackers, it might have prevented the massacre.

LeSueur points out that while the Mormons eventually gained sympathy and were wronged, their actions, particularly the burning and plundering in Davies County, contributed significantly to the Missourians’ perception of them as aggressive and rebellious. He emphasizes that many Missourians were initially sympathetic but lost that sympathy as the conflict escalated.

Steven LeSueur’s “The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri” remains an invaluable resource for understanding the complexities and unfolding events of this tragic period in American and Mormon history.

0:00 Mapping Mormon History in Missouri

This is a re-broadcast of my 2023 interview with Steve LeSueur. Unfortunately Steve passed away from pancreatic cancer on July 1, 2025.

Mormons were part of the untamed world of the Wild West—complete with outlaws, shootouts, and the kind of drama you’d expect straight out of a western film. In this episode, Steve LeSueur shares the gripping story of his great-uncle Frank LeSueur and his friend Gus Gibbons, who were murdered by the notorious outlaw gang known as The Wild Bunch. There’s even a surprising connection to the infamous Butch Cassidy. Join us as we explore the real dangers Mormons faced on the frontier. Don’t miss our conversation…

Don’t miss our other conversations with Steve: https://gospeltangents.com/people/steve-lesueur/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

Today, we’re sharing a powerful story that highlights the often-overlooked human cost of the Wild West era, brought to life by a historian who deeply personal connection to the past. We’re talking about Steve LeSueur, a wonderful historian and author who sadly passed away in July 2025 due to pancreatic cancer. This post is a tribute to his work and his last interview on Gospel Tangents, where he discussed his remarkable book, Life and Death on the Mormon Frontier: The Murders of Frank LeSueur and Gus Gibbons by The Wild Bunch, published by Greg Kofford Books.

Steve LeSueur was driven to explore a piece of his own family history that had been shrouded in mystery for generations. His great-uncle, Frank LeSueur, was murdered by outlaws in 1900. While his family always knew Frank was killed, the details were scarce, and the killers were believed to have gotten away with little effort to capture them. His grandfather, Carl LeSueur, Frank’s younger brother, was only five when Frank was killed and didn’t have many details to share. For over a century, it was largely considered “some minor episode in western history”.

However, in recent years, historians and biographers specializing in outlaws like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid began to point fingers. These historians, some of whom had Mormon ties, suggested that Butch Cassidy’s Wild Bunch gang were the likely culprits behind Frank’s death. This new information ignited Steve’s interest, drawing him into a deeper investigation.

What truly set Steve’s work apart was his unique perspective: focusing on the victims. As he noted, historians often prioritize the outlaws, their daring heists, and exciting getaways, treating victims as mere “bit players” or “extras in a movie”. Steve, however, looked at the events from the victim’s point of view, reading journals, diaries, and reminiscences left behind by Latter-day Saints in the community. He discovered a compelling story that offered numerous insights into both the outlaws and the community itself. It turns out, not many people have an ancestor killed by a famous outlaw.

Despite the year being 1900, which might sound somewhat modern, the setting for this tragedy was truly still the Wild West. Frank LeSueur’s murder occurred just outside St. Johns, Arizona, a “dusty cattle and sheep town”. In 1900, this town had no electricity and no running water. It was an era where cars and airplanes were not yet commonplace.

Steve LeSueur’s research has profoundly enhanced our understanding of this specific Wild West tragedy, shifting the narrative to those who suffered the most. His book stands as a vital contribution to history, reminding us that every “bit player” has a story worth telling. We miss Steve greatly, and our hearts go out to his family.

Don’t miss our other conversations with Steve: https://gospeltangents.com/people/steve-lesueur/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

Come see the site where James Strang was killed as we explore the captivating history of Beaver Island, a unique gem in Lake Michigan, especially its ties to James Strang and his Mormon community.

Don’t miss our other conversations about Strangism: https://gospeltangents.com/denominations/strangites/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

3 Mormon Print Shop

James Strang, a self-proclaimed prophet, settled on Beaver Island around 1848, having arrived in 1847. He led a group of Mormon dissenters who broke away from Brigham Young’s leadership and settled on the island in 1846. By 1850, Strang was declared King of his community, which constituted the majority of the island’s population. The main hub of the island is even named St. James, after him. Strang’s influence extended to societal norms, where he apparently mandated that women wear bloomers or pants to prevent pneumonia, with husbands being whipped if their wives didn’t comply. He also reportedly told non-Mormons (like the Irish settlers and original Ottawa/Ojibwe inhabitants) that they needed to convert, leave, or pay a tax.

A pivotal location in Strang’s community was the Old Mormon Printing House, erected in 1850 by Strang and his followers2. This building was significant as it published the Northern Islander, which was the first daily newspaper north of Grand Rapids. During the 1850s, Strang’s group published religious works and two newspapers: the Northern Islander and the Daily Northern Islander. After Strang’s assassination, the print shop was ransacked and later became a boarding house. Today, it stands as a museum and serves as the headquarters for the Beaver Island Historical Society.

