We’re talking Mormon fundamentalism! Joseph Musser was the first fundamentalist Mormon who wrote down the unique theology (besides polygamy) that they believe. Dr. Cristina Rosetti has written a biography of this man and explains the founding members of the earliest fundamentalist communities. Check out our conversation…
Don’t miss our other conversations with Cristina: https://gospeltangents.com/people/cristina-rosetti/
Copyright © 2024
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission
Retirement from Mormon Studies?
GT 01:21 Welcome to Gospel Tangents. I’m excited to have an amazing historian who I found out yesterday said she was retiring. Go ahead and tell us who you are and where are you retiring from?
Cristina 01:36 My name is Cristina Rosetti and I am an assistant professor at Utah Tech University. Next week is my last week as an assistant professor of humanities.
GT 01:51 Wow. People are going to want to know why.
Cristina 01:54 I have finals week, but then I’m retiring.
GT 01:58 Yeah. Why are you retiring, being such a young person?
Cristina 02:02 I know, I’m retiring at 34. I’m getting married and moving to Canada.
GT 02:07 Wow. Donald Trump was just too much for you, or Joe Biden? Which one?
Cristina 02:11 I mean, last time I was on with you, I think I mentioned that. I had a boyfriend. Well, now I have a fiancé. It’s the same person. We got engaged in October and I’m jumping ship, moving to Quebec. There are no Mormons anywhere near where I’m going to be.
GT 02:38 All my Quebec listeners…
Cristina 02:41 Where are you at? Because I’ve never seen you. I’ve been to Quebec now, and I’ve yet to see a Mormon. There were Jehovah’s Witness missionaries that came to the rectory once when I was there.
GT 02:53 I’ll get your address. We’ll send them your way. (Chuckling)
Cristina 02:56 We’re fine, thank you. I mean, there’s no Mormons, and, yeah, I’m retiring. It’s been really interesting to tell people that, to say the least. I mean, I have talked to Jedediah Rogers at the University of Utah Press a bit. We had been in long-standing talks on doing some kind of history of Mormon fundamentalism. Maybe that’ll happen. But other than that…
GT 03:35 I’m going to twist your arm to keep you keep you in here. You can still study Mormon history, even as a retired professor.
Cristina 03:42 I can. I can. But will I?
GT 03:47 I know. We’ll give you a year off and then you’ll just be like, oh, I miss it.
Cristina 03:52 I just have so much gardening to do.
GT 03:54 Okay.
Cristina 03:57 Yeah, it is an interest. I mean, I was an assistant professor only for two years. The job market’s rough as everyone who’s ever done it knows. I was very lucky. I want to emphasize I was very lucky to get a tenure track position. I don’t in any way take that for granted. I wouldn’t have left had it not been, like I would have never gone back on the job market. I never would have done that again. But I met a guy who I love dearly, and he’s the best person I know. So I’m leaving.
GT 04:31 Well, very good. It’s an interfaith marriage. Right? Because you’re Catholic and he’s an Anglican.
Cristina 04:37 He is Anglican. Yeah, he’s a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada,
GT 04:41 You’re getting married in the Anglican Church.
Cristina 04:43 We are. The Anglican Bishop of Quebec is doing our wedding at one of his parishes. My fiancé has several parishes in Quebec and so we are getting married in one of his parishes. We did the paperwork, so it is valid, and it will be valid in the eyes of Rome, which was its own experience, so it is…
GT 05:09 Are they ever going to get back together and just kick out King Henry VIII?
Cristina 05:13 Probably not. I have joked many times that I feel like I am the unification of Western Christianity. That’s not true. I mean, there’s a lot of similarities. There’s a lot of differences, of course. But Rome has something called the ordinariate, which is a path for Anglican priests to come back and become Catholic priests, even if they’re married. So yes, there are married Catholic priests that were former Anglicans. That is kind of a gesture toward reunification, but it is still someone becoming Catholic, not communion. It’s not like an act of communion. So, unlikely, but I mean, I’m staying Catholic. No spoilers on that. I’m not changing my religion.
GT 05:59 There’s not a lot of differences between Anglicans and Catholics are there?
Cristina 06:03 Well, you know, we believe in the pope, Rick.
GT 06:06 Well, besides that, other than that?
Cristina 06:17 There are differences. The average person probably wouldn’t care what those differences are. But there are differences
Joseph Musser Introduction
GT 06:24 All right. Well, we talked about Catholicism last time. But the reason we’re here is to talk about your new book. So tell us about it. Who is he?
