A Mexican Missionary Takes A Plural Wife…And Breaks The News To Wife 1 in a Letter…
It’s been about a year since I first posted this (January 21). This is the first part–the missionary’s letter to his wife. Tomorrow I’ll post her response. If you remember how her response goes, don’t give it away! As it’s part of ongoing research, I’m refraining from posting the source or revealing identities. Enjoy.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
April 14,
My Darling Wife,
Last Saturday on returning from our conference in Ozumba I found your letter of Mar. 31 here I was sorry to learn of your fathers illness and the childrens colds…Bro. Snow is here attending to some land business and sends regards to your father. Bro. Pratt also came to conference and both expect to return with the company immagrants to the colony May 2.
You cant guess what I did last Sunday. Well. I married a Mexican woman. Bro Snow, Bro Snow <you will remember> counseled me to do so when he was here before, and showed me the advantage of taking my second wife here. I can hardly expect this will be pleasant news to you but as I intend leaving her in the colony when I return you will not quarrel with her Bro Snow has promised me a nice town lot there for the work I have done here in behalf of the colony. He dictated the ceremony. She is quite nice looking and evidently of a good disposition. I haven’t her picture to send you though I presume you would not care to see it. Under the circumstances I can hardly return home for 3 or 4 months and perhaps even longer; but then this can hardly make you feel bad as I imagine your desire to see me will greatly diminish after reading this. However what I have done was for a pure sense of duty and I trust you will as faith full perform your part I think I can count on you even under such circumstances. Hundreds of women have passed through greater trials than this will be in fact it ought not to be at all a trial to you, as perhaps you will never be brought in contact with her, at least for a great many years. I hope you will tell me just how you feel about it in your next. You did not seem to object to Bro. Snows advice last winter when he gave it; and I hope you will not feel bad about the matter now.
Bro. Snow sends his best respects to you ['re father] and says he remembers him well though he has not met him for a number of years. Among his most pleasant and earliest acquaintances he counts your father, and hopes he will soon recover as I told him he had been sick.
In your former letter you asked me about my taking the Jersey calf of mother. I don’t think I can though I would like to very much and I expect she has sold it before now. I cannot take care of it until I get home…
I bought me a fine set of drawing instruments to day for $2.25 to make a map of the colony to be approved by the government I don’t know when other missionaries will arrive so cant say when I will be released. Bro. Snow told me today I could go just as soon as I can be spared. He is a very reasonable and kind hearted man. In reading my letter over I see I omitted to give you the name of the happy bride. Her maiden name was Macayla Vega—it is now Perez. I expect to marry two more next week.
With much love to my darling wife and boys I remain as ever
Your affectionate husband
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
“You cant guess what I did last Sunday.”
CLASSIC
Comment by Alex — January 21, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
“I expect to marry two more next week.”
No way. Can’t wait for the wife’s response!
Comment by Randy B. — January 21, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
100% disgusted. But can’t wait for the wife’s response.
Comment by Bret — January 21, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
I’m assuming Bro. Snow is Erastus. If so, some of my favorite odd and convoluted plural marriage letters along these lines come from his own correspondence.
Comment by Alex — January 21, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
Alex, it is Erastus, and that’s interesting.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
So awkward.
But a great read!
Comment by Johnna — January 21, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
“Hundreds of women have passed through greater trials than this”
Wow.
I love how he intersperses the trivial (the cow) with the big news and he ends simply with “I expect to marry two next week.”
Comment by Joy — January 21, 2010 @ 12:45 pm
Joy, definitely, that’s pretty striking. “Oh, by the way, her name is…”
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Wow, that is the most awkward thing I’ve read in a long time.
When were these letter written?
Comment by Austin Smith — January 21, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Late 1880s.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
If you are presenting this letter as a valid transcript of an authentic document, you must give all the pertinent data, including date it was written, name of author and recipient, place it was mailed from, and the collection in which it now resides. How else are we to judge the authenticity?
Comment by Janet E. — January 21, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Stellar.