The growing friction within Beaver Island’s Mormon community reached a violent climax in 1856. James Jesse Strang was fatally shot and clubbed by two of his disgruntled followers while walking towards the dock to meet the captain of the USS Michigan. These assassins were reportedly hiding behind a woodpile near the Johnson McCulla store. It’s notable that two of the assassins were husbands who had been whipped under Strang’s controversial bloomers policy. Strang died from his wounds 23 days later. The assassins were taken to Mackinaw Island by the USS Michigan’s captain, who refused to allow the Mormon police to arrest them. They were soon released by the Mackinaw sheriff, celebrated by Strang’s enemies, and astonishingly, each was fined only 50 cents, though the exact charge is unknown.

In the wake of Strang’s assassination, an angry mob from the mainland stormed Beaver Island, destroying buildings and forcing the Mormons to flee. Beaver Island is the only island in Lake Michigan inhabited year-round, with a population of 500 to 800 people that swells to 3,000 in the summer. The island has a strong Irish presence, with many historical inhabitants speaking Gaelic and even naming a local bay “Donegal Bay” after a place in Ireland. Historically, the island’s primary industries were lumber and fishing. Overfishing, particularly using a now-outlawed net fishing method, led to severe depletion, prompting Michigan and other states to ban the practice. Today, tourism is the main industry. The island didn’t even get electricity until around 1939.

Visitors can also explore the Beaver Island Townships Cemetery, one of two cemeteries on the island (the other being a Catholic cemetery). The oldest grave dates back to 1853, within James Strang’s era. An interesting feature of the cemetery is the presence of posts marking older graves where the original wooden crosses have long since deteriorated, indicating a body is buried there even if the identity is unknown. The second oldest grave, dated July 27, 1859, belongs to Mary Jane, wife of Thomas Hawkins. Notably, St. James Episcopal Church is located across the street from the cemetery.

Beaver Island offers a rich tapestry of history, from its unique religious past under James Strang to its evolving industries and enduring natural beauty. It’s a place where history comes alive, allowing visitors to walk in the footsteps of a fascinating and turbulent era.

Don’t miss our other conversations about Strangism: https://gospeltangents.com/denominations/strangites/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

See what a local historian thinks about James Strang as we tour the town of St James on Beaver Island, Michigan. Check out the conversation!

Don’t miss our other conversations about Strangism: https://gospeltangents.com/denominations/strangites/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

Welcome to Beaver Island, often called “America’s Emerald Isle,” a fascinating gem in Lake Michigan with a history as rich and diverse as its landscape. If you’ve ever wondered about year-round island life, a unique Mormon kingdom, or the rise of an Irish community, you’re in the right place!

Beaver Island is unique as the only island in Lake Michigan with a year-round population. While around 600-800 people call it home in the winter, the population swells to 3,000-4,000 during the summer months. Access to the island is primarily by private boat or air service, as ferries only run until mid-December.

The main community, St. James, named after James Jesse Strang himself, is where most businesses are concentrated, including the year-round community center, taverns like the Shamrock bar and restaurant, a motel, and a hardware store that also houses a gift shop and vet clinic. Many other businesses, like some restaurants and a bicycle/boat rental shop, are open only in the summer.

Historically, the island’s economy relied heavily on commercial fishing, with fish being salted or iced down and sent via ferry to Charlevoix for further rail transport to cities like Indianapolis or Chicago. Hotels also played a main role in the economy for many years.

A significant chapter in Beaver Island’s history revolves around James Jesse Strang, a controversial figure who established a Mormon colony here. Strang arrived on the island around 1847-1848, with his colony reaching approximately 1,500 people by the time of his death in 1856.

Strang was an ambitious leader, and his people surveyed Beaver Island for the first time in 1848. He named the town of St. James after himself and began building a highway, the King’s Highway, also named after himself. His colony was so established that they even had a daily newspaper, the only one north of Grand Rapids at the time.

However, Strang’s rule was often described as tyrannical by the tour guide. He quickly made enemies with his policies:

Strang also left a lasting mark on the island’s geography by naming several places with biblical references. Examples include:

Interestingly, Strang was a well-educated man who passed the Michigan bar exam and could practice law. This legal expertise proved useful, as he was arrested multiple times. He was taken to Detroit for “coroner’s fitting” (likely related to counterfeiting) and later for treason and sedition, but he successfully defended himself and was acquitted in both cases. After his first acquittal, he crowned himself king.

Strang’s oppressive policies and his strict rule, including a rule that husbands of women caught wearing long dresses would be whipped, led to his downfall. In 1856, two men who had been whipped shot Strang. James was wounded and taken by boat back to Burlington, Wisconsin, where his first wife Mary was living, and he died there 17 days later. The exact charges against his assassins are unclear, but they were released after a judge (justice of the peace) charged them only 50 cents for the crime.

