The Man Who Would Be King

I recently finished an advance copy of "God Has Made Us a Kingdom": James Strang and the Midwest Mormons (Signature, 2006) by Vickie Cleverley Speek, a former journalist. Her book retells the improbable story of Jesse James Strang, a relatively recent convert to Mormonism who put forth a claim to be Joseph Smith's successor following his death in 1844. While it seems odd to modern Mormons, some Mormons of that day took Strang's claim seriously, and he gathered hundreds of scattered post-Nauvoo Mormons to him, first in Wisconsin, then later on Beaver Island in the remote northern waters of Lake Michigan. His death at the hands of an assassin (who was immediately given refuge in a US warship docked at Beaver Island) cut short his "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (commonly known as the Strangites). What are we to make of this strange episode in LDS history?

Scattered Sheep?
Maybe a better question is: What does the whole Strang episode tell us about the Midwest Mormons, those who were left after Brigham Young took the main body of Mormons west? They were confused, having lost both Joseph and Nauvoo. They were Mormons, but most of their fellow believers had gone west. Those who stayed behind were either too old or infirm to make the trek, or disagreed with the leadership of Brigham and the Twelve. For those who stayed behind, there was a leadership vacuum. For some, Strang was able to fill that role for a period.

Strang's claim to leadership was based on a letter he claimed to have received from Joseph Smith, postmarked June 19, 1844, just a few days before his death. There are authenticity questions about the letter and his claims were not well received by those in Nauvoo, where Strang was promptly excommunicated. But he persevered in Wisconsin. In 1845 he had a vision and discovered what the book described as "three small plates of brass, scratched on all sides with queer writings and drawings." These Strang translated with the help of a Urim and Thummim given him earlier by an angel. The resulting translation went over pretty well among his followers. Sound familiar?

It's interesting to compare all this to the path followed by Brigham Young, who had no visions, found no plates, and did no translating. He didn't even attempt to assume the role of President of the Church until 1847. Maybe Brigham was just too concerned with getting the Saints out of Nauvoo and across the plains to even worry about becoming another Joseph Smith. In any case, reflecting on the details of Strang's initial religious actions reminds me how much I like Brigham Young. Had I been in Nauvoo, I think I'd have followed Brigham.

Still Unwelcome
You can read the book for the other religious details (which don't really get much analytical attention in Speek's narrative). What I found compelling at times about the middle portion of the book was the familiar story of Mormons coming into conflict with the locals and (in the end) getting run out of town after their religious leader is brazenly killed. Again, the perpetrators walked away with no punishment. Again, the propery of these Mormons fell into the hands of their enemies. Sure, these weren't "our" Mormons, but even so you will be rooting for them as you read.

The Mormons couldn't stay in Nauvoo. There were only three choices: (1) scatter and disperse; (2) move as a group to a new location north (Wisconsin?) or south (Texas?) of Illinois; or (3) go west. Going back east was never an option. No one goes east. The tragic end of Strang and the eclipse of his Strangites suggests Brigham had it right again. Going west wasn't easy, but it worked. Strang and the Strangites in Wisconsin and Michigan didn't last long. Lyman Wight with a group of Mormons in Texas didn't fare much better.

About the Wives ...
The book actually has two major parts, the first following Strang as he set up his version of a Mormon church, and the second following what happened to his five wives and the children after his death. [Yes, despite early opposition to polygamy, it came to play a primary role in Strang's church.] Think of the second part of the book as ISL, Jr. I sort of skimmed through this section, but some readers might be more interested in the fate of the wives. The 19th was just a bad century for widows and retirees, who just always seemed to end up poor and struggling.

Other Sources
Grant Palmer, in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, devoted six pages to Strang (p. 208-14). He noted the similarity of Strang's religious claims to Joseph's (hard to miss) and how many early LDS followers were drawn to Strang, including Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Hiram Page, and William Smith. He notes:

The one living witness who had not yet joined with Strang was Oliver Cowdery. His father, William Cowdery, converted in the summer of 1846. A year later Oliver had moved to Elkhorn, Wisconsin, twelve miles from Strang's Voree [Wisconsin] headquarters, and associated with the church, although it is unknown how close his affiliation was.

For more on Strang, see the Wikipedia article. There's also an earlier biography of Strang, King of Beaver Island: The Life and Assassination of James Jesse Strang (Univ. of Illinois Press, 1988) by Roger Van Noord.

Comments

[ed johnson]

Dave, how (if at all) do you think the credibility of the three witnesses is affected by their association with Strang?

[Jared]

The idea of going to Wisconsin didn't come out of the blue. If I recall correctly from RSR, the church had previously sent some people up there (to get lumber I think) and at one point there was talk of sending Joseph up there to get away from enemies. Did Strang absorb the Wisconsin Mormon colonies--or what remained of them?