Cristina 06:37 It is a book in a series that University of Illinois did. They’re called Introductions to Mormon Thought. They’re very short books, and they highlight the intellectual contribution of significant Mormon figures. Would you believe, we’ve got a fundamentalist in there.
GT 06:56 I know. A lot of my listeners are going to be like, he’s not a true Mormon. Or maybe he is because we’re not anymore.
Cristina 07:03 I mean, he took his Mormonism to an 11. Like, he’s a Mormon. It even says it on the book cover. That’s funny story. The book was supposed to be called “Joseph White Musser: a Mormon Prophet.” Would you guess that reviewer number two didn’t like that. So, the book is called [Joseph White Musser:] A Mormon Fundamentalist. I was really grateful that Joe Spencer and Matthew Bowman, who edit the volume, they were interested in having an actual diverse range of Mormons and Mormon contributors. I wrote a proposal for it, and they thought that it counted. So, we got it. I do think that he is one of the great intellectual contributors of the 20th century. I, hopefully, successfully, make the argument in the book that I think that the LDS Church really shaped itself in the 20th century in light of what he was doing in his own movement.
GT 08:10 Well, this has been fun. We’ve been here in St. George. I guess I just got here yesterday, but we had a conference. I wanted to come to more of it, but I couldn’t. But it was fun sitting down last night with you and Bryan Buchanan, and a few other people. Bryan said to me, “People need to understand that fundamentalist Mormon history is fascinating.”
Cristina 08:36 It is. I think a lot of people view it as that Mormon Studies is the study of the LDS Church. Then there’s all these random other people. That’s not true. All the traditions helped shape each other and the LDS Church developed itself as modern Mormonism in light of these people. These people, you can’t be a fundamentalist, if there’s nothing you’re opposing. These traditions needed each other. So, I hope people will realize that. Bryan is right.
GT 09:06 Yes, I’m going to have to get Bryan on because I should have recorded last night’s conversation because it was fascinating.
RLDS Succession/Kirtland Temple
GT 09:15 I was proud, because I can name all six RLDS prophets, in order.
Cristina 09:25 Ooh. I can’t do that. Let’s see it.
GT 09:27 So, Joseph Smith, III. I guess we should, technically Joseph Smith.
Cristina 09:31 [Singing] Latter day prophets are, number one…(Singing)
GT 09:33 Yeah, I can’t do that. I still can’t do that. Actually, I think I can do that for the LDS Church. But it’s harder for me because I don’t know the song.
Cristina 09:43 Someone didn’t go to Primary.
GT 09:45 I know. Well, I did. It’s just that song came out–it’s newer than me. I’m too old. So Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith, III. Is it Israel or Fred? I think it’s Israel and then Fred[1] and then Wallace and then Wallace. Then Grant McMurray, and Stephen Veasey and then coming up next April, drumroll please, Stassi Cramm.
Cristina 10:16 Stassi, she’s not…
GT 10:19 She’s not currently [prophet] She’s Prophet-Designate.
Cristina 10:23 Interesting
GT 10:24 Steve Veasey is still [prophet.] After the Kirtland Temple sale, unlike our church, I can’t imagine our Prophet sitting down, if the roles were reversed. But the First Presidency and Stassi’s a member of the First Presidency, sat down, along with the Presiding Bishopric and they were like, this is why we sold the Kirtland Temple. Then they took questions. I even asked two, and they answered those.
Cristina 10:53 So, it was actually a real Q & A.
GT 10:56 A real Q & A.
Cristina 10:56 Not pre-recorded questions.
GT 10:58 Yeah. So I asked a couple questions. One of them was, because in the press release, I hadn’t heard that there’s just a 15-year agreement where Community of Christ can still hold meetings in the Kirtland temple.
Cristina 11:16 What’s going to happen after that?
GT 11:17 Exactly. That was my question. They were like, “Well, we hope they’ll keep doing it.”
Cristina 11:22 After that, is it going to be gutted and turned into, like Nauvoo, like a modern temple?
GT 11:26 That was another question. I mean, it will depend on who’s the prophet in 15 years. They can do whatever they want. But the current thing is, well, we can do whatever we want in 15 years. But most people are saying we want to keep it the way it is. So, I hope that happens.
Cristina 11:48 Not that anyone’s asking my opinion on what should happen to Kirtland historic sites.
GT 11:52 That’s alright, I counseled the pope last time. So we’re good.
Cristina 11:54 I mean, we all do it. In my mind, I counsel the pope all the time, too. In my mind, it seems like it might be interesting to build a modern Kirtland Temple and use the old one as adjacent to the visitor center to show people the history and then there’s also an active temple near it in the complex or in the vicinity or in the historic area.