His assassination triggered a significant demographic shift on the island. The news spread quickly, and five boatloads of people came to drive the Mormons off. Irish laborers working on the island’s lighthouse at the time sent word to relatives working on the Erie Canal and in Toronto, inviting them to come to Beaver Island, where land was available and fishing was good. By 1900, 75-90% of the island’s population was Irish. One of the first things the “Gentiles” did after driving off the Mormons was to burn down the Mormon tabernacle. Many former Strang followers who had been compelled to join Mormonism chose to renounce it and stay on the island.

Beaver Island is about 14.5 miles long and encompasses approximately 54 square miles. It features two fire stations, a volunteer fire department, and a post office built around 1890 that originally served as a tavern. The island also has several cemeteries, where early settlers and fishermen were buried even before the Mormons arrived. Archaeologists have used ground-penetrating lidar to locate old graves marked by wooden crosses that have long since rotted away. They are marked by white poles now.

Other notable points include:

Today, Beaver Island offers a blend of tranquil island life and fascinating historical sites, inviting visitors to explore its unique past and vibrant community.

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

Come along on this journey to Beaver Island, where James Strang was crowned King! We’ll learn more about this early Mormon prophet. I’m taking you on a journey to Beaver Island, Michigan, a place central to the intriguing story of James Strang and his followers. You don’t want to miss this!

Don’t miss our other conversations about Strangism: https://gospeltangents.com/denominations/strangites/

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

The tale begins with James Strang, a relatively recent convert to Mormonism, having joined the church just a few months before Joseph Smith sent him on a mission to Wisconsin. After Joseph Smith was killed on June 27, 1844, James Strang made two significant claims to succeed Smith:

The authenticity of this “letter of appointment” has been a major point of contention. Brigham Young immediately deemed it a forgery. A peculiar postmark (due to a piece of lint in the Nauvoo stamp) was used at the Nauvoo post office. Young followers claimed this was evidence of a forgery. However, when it was shown to be on other letters, Strang used as proof of authenticity.

Michael Quinn, a historian, believed the letter was a fraud or forgery. Quinn noted that the signature was written in block letters and Joseph Smith’s signature did not match his usual signature, although he acknowledged Joseph often used scribes. Quinn speculated that Strang might have taken a genuine letter from Nauvoo and written on it himself, with the postmark appearing to be genuine. The letter itself was vague, not explicitly naming Strang as the new church president, but rather seeming to put him in charge of the church in Wisconsin, a role Strang might have “inflated”.

Despite the controversy, Strang attracted some notable converts, including Joseph Smith’s brother, William Smith, as well as John Page, Martin Harris, and William Marks, with several members of the Smith family initially encouraging him.

Strang eventually received a revelation to move his community from Wisconsin to Beaver Island, Michigan before 1850. On Beaver Island, James Strang, much like Joseph Smith with the Council of 50, was ordained a king. This ambition, where Mormons attempted to take over the government, often led to conflict with surrounding communities.

The Strangite community on Beaver Island ultimately faced a tragic end. In 1856, James Strang was assassinated on the dock by former Strangites. These individuals are referred to as “pseudos” or “pseudo-Mormons” by Strangites, distinguishing them from the LDS term “apostates”. Strang was shot. Though not killed immediately, he succumbed to his wounds about three weeks later.

Following his assassination, the US Navy, which was patrolling Lake Michigan for pirates, scattered all the people on Beaver Island. They were dropped off in various ports, often penniless and without food or money, a “terrible tragedy” that led to the scattering of Strangites. Today, while the largest congregation is believed to be in Burlington, Wisconsin (which James Strang called Voree), smaller groups exist in New Mexico, Colorado, and potentially West Virginia.

For those intrigued by this unique historical site, Beaver Island is accessible by ferry or plane.

Beaver Island offers a rich blend of natural beauty and profound historical significance, providing a unique glimpse into a lesser-known chapter of American religious history. How many of you have gone to Beaver Island?

Copyright © 2025

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

Should BYU be renamed Over Slavery? Many argue that BYU should be renamed since slavery was legalized in Utah? Bishop Abraham Smoot also owned slaves and his name is on the Smoot Administration Building. What do BYU alumni Paul Reeve & Christopher Rich think of this proposal?

Don’t miss our other conversations with Paul Reeve! https://gospeltangents.com/people/paul-reeve/

Copyright © 2024

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

GT: Okay. Well, it’s only been out what, four days right now?

Paul:  People are starting to actually get their copies, yes. So, I know there’s a peer review process because clearly, the public hasn’t had a chance to push back on you guys. But have you guys gotten any pushback on your book that you can share?

Paul:  Well, I mean, there’s some skepticism on the interpretation of, is An Act in Relation to Service a form of gradual emancipation. Right?

GT: Okay.