[Dave]

Good question, Ed. Witness credibility is determined by the jury, and the jury of active LDS are inclined to grant the Three Witnesses full credibility vis-a-vis the golden plates and the angelic witness regardless of anything they said or did later. For others, later association with Strang (or anyone else) by the Three might be more troubling.

In fairness to the Three, if someone didn't go to Utah but still considered themselves Mormon (as they did), you had to associate with someone. The RLDS Church emerged about 1860 partly because of frustration and disappointment up to that point of those Mormons who "stayed behind" with failed leaders like Strang.

[APJ]

Dave, does the book mention what happened to the Strangites (besides the five wives) after his death? Was there any effort to continue as a group, or did they go their separate ways?

PS interestingly (or not), I have a friend who's dad just remarried this past weekend and did so at Beaver Island (which was completely random...no connection to the area and lives several hours away).

[Bookslinger]

The Strangites still exist.

I can't find it on their website now, but a couple years ago, part of the story of their group stated how the ones who followed BY out west were the "uneducated and poor" and those who stayed in Nauvoo were the educated and prosperous.

[Stephen M (Ethesis)]

I see the title of this entry and I keep thinking of [edited] ... guess I should be thinking Kipling instead.

[john f.]

weird to see a comment by ethesis edited!

Fascinating stuff about the Strangites. I don't see the credibility of the Three tarnished by association with the Strangites. Any damage to their credibility comes from their disassociation with the Prophet Joseph Smith.

As for their relationship to the Strangites and the effect of that on their testimony about the Golden Plates and the Angel and other artifacts -- well, the Three testified that they literally saw and handled these items. I am not aware they made the same claims about any Strangite items.

So, ed, how do you think association with Strangites would affect their credibility about their statement of fact as to what they saw and handled physically? I'm not seeing the "credibility" connection here. It's like saying that because I believe Brigham Young was a prophet, my statement about whether I saw and touched my uncle's set of missionary scriptures comes into question.

[Bookslinger]

Did the three actually touch any items? According to the testimonies in the Book of Mormon, the eight touched ("hefted") the plates in a non-glorious setting without any heavenly beings present. The three saw the plates and other artifacts in a glorious setting, as presented by an angel, but don't mention touching any of the items.

[Dave]

Bookslinger, according to the statement printed in the Book of Mormon over the names of eight men (four Whitmers, three Smiths, and a Page): "[A]nd as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands." That's actually a little stronger than "hefted," since you can "heft" something while it's inside a box or covered with a sheet.

[Naiah]

I was going to point out, as Bookslinger did, that the Strangites are still kicking around. Last time I checked in, they were claiming between 75-300 members (depending on which source you checked). Back in Kirtland, where I used to live, there are still a few of the various splinter groups practicing.

Of course, there's the Community of Christ (previously known as the RLDS). There's also another group, the Church of Christ, some members of which I met the night before their annual 'washing of the feet' that the then-RLDS still allowed them to have in the temple. They were an interesting group--still believed in the Book of Mormon as scripture, but felt that somewhere along the way (my guess is during the Safety Society crisis) Joseph lost his prophetic gift.

What I would *love* to see come to print would be the definitive study of all restorationist churches. I once read that there are over 200 groups that all claim Joseph Smith and the restoration of their roots. It could be as simple as an encyclopedic format listing how, when, and why they broke from the main body of saints, as well as their leadership heirarchy since.

(I have even asked FLDS friends, and I just can't get their order of succession straight, only that the break with us goes back to John Taylor/Wilford Woodruff, for obvious reasons.)

[APJ]

Naiah, thanks for that (although I'm not sure if you were directly responding to comment 4). What are some of the sources you refer to as to the Strangites and some of the other restorationist churches you mention? Anything you've found particularly useful, beyond a Google search?

[Naiah]

Alas, APJ, I don't even have that much. (I suddenly find myself trying to think of search items that would not land me pages and pages of anti-mormon nonsense; nothing comes to mind.)

I realize what a faux-pas it is in the academia-driven 'nacle, but I simply have my own experiences with people. When I was looking to be baptized LDS in 1995, someone pointed me at the Strangites, and, after my baptism, living in Kirtland and being a bit of a church history geek, you can't miss the CoC(RLDS). I met the sisters from the Church of Christ when I was a Tupperware lady. Another Tware lady got sick, and I filled in for her. The sister hosting the party had a scripture from Alma on the wall, and the conversation started from there. I knew about their ordinance because they were all talking about having had pedicures that day before "everyone saw their feet" the next day. How could I not ask? :)

So, given that my experience and scope of thought has been limited to first hand chance encounters, you can see why I'd hunger for nice, authoritative, well-researched, comprehensive book.

As for something useful (or at least of interest), there's a page on wikipedia (ahhhh, wikipedia) that you might find handy. Look up "Restorationism." I created the "Restorationist" page, which now redirects to the Restorationism entry, on a whim some time ago, with just one paragraph differentiating the LDS and it's spin-offs from 'Protestants.' In the ensuing time, someone has taken it and run with it, and done it more than justice.