GT 12:25 They should have done that with Nauvoo. That would have been nice. They should have had two Nauvoo temples. Because originally there were supposed to be 24.
Cristina 12:32 Do you want them to look the same?
GT 12:34 The outside can look the same. The inside, I think, because the original Nauvoo Temple was much like Kirtland, only bigger. They had the two identical floors with the pulpits on each end. Then I don’t remember what was on the third floor. It was probably just like Kirtland, I think.
Cristina 12:55 Also, I had heard that in Nauvoo they initially wanted, or in community discussions, there was a hope that they could keep the first floor for community use, like how it would have been when it was originally planned. That didn’t work.
GT 13:13 So yeah, they didn’t ask my opinion, either.
Cristina 13:15 Yeah, it’s weird that they didn’t consult us.
GT 13:17 I know! Can you imagine? (Chuckling)
Cristina 13:19 Weird, me who knows zero about Kirtland or Nauvoo, actually.
GT 13:27 You were there for Sunstone Kirtland, weren’t you?
Cristina 13:30 I was. I also led a tour of historic Nauvoo. I know about the Navajo period because of polygamy. But I actually don’t know a whole lot about the Kirtland period. I mean, I know what I’m about. I know what I know.
GT 13:47 Go watch my Mark Staker interview.
Cristina 13:49 When I think of Mormonism, Mormonism is 1909 to 1954.
GT 13:52 (Chuckling)
Cristina 13:54 That’s the Mormons.
GT 13:55 Is that Joseph Musser’s basic timeframe?
Cristina 13:58 It’s his first disciplinary hearing until he dies.
GT 14:01 Okay.
Cristina 14:05 Yeah, but I don’t know a lot about the Kirtland period. I think that’s because, when I imagine the Kirtland period, it is so different from the Nauvoo, period, certainly. I mean, everyone agrees with that. In the Kirtland period, it still looked tangentially like the Methodists with a temple.
GT 14:22 Okay.
Cristina 14:24 It looked very mainline in its whole vibe. And then in Nauvoo, it becomes Mormonism.
GT 14:30 Modern Mormonism.
Cristina 14:31 It becomes its own distinct, interesting, new thing. It comes into itself in Nauvoo.
GT 14:39 Yeah, except for in Kirtland, there was way more speaking in tongues, and the Methodists didn’t do that.
Cristina 14:46 That is true. That is true. And it is also interesting that Mormons don’t do that now. I’m sure there are some Mormons that do.
GT 14:52 Well, there are some offshoots that do it.
Cristina 14:54 Sure. And I’m sure there is some Mormon person listening, maybe, I don’t know, that is doing that.
GT 15:03 Oh, I don’t speak in tongues.
Cristina 15:05 I don’t know your life. But it’s not a substantive part of the tradition anymore. Mormonism isn’t a charismatic tradition.
GT 15:13 You have to go to Denver Snuffer, or Church of Christ (Temple Lot), or the Bickertonites still do quite a bit. Yeah.
Cristina 15:20 The Bickertonites, I think, are so interesting. They’re the third biggest, and I don’t think people realize that, which is wild. But yeah, Kirtland also had routine foot-washing. And that’s all but [vanished. It is] not as prevalent.
Lorin Woolley & Beginning of Fundamentalism
GT 15:39 Right. Well, cool. Well, let’s jump into your book. How did you pick Joseph Musser to be the biographer of?
Cristina 15:50 Oh, there were a couple things. He has been long standingly referred to as the father of the Mormon fundamentalist movement. In the history of Mormon fundamentalism, when we imagine when it begins–should I just tell the story of how it starts?
GT 16:09 Yeah. Although I got a new perspective from Bryan Buchanan last night. So, we’ll see if you match.
Cristina 16:15 As far as Mormon Fundamentalism, Bryan and I are editing his diaries. Signature Books will be publishing them.
GT 16:23 So, you’re not done yet. Good.
Cristina 16:28 It’s almost done. The fact that we have his diaries is a big sell, to be able to write a book. He wrote a lot. Really formation of the fundamentalist movement, he really developed the framework for it. Because of that, it was the logical choice. But Mormon Fundamentalism really begins in the 1920s, with a bunch of men who’ve been excommunicated or disciplined or whatever.
GT 16:55 So, it doesn’t go back to 1886, like everybody says, like the fundamentalists say.
Cristina 17:00 Well, we can tell the 1886 story. In1886, John Taylor is in hiding. Of course he is, because the federal government, the feds are going and looking for him and whatever.
GT 17:11 They’re coming down hard on polygamy.