Paul:  Oxford has anonymous peer reviewers. Right? And so, I think we had really good peer reviewers who pressed us on some of the claims that we made. And I think we refined our arguments as a result. so I think what is published is more refined than the original draft. And we simply acknowledge they removed 18 words that we believe would’ve passed on the condition of servitude to the next generation, but they don’t replace those 18 words with “therefore you can’t pass on the condition to the next generation,” positive language that would have said, “we’re not passing on the condition.” So it’s left up to us to infer that their intent was that the condition not pass on to the next generation. We actually offer readers a scan of the original draft of the bill where they cross out those 18 words. And then we provide our own transcript. right? So you can read for yourself the original version of the bill with those 18 words included and then with those 18 words removed. What do you think the intent was? If you take out the clause that would’ve passed on the condition to the next generation, we think that means the intent of lawmakers was that it not pass on, and therefore, that creates a gradual form of emancipation. But that’s open for interpretation. right?

GT: Well.

Paul:  They deliberately—well, we don’t know about deliberately. They draft the bill ambiguously and we don’t know if that’s because they’re just not great lawmakers, or if they’re doing it deliberately.

GT: Well, and the question is, are we aware of any children born between say, 1852 and 1862 that slavery was passed onto them? Are you aware of that?

Christopher: So, we tried to look at that, and there’s just not a whole lot of evidence. So, any of the children who were actually born in Utah, by 1862, if we use that as the basic end date, still would have been minors. So, they still would have been living with their parents in the homes of their masters. And we do find evidence that they are there. There is some evidence that some children were sold. Now, those children weren’t born in Utah. So, you can make the argument that the law didn’t cover them, but it was a very small number of children. By the 1860s, I think it was roughly 10. So, we try to make a case of, based on the language of the law, this is what should have happened, but we don’t know for sure what would have happened in practice had the law continued on for another 10, or 15, or 20 years.

GT:  So it’s just too short of a timeframe.

Paul: Correct.

GT: Okay.

Paul:  And we make the point that if you are a child, you arrive in Utah territory, you can die enslaved in Utah territory. Right? This only applied to those who would be born in Utah territory after arrival.

GT: Right.

Paul:  That’s how the law is written. So, if you’re born in 1852, you’re only 10 years old by 1862. You’re still living with your parents. And how do historians know what your legal status might have been?

GT: Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Any other pushback?

Christopher: Over the years, there has been more pushback. When we first brought this idea forward…

GT: I remember that session in San Antonio.

Christopher: See, back in 2012, when we brought this idea up really for the first time in, we were

GT: You got some serious pushback in MHA at San Antonio.

Christopher: There was a lot of pushback against this. And that’s reasonable. I mean, these are hard ideas. They’re complicated ideas. I would say that as time has gone on, it has felt like more people are, even while there is pushback against individual parts of our analysis about the gradual emancipation and so forth. I think there has been a more openness to those ideas. At least that’s been my experience.

Paul:  Well, I think people can read the evidence for themselves. So, we have released all of the documents, all of the speeches.

GT: Give us the website.

Paul:  So www.thisabominableslavery.org. And anyone can go there. They can read Brigham Young’s 5th of February 1852 speech for themselves, all of the documents related to, or most of the documents related to the book are freely available, publicly available, and with the cooperation of the Church History Department. So, people can read the evidence for themselves, and also understand that new evidence has come to light. Right? And so, the notion that Euro-Americans are included in this service bill is something new that prior scholars had missed. But the debate makes it clear that that’s what they’re talking about because they say that when they’re debating. Right? That’s a part of what they’re talking about.

GT: Oh, wow.

Paul:  And if you arrive indebted to the person that provided you passage to America, and you die before you pay it off, can your debt then be passed on to your children? That’s also part of what they’re debating.

GT: Wow.

Paul:  So they’re talking explicitly about Euro-Americans, right? , so prior scholars didn’t have access to that. Tight?

GT: Thanks to LaJean. Big shout-out to LaJean.

Paul:  Exactly. We think that, there’s evidence at least to support our claims, and there might be people who have questions one way or the other. But nonetheless, that’s what scholarship is. Right? You put it out into the public, and people respond. We think the evidence is there. Right? I think a part of the issue is people might think we’re saying slavery didn’t exist in Utah territory. We’re not saying that. We’re not saying that. We fully recognize enslaved people arrived July 22nd, 1847. Right? We talk about this legal effort and also acknowledge from the perspective of the enslaved…

GT:  It didn’t make much difference.

Christopher: It probably didn’t make much difference. Right? So we’re not denying any of that. And so, the way that the question might be asked was Utah a slave territory. Right? Utah is not a state through any of this. And the new evidence suggests that Brigham Young is really clear, for any application for statehood, will not be as a slave state.

GT: That’s really interesting and important to know.

Paul:  But everyone needs to remember Utah remains a territory through this period. It’s never a state. Okay? So as a territory, the law that is passed gives those who have enslaved people in Utah the ability to continue to hold them yet gives them some rights to protect the enslaved.

GT: Elevates from slavery to servitude.

Paul:  Yeah, yeah. But they’re not free.

GT: Right.

Paul:  But they’re not free. And we have this new, firm piece of evidence from the 1856 Constitutional Convention that the effort to apply explicitly as a slave state is soundly voted down. And Brigham Young supports that. He makes it clear. He’s upset with George A. Smith. George A. Smith is the only apostle who votes in favor of the proposal to send this to DC as a slave constitution. And Brigham Young finds out about it and calls George A. Smith on the carpet, says, “I’m not going to send you with this constitution if you’re in favor of slavery.”

