Esquire,I am not sure where you got your historians from, mostly the anti
Mormon groups claim that.After 1896, The church no longer Sanctioned
or performed Plurial Marriages.However, the ones that were already
within the bounds of Plural Marriage, was allowed to remain that way. Most of
them went to Mexico to escape the pressures of the Federal Government.
I have to disagree with what, Hal Boyd suggested. That Mitt Romney's
presidential bid could lessen Mormon prejudices in the same way Barack Obama's
campaign did for African-Americans. Barack Obama's campaign did nothing for
prejudices, it made it worse in my opinion.
To "Esquire | 7:01 a.m." once again, you show that you only look at
biased inaccurate sources. The LDS church ended the practice of polygamy when
they said that they did.The only new polygamous marriages after the
LDS church made its deal with the US government were from splinter groups, not
the LDS church.
Thanks Esquire for your clarification on my letter. Even in a short letter, I
should have emphasized that the Church no longer openly sanctioned plural
marriage. My point is still that it polygamy was not legal, and that
B.H. Roberts was an open polygamist who brought two wives to Washington. That
was, in itself, an open confession to breaking the law, and reason enough to not
be seated.Thanks for all your comments.BDK
Your key point in the opinion piece is spot on. Although there are for sure
prejudice against Mormons it was not the issue that caused to uproar with
Roberts. William H King went on to serve in the US senate and
represent Utah for 24 years.
King was actually Utah's first congressman, elected in '96 when Utah first
became a state. He later served many years in the Senate. A proud Democrat and
faithful LDS member.
You may or may not be completely accurate on the events, but I do take issue
with one statement. You say polygamy "was also not practiced within the
LDS Church" after 1900. This is actually not true. Historians tell us
that polygamy was practiced, and ceremonies performed, well into the 20th
century (by decades), just not acknowledged by the church. It is a curious
history, to be sure.