Cristina 17:13 They’re coming down hard on polygamy. I mean, fair, because they’re not stopping. And so, in 1886, September 27, he’s in hiding in Centerville. There’s this big question of what are we going to do? So, he decides to retreat to his room to pray, as one does. A man who later becomes a foundational figure in the fundamentalist movement, Lorin C. Woolley, he ends up recounting that a light shone from underneath the door. In the morning, John Taylor comes out. Part of the story is he levitated, my favorite part. [He said] that he was met by the resurrected Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, and they told him that eternal covenants and eternal ordinances cannot be revoked. Now, importantly, the revelation doesn’t say anything about polygamy. It just says eternal ordinances and covenants cannot be revoked.
GT 18:08 But that’s the implication.
Cristina 18:09 That means polygamy. I mean, he’s praying about polygamy, so it means polygamy. The revelation happened. That happened. We know it happened, because we have it in John Taylor’s hand. He was in Centerville. John Taylor was ride or die for polygamy. So, we have many revelations that sound similar. It’s not like this was some weird fringe thing for John Taylor. That happened.
Cristina 18:32 What might not have happened is in 1921, Lorin Woolley is meeting with a group of ragtag, excommunicated, disciplined, disenfranchised people. He’s meeting in the home of Nathaniel Baldwin, the inventor of headphones. He starts telling them that 1886 story. That story is really compelling to a lot of people who are disenfranchised. Joseph Musser was there that day. He then follows it up with a second part of the story by saying not only was there a revelation, I was ordained to continue the practice. He tells the story.
GT 19:09 So, he sticks himself back in the story.
Cristina 19:11 Lorin Woolley starts telling people that not only was there a revelation, that John Taylor ordained men to keep the principle alive. Lorin Woolley frames it by saying that not a generation will pass without a child born out of the principle of plural marriage. So the veering away between how most historians view it and how very faithful perspective would be, is that universally everyone acknowledges that John Taylor wrote a revelation, whether you think it’s from God, whatever. But a Revelation was written. We know that. Whether or not ordinations happened in 1886 is a faith claim. Why do I say that? We don’t have contemporary evidence for it, and no one talks about it until the 1920s. It just disappears. But in the 1920s, Lorin Woolley starts talking about this.
GT 19:58 There’s a 35-year gap.
Cristina 20:00 That’s substantial. The other problem is Lorin Woolley has a lot of stories. Lorin Woolley, he worked in special services. He gave Roosevelt his endowment. There’s just a lot of…
GT 20:20 Teddy Roosevelt?
Cristina 20:20 There’s a lot of stories.
GT 20:22 Is it Teddy?
Cristina 20:23 Was it Teddy Roosevelt?
GT 20:24 I think so. Because FDR would have been later.
Cristina 20:28 Yeah, I don’t remember who it was. He gives some people their endowments. He has a lot of ideas about the world. And so it makes it complicated.
GT 20:40 Teddy was pretty nice to Mormons, especially during the Reed Smoot hearings.
Cristina 20:44 Sure. But he also says that he ascended, and now he’s living the principle eternally.
GT 20:49 That Teddy is?
Cristina 20:51 Yeah, There’s a whole [story.] But Lorin Woolley has a lot of stories. The other problem with Lorin Woolley, that’s maybe a bigger problem is Lorin Woolley doesn’t have a diary. So, we have no idea what happened at any point. John Taylor, we don’t have his diary saying he ordained someone. That would be a wild ride. The George Q. Cannon diaries, George Q Cannon, supposedly, was there during this ordination. The George Q. Cannon diaries are now available. You turn to September 27, 1886.
GT 21:17 It’s not there.
Cristina 21:18 No. I mean, would Georgia Q. Cannon have done some rogue ordinations? Probably not. Probably not. But for all these reasons…
GT 21:27 Well, Joseph F. Smith would have been in that meeting, according to Woolley. Right?
Cristina 21:34 I mean, Joseph F. Smith believed in polygamy, don’t get me wrong. He had a child with one of his plural wives during the Smoot hearings. So, it’s not like he was opposed to continuing the practice of polygamy. But were there rogue ordinations? I mean, that’s really where this story diverges from. And it’s fine. I mean, people can diverge.
GT 21:54 So, fundamentalists are going to say, yes. Historians are going to say no.
Cristina 21:57 Yes. There are some fundamentalists that trace their priesthood to other people, to other groups, but the Woolleyite group, the Council of Friends group, is really the biggest of the claims to the fundamentalist story.
{End of Part 1}
[1] It is Fred, then Israel.
Copyright © 2024
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:59 — 22.0MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