GT: Oh, wow.

Paul: So we had Brigham Young’s interview with Horace Greeley in 1859 where he says, no. Utah won’t go into the union as a slave state. And some historians have argued, well, that’s Brigham Young just playing this public relations game. We have now his evidence from 1856, where he’s clear that he does not support an application as a slave state.

Christopher: Well, and really, throughout this entire period, Brigham Young is remarkably consistent in his views toward slavery. While he does sometimes use ambiguous language, and we are very forthright that sometimes he uses ambiguous language, he is very clear that one person should not be able to own another as property. He believes that that is both legally and morally wrong. But the question is how do we deal legally with enslaved people now that they are here? And he’s trying to do this in a context of national controversy over slavery. He wants Deseret admitted to the union as a state, and the advice that he is receiving from many people, including Thomas Kane is you do not want to deal with this issue. Slavery could sink you. You don’t want to come out openly one way or the other.

GT: Just be neutral.

Christopher:  Be neutral, says it multiple times. At the same time, Brigham Young is trying to ensure that there is no split within the Latter-day Saint church and community over this question. In the 1830s and ‘40s, three major American denominations, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists, all split over the question of slavery. Brigham Young wants to ensure that that does not happen. So, Brigham Young seems to be walking on this tightrope where, on the one hand, he does not want to legalize chattel slavery in Utah. He does not want to hold people in property, but sees real problems with immediate abolition at the same time. And so, he’s trying to come up with this more moderate solution to the problem.

Paul:  And Orson Pratt is pushing for a free labor ethic at the same time. Right? And he’s also a product of this 19th century culture. And one of the chapters, we just walk readers through this debate between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.

GT: Yeah.

Paul:  And Orson Pratt, obviously is pushing forward, and Brigham Young is reaching back. And we think Orson Pratt, or at least I’ll speak for myself. Orson Pratt has the better argument here. Right? Right? He has made a free labor argument and history has been on his side. Right? And we lay that out in that chapter: what are the ramifications of these two arguments as these two men represent these forces that are at play in the broader American nation? And remember that question that Utah is grappling with: can human beings be held as property? It is a question that the nation itself cannot solve. And it devolves into civil war in 1861 and costs the nation 600,000 lives. And we’re simply placing Utah territory within that context, that broader national context. 1850s is just this decade of sectional divide where the nation is straining the fabric of union to the point that we start killing each other over that question.

GT: Very good. That’s a somber note to end on. But was there anything we missed?

Paul: I think we covered most of it.

GT: Well, I only had it for about three or four days. I got through three chapters. But, it’s a great book from three chapters I’ve read so far have been great. And so, I would recommend it to everybody. Why don’t you show them to us again? Who do you got on the cover there? It looks like I recognize a few people.

Paul:  So Brigham Young. I mean, we all, Brigham Young and Orson Pratt on either side, representing the debate. And then in the middle is Sally Young Kanosh and Green Flake. So we also then tried to represent Native American and African-American enslaved.

GT: Okay.

Paul:  the two pictures here, we chose as close to what they may have looked like in 1852.

GT: Oh, really?

Paul:  So this picture is taken roughly around 1850. And this one, I think 1853. I can’t remember for sure, of Orson Pratt. So, that was our intent was to try to find an 1850s  image of both men.

GT: Oh, that’s very good. Was Orson Pratt the guy that argued, changing topics slightly, against Adam-God and Brigham Young?

Paul:  Correct.

GT: And so, Orson, he was supposed to be the prophet, but he lost his seniority. Right?

Paul:  Correct. He was dropped from the Quorum over his objection to polygamy, interestingly enough.

GT: Oh, wow. And then he announced it.

Paul:  Right. And so, at the end of 1852, he’s the one that Brigham Young turns to publicly announce the practice of polygamy. But yeah, those two butt heads on several occasions. So, remember, when Brigham Young tries to reconstitute the First Presidency at Winter Quarters, Orson Pratt originally objects.

GT: Oh, yeah.

Paul:  So they butt heads there. Then they’re butting heads in 1852 in the legislative session. And then they don’t agree theologically over the Adam-God theory that Brigham Young is proposing, and Orson Pratt doesn’t buy that.

GT: Things were much more lively back then.

Paul:  They were, yeah. And people were more [argumentative.]

Christopher: in the days before correlation.

Paul:  Yes. They were more open about their disagreements, too. Right?

GT: Yeah.

Paul:  Orson Pratt was very open about his disagreements with Brigham Young. Right? They are standing up to each other in the legislative session.

Christopher: But also they would have these disagreements, and then come back together again for different purposes. So, I mean, there are times when Brigham is very harsh towards Orson Pratt, as he could be harsh towards other people as well. Yet, he goes to Orson Pratt to discuss polygamy.

Paul:  Yeah.

Christopher: Like everything else, these were complicated relationships.