Comment by Scott B. — January 21, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
Janet, I’m not sure if you are serious or not, and I’m sure that Jared can respond himself, but he is not just some random guy. He is a responsible scholar and is sharing some redacted material from his current research. Sure, we shouldn’t cite this post in other scholarship, but we generally trust each other in these parts.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 21, 2010 @ 1:40 pm
Janet, I’m not sure how to respond other than to say, this is a blog post, not a scholarly journal submission. Somehow I thought that was self evident. If I decided to present this in a formal fashion, of course, I know how to do that. So, maybe relax a bit and enjoy[?] the exchange.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Janet E., Jared’s reputation for accuracy, scholarship and credentials are well known to most JI readers, and you can accept this letter as authentic just as well as you could if he gave a full citation. I certainly do. (I don’t blame any scholar for not posting his citations for someone else to run with, until he has made use of his finds himself.)
I wonder what spirit inspired the recipient to keep this — love letter? Not likely! Paper trail for legal action? No, too modern. What a kick!
Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 21, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Thanks, J. and Ardis.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Come on Jared, don’t you have anything better to do than make up fake 19th century letters about obscure missionary correspondence? Clearly you did not post the source because you fabricated it.
Comment by Bret — January 21, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Awkward.
Perhaps the afterthought of saying “I expect to marry two more next week” might lead to a response that says something like “I expect you will just stay there and not come home, Jersey calf and sick kids notwithstanding.”
Comment by kevinf — January 21, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
Bret, indeed, I’ve been discovered.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Wow. Whoa.
After having encountered polygamy announcements in a few formats over the past couple of years (though none quite like this. Wow.) my question is, which is the more awkward way to announce: the honeymoon letter or the months-after-the-fact in-person announcement? (Dear, thanks for all the letters while you thought I was out preaching, but I was on a honeymoon for part of that time…).
Comment by Edje Jeter — January 21, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
Erastus Snow officiated at the marriage? It’s been awhile since I’ve read anything on polygamy; was that normal practice at the time? Or just in the colonies?
I’m looking through my family history, and every single one of the polygamous marriages that I have record of happened in the Endowment House or in the St. George Temple, never outside. Well, of course, except for one performed in 1903 by Matthias Cowley, but that belongs to another discussion.
Comment by Researcher — January 21, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
This is way awesome, Jared, and with others I hope you won’t delay too long putting up the response.
We moderns often have a tough time coming to grips with the day-to-day realities of polygamy. Something like this just jams it in our faces and forces us to think about what it must have been like to practice the principle in actual fact.
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 21, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
If you’re going to sic “childrens” doesn’t “fathers” deserve one too?
Since she didn’t immediately consign the letter to the flames, I think we can assume that she read the letter many times. Perhaps some lines would have provided a bit of comfort: his statement that he did it on encouragement from Elder Snow, from a “pure sense of duty”, and his comment that she was “evidently of a good disposition.” These at least suggest that he hadn’t been out seeking female companionship, dating several of the lovely señoritas before deciding on Macayla.
And, so too the reference to the two additional wives. That their names aren’t mentioned at least allows the inference that he wasn’t quite sure yet who they’d be, again suggesting that he’s doing it because Elder Snow counseled him, and not because he’s been out courting.
Besides, after he’d already taken one plural wife, another pair makes for a difference only in degree, not in kind. As Lt. Handcock suggested, maybe a slice taken from a cut loaf won’t be missed.
Comment by Mark B. — January 21, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
Researcher, sorry, those questions will be resolved in the next part
However, to the larger issue, and without being able to cite specifics at this time, I know I’ve read of instances during the underground period and the post-manifesto period where marriages were performed outside a temple or the Endowment House. Definitely some marriages were contracted in the colonies. There is a list of what is believed to be the plural marriages that Anthony Ivins performed while in the Colonies between the mid 1890s and 1904, a list of about two dozen.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Extra-temple sealings were fairly common into the 20th century.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 21, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
Kevin, thanks, and there’s a twist to all this that I’m just dying to share…will wait until tomorrow
But your second paragraph is very well put.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Memo to husbands similarly situated: Don’t tell Wife No. 1 that Wife No. 2 is “quite nice looking.” Please.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 21, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
This is quite fascinating, Jared. In addition to the light this sheds on the harsh realities of plural marriage in practice, I wonder as well about the gendered and racial dynamics at play here.