Paul:  And I think that’s also interesting that Orson Pratt then becomes a defender of polygamy, right? He changes from his original abhorrence and becomes a defender of polygamy for the rest of his life. Interestingly, there’s only a one-off in terms of his defense of the racial priesthood restriction and never returns to it. Right? So it’s an interesting comparison. It makes me wonder. Right? I wish there was more evidence, but why did he do that 1853 newspaper article and never return to it? I don’t think he was convinced himself of the racial restrictions. He never comes back to defending it. And when he becomes convinced about polygamy, he defends it for the rest of his life.

GT: Hmm. That’s interesting.

Paul:  Yeah.

GT: So I have one more question, especially since you’re both BYU grads.

Paul:  Uh-oh.

GT: You know where this is going. There’s been some debate about a couple of things: whether BYU should be renamed, because Brigham Young supported slavery, which we’ve talked about. But also, we didn’t spend a lot of time on Abraham Smoot. There’s the Abraham Smoot Administration Building. People think it should be renamed. He was a bishop. He had slaves. What do you think of that controversy?

Paul:  Well, I spoke at the BYU slavery conference. So there’s a group at BYU who studied BYU’s connection to slavery. Right? I think at the very least, just a plaque or some sort of public acknowledgement at the Smoot building that would acknowledge his three enslaved people: Tom, Jerry, and Sally. Just [make] an acknowledgement of them and their lives could go a long way in just being more open about his connection to enslaved people.

GT: Okay. So you’re not in favor of renaming either the building or the university?

Paul:  Oh, I didn’t say that.

GT: Okay.

Paul:  You’re trying to pin me down. I don’t have any say whatsoever at all in terms of those questions.

GT: You have an opinion though.

Paul:  Well, I don’t foresee any reasonable effort at changing the name of the university. I think it will always be Brigham Young University. What I understand on the campus is that buildings no longer will have, will no longer be named after people.

GT: Oh. LaVell Edwards Stadium?

Paul:  Buildings will no longer be named after people. And LaVell Edwards Stadium already exists, and all of the named buildings already exist. But future buildings are not going to be named after people.

GT: Is it because of this reason? I mean, I guess you’re speculating here. Because, oh, we’re going to always find dirt on somebody. So, somebody’s going to offend something.

Paul:  Yeah, I don’t know. You’d have to ask BYU. But I think there are things they can do. So, the BYU Slavery Reconciliation Project is modeled after slavery reconciliation projects that have happened at other universities. So, University of Virginia has a large memorial to enslaved people. Right? Georgetown has gone through a reconciliation process. So, I think there are things that they could do that would acknowledge the enslaved people. If they’re going to leave Abraham Smoot on the administration building, that’s their decision. There are things they could do that would also acknowledge the enslaved people of Abraham Smoot.

Christopher: These have happened at other campuses across the nation where campuses have studied their own connections to the enslaved past and come up with ways that they are openly acknowledging them. And I’m not sure that BYU has come up with a firm proposal. I spoke at the slavery conference about the debate between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.

GT: Okay. Yeah. I wish I’d have known about that. There are too many conferences.

Paul:  Yeah.

GT: Chris, what’s your perspective on Smoot and Brigham Young?

Christopher: My hope is that people will be able to come away, hopefully, after reading the book, understanding various perspectives. And people will be able to come up with their own conclusions. That’s one of the things why we wanted to have our research open to the public on the website is so that people could read through this for themselves. We think we put forward the best interpretation of what happened in the ‘52 legislature from a variety of different perspectives. And my hope is that regardless of what happens anywhere else, is that people will be able to look at these individuals as people that were facing significant problems and whether or not we agree with the conclusions that they came to, to try and be able to understand where they were coming from, both from those people who are in the legislature and from those people who were held in service and to whom these laws applied.

GT: Should the Smoot Building be renamed? I’m not going to let you off the hook there. You can say no comment or whatever.

Christopher: No comment.

GT: Okay. All right. Well, Dr. Chris, or soon-to-be Dr. Chris.

Christopher: Almost, almost. PhD candidate.

GT: and Dr. Paul Reeve, Thank you so much for being here on Gospel Tangents. And go buy the book if you don’t have it. It should sell out just like Matt Harris’s book did.

Paul:  Thank you.

Christopher: Thank you.

GT: Help sell it out. All right. Thanks again for being here on Gospel Tangents.

Paul:  Thanks.

Copyright © 2024

Gospel Tangents

All Rights Reserved

Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission.

Welcome to an exploration of one of the most distinctive branches of Mormonism: the Strangite Church. We will discuss Strangite women’s role in priesthood. While many are familiar with the larger Latter-day Saint movements, the Strangites offer a fascinating glimpse into different interpretations and practices rooted in early Restorationism. Based primarily in Burlington, Wisconsin, the Strangite Church has a rich history, unique theological perspectives, and surprising elements that set it apart.

According to the revelations of James J. Strang, Voree was prophesied to be a refuge for the people, where “the Gentiles would treat you with kindness”. Remarkably, the Strangites in Voree have never experienced the persecution that other Mormon settlements faced in places like Palmyra, Kirtland, Independence, or Nauvoo. This consistent respect and kind treatment from the wider community is seen by Strangites as a powerful sign that James A. Strang’s revelations were true. Furthermore, families living there have prospered, owning homes and achieving financial stability, which they believe is a testament to the blessings promised for obedience to God.

The congregation has seen periods of challenge and renewal. A spiritual movement led others to move to Voree, and gradually the church began to build up again. While the primary congregation is in Burlington, members also reside in various states, including Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Michigan, and Minnesota, often attending services via Zoom.

Perhaps one of the most surprising and progressive aspects of the Strangite Church is its stance on women and the priesthood. Unlike many other Restorationist faiths, the Strangite Church ordains women to the Aaronic priesthood, specifically to the office of teacher. They believe that Emma Smith herself was the first teacher.

These women teachers play an active and vital role in church services. They are permitted to lead meetings, often doing so in pairs, each taking half of the Sabbath service. While women hold the office of teacher, they are not ordained as deaconesses; deacons are exclusively boys.

Priesthood ordination in the Strangite Church is not tied to age or seen as a “rite of passage.” Instead, individuals are called when a priesthood member receives inspiration that a particular person is ready and begins to excel.

The Strangite priesthood structure includes:

The leadership of the church has continued through a series of appointments. Lorenzo Hickey ordained Wingfield Watson as the head of the church and a high priest, who then served until his passing around 1920. Following Watson, subsequent presiding high priests have been appointed by their predecessors. Currently, David Flanders serves as the presiding high priest, a role of duty and responsibility to manage affairs, but not one that grants him higher authority than other high priests.

A distinct practice of the Strangite Church is their worship on Saturday, the Sabbath day. This is based on their belief that God sanctified the seventh day during creation. They contend that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday to honor the sun god and appease pagans, aiming to unite Christians and pagans into a single universal church.

Their theological views also extend to the nature of Christ. The Strangite Church believes that Jesus was 100% mortal, and that Joseph was his biological father. This belief is critical to their understanding of Christ’s lineage, as Joseph was of the tribe of Judah, which connects Jesus directly to the covenant line of Abraham and King David through the male seed. They suggest that the passage in the King James Bible detailing Jesus’s birth was an addition by Catholics. For them, Jesus being fully mortal and “made under the law” means he was truly tempted and tried as humans are, allowing him to sympathize with and judge humanity. His perfect, sinless life as a mortal serves as an example, demonstrating that humans have “no excuse for our sins”. Joseph Smith’s Lectures on Faith are cited as supporting this view of Jesus’s mortality.

The Strangite Church also rejects the “Adam-God” theology and views the King Follett sermon as having been tampered with. Importantly, they have never had a priesthood ban on black members, asserting that God is “not a respecter of persons” and welcomes everyone regardless of color or wealth. They have had black priesthood members dating back to Joseph Smith’s and James Strang’s times, including a Brother Q. Walker Lewis.

The Strangite Church embraces a broad collection of scriptures, which includes:

The Strangites also hold unique prophecies, such as the belief that Daniel from the Bible will stand on the “Hill of Promise” in the last days, before Christ’s return, to teach the people, fulfilling the biblical instruction for Daniel to “stand in thy lot”.

They believe that the spirit of God was withdrawn from the United States due to the murders of Joseph Smith and James J. Strang, and the persecution and expulsion of the saints from their lands. This is why, they feel, it’s currently difficult to proselytize, as “people just don’t really care about religion” today. However, they anticipate a future time, before the next prophet comes, when God’s spirit will go forth, and “hunters and fishers” will seek out the righteous and preach to the House of Israel, rejoining them to the covenant.

Gary Weber, a member of the Strangite Church, shared unique insights into their doctrines, including polygamy, baptism for the dead, and their distinctive interpretation of the “stick of Judah” prophecy.

The Strangite Church believes that polygamy is an eternal principle and can be acceptable to God if commanded by Him, primarily “to build up seed unto [His] name,” not for lustful purposes. This aligns with the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon, which states one should have only one wife “unless I command you otherwise.” Historical figures like Abraham are cited as examples of righteous men who practiced it when commanded. 

Regarding their founder, James Strang, initially, he was against polygamy. However, he later embraced it, reportedly through inspiration from God on Beaver Island, allowing it as part of the “Book of the Law of the Lord.” It’s notable that its practice was limited, with perhaps only five families out of thousands practicing it due to financial constraints and the crucial requirement that the wife must not object. 

Currently, the Strangite Church does not practice polygamy. This is primarily because they believe in keeping the laws of the land, and polygamy is against the law. They hold that God would not put people in a position to break the law and go to jail. Gary Weber noted that Joseph Smith also said, “We believe in keeping the laws of the land.” Furthermore, they believe that only a prophet can “usher in a dispensation for polygamy.” Interestingly, Gary mentioned that Joseph Smith allegedly cut off a Mr. Brown from the church for practicing and teaching polygamy three months before his death, suggesting an inconsistency in Joseph Smith’s own stated position if he himself practiced it. 

Another unique doctrine discussed is baptism for the dead, which the Strangites believe requires a prophet to “usher in a dispensation” and obtain “the keys from Elijah.” They assert that both Joseph Smith and James A. Strang received these keys and therefore practiced it. The “Book of the Law of the Lord” includes a section on the doctrine of baptism for the dead, which is described as identical to the information Joseph Smith put out in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. 

A significant difference between the Strangite practice and that of the Utah Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is that the Strangites believe that the sex of the person does not matter; a woman could be baptized for her deceased father if he hadn’t been baptized. In contrast, the Utah church generally practices that women baptize for women and men for men. 

However, the Strangite Church does not currently practice baptism for the dead. The reason, similar to polygamy, is the absence of a living prophet on the earth. 

The Strangite Church has a distinct eschatological belief tied to a prophecy in Genesis 49, where Jacob blesses his 12 sons. When speaking of Judah, it states, “the lawgiver shall not depart between the feet of Judah.” They interpret this to mean that after Joseph Smith, who they consider the prophet of the “stick of Ephraim,” there was to be a prophet from the tribe of Judah who would “bring forth the book of the law.” 

This next prophet is expected to remain in the house of Judah, from the tribe of King David, and will take the gospel to the house of Israel. The Strangite Church is currently waiting for this prophet to come forth, as they believe there was meant to be an “indirect period of time” after James Strang, before the “house of Israel’s dispensation to the Jews” began. 

James Strang lived in the Voree/Burlington area, Wisconsin, from about 1842 until approximately 1849 or 1850. He then moved his community to Beaver Island around 1850, remaining there until 1856 when he was killed. 

Strang held significant authority on Beaver Island, serving as both mayor and “king” through his priesthood, though still under Michigan’s jurisdiction. His leadership led to conflict with other islanders. Reasons for the animosity included: 

James Strang was shot on the pier in Beaver Island in 1856 and died a few weeks later at his parents’ house in Voree. Despite having time, he chose not to call a successor, as it was not believed to be the appointed time for the next prophet to come forth. After his death, the Strangite community on Beaver Island scattered, with members returning to various family homes in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, notably establishing a significant branch in Black River Falls, Wisconsin. 

James Strang reportedly laid the cornerstone for a temple near the White River. However, the exact location of this temple site has since been lost over time, as it was eventually torn down “by the Gentiles.” The temple was never finished. While there have been claims about Strang organizing an “Order of the Illuminati” with Masonic influences, Gary Weber stated there’s no definitive proof from Strang’s own writings. Many early Mormons, including Joseph Smith and James Strang, were Masons. Many of the day had the objective to keep Catholic influence out of politics. 

Following James Strang’s death, the Strangite Church faced a challenge in leadership succession. They believe that only a prophet, through revelation, can call an apostle, and that “the lesser cannot bless the greater or ordain the greater.” Consequently, as their original apostles died out, they could not “regenerate themselves” without a prophet. As such, the Strangite Church is now led by high priests and elders. 

In an interesting note on priesthood, the Strangite Church ordains women to an office within the Aaronic priesthood: Teacher. They believe that Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s wife, was the first teacher. However, women holding these offices cannot ordain or baptize. 

What are your thoughts? 

It’s always fun to talk to someone from the Strangite Church, officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) Based in Burlington, Wisconsin, this branch of the Latter-day Saint movement offers a distinctive perspective on the succession of Joseph Smith and the ongoing divine restoration.

The current headquarters of the Strangite Church is Burlington, Wisconsin. Interestingly, the area holds historical significance with multiple names. It was originally called Foxville. While today it’s known as Burlington, a specific area on the west side of town where the Mormon settlement was located was called Voree by the early Strangites, a name associated with the significant “Voree record”. James J. Strang led his followers to this location, believing God had instructed them to move from Nauvoo.

James Strang was dispatched to the Burlington area by Joseph Smith, having been baptized and made an elder by Smith himself. Strang wrote back to Joseph Smith, suggesting Voree would be a “wonderful place for a gathering” due to its rich resources like fish, fresh water, great farmland, and good soil near the Great Lakes. Initially, Joseph Smith was hesitant, but after discussion with Hyrum Smith and a subsequent spiritual revelation, he concluded that Voree was indeed a good place for the Saints.

The Strangite Church believes that James J. Strang was divinely appointed as Joseph Smith’s successor. This belief is rooted in two pivotal events:

The Strangite Church embraces a unique canon of scripture beyond what is common in other Latter-day Saint traditions:

The Strangite Church identifies as “Mormons” and shares a similar church name with other Latter-day Saint groups. However, there are key distinctions:

The Strangite Church, through its unique history, prophetic succession, and scriptural interpretations, offers a rich and distinctive chapter in the broader Latter-day Saint narrative. Are you familiar with them? Have you seen our other interviews with Bill Shepard, Vickie Speek, and Kyle Beshears on Strangites?