I wonder if the author felt a special need to assure his wife of the undiscussed arrangement because he was marrying a racially-distinct woman. The most obvious instance (in my reading, anyway), is the line that others have already pointed out:
Noting her disposition could easily be interpreted as signifying any number of things. There could be veiled racism here, with the author assuring his wife (and maybe himself, too) that it would be a tolerable arrangement because in spite of her ethnic status as a Mexican, she was at least of “a good disposition.”
The gendered analysis makes sense, too, with the author commenting that only women of “a good disposition” were fit for polygamous marriages.
Most likely, all of these elements elements are at play here. I know, based on my own limited research in this area, and from conversations with you, that there is some pretty pointed and intriguing racialization at play in the 19th century Mexican mission. Can you provide any further contextualization concerning the author’s general views of women and/or the Mexicans and American Indians he encountered while a missionary? Does he ever refer to the disposition of males he preaches to or encounters?
Comment by Christopher — January 21, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Wow. Ditto to # 3: “100% disgusted. But can’t wait for the wife’s response.”
Comment by Clean Cut — January 21, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Har! Can’t wait for the next. Thanks Jared.
Comment by WVS — January 21, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Chris, I think you’re quite right about veiled racialism and gendered language. He’s about typical in his racial views and your analysis makes perfect sense. I believe he once mentions in another place how immodest Mexican women are. You’ll see the racial element play out in a more blatant way in the wife’s response.
Thanks for the excellent comment.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
#31–Ardis–lol.
On a more serious note, in addition to debating the pros and cons of this kind of polygamous practice, this also raises the issue of following “counsel” from one in authority for the sake of obedience versus thinking for yourself whether or not it’s counsel you ought to follow and seeking the spirit/personal revelation. This latter issue is still very relevant and perhaps ought to be discussed as well.
Comment by Clean Cut — January 21, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
I should have noted that traveling apostles would frequently seal couples in locations away from the council house/endowment house/temples. Sometime these were polygamist marriages, other times not. As far as I can tell these ceremonies were especially common in Arizona.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 21, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
That is an up close look at what the polygamy doctrine did to families. Really sad. It sounds like he was advised vs. commanded or “called” to the practice? I wonder what would have happened if this person chose not to participate.
Comment by Happy Lost Sheep — January 21, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
LOL. This is what you call presiding, old skool.
Mark B., I didn’t think there was another person on earth who likes Breaker Morant as much as I do.
Comment by Mark Brown — January 21, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
That was awkward enough to have been written by Ricky Gervais or Gary Shandling. Or maybe both.
Comment by SC Taysom — January 21, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Under the circumstances I can hardly return home for 3 or 4 months and perhaps even longer; but then this can hardly make you feel bad as I imagine your desire to see me will greatly diminish after reading this.
I feel sort of bad that I find everything about this letter completely hilarious.
Comment by Susan M — January 21, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
Susan, I think we all probably sort of do too. Hehe.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 4:55 pm
This is wonderful stuff. Add me to the list of those who ‘can’t wait for the response’. Thank you!
Comment by Anne (U.K) — January 21, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
Susan: I’m in the same camp as you.
I still can’t get over this line: “You cant guess what I did last Sunday.” A movie couldn’t have scripted it any better.
Thanks for sharing, Jared.
Comment by Ben — January 21, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
This letter brings a whole new meaning to the old movie title, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Great letter, thanks Jared.
Comment by Brett D. — January 21, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
I find this hilarious, partly because it’s pretty clear there is a decent-sized cultural gap between me and the people involved in these events, and also because Whoa.
This could be interpreted so many ways.
Like many readers, I can’t wait to read the wife’s reply. So I made one up:
Comment by Ben Pratt — January 21, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
So funny! From the “can’t guess what I did…” to the “I’ll probably marry two more…”
Is it wrong that I hope she replies that she’s married another man and will be married to two more by the time he comes home?
The heartache behind the letter is unmistakeable…he is too socially inept to really communicate his love of his first wife and his knowledge of how this will devistate her. I’d love to see an example of a “good way” to share the news to wife #1 that you’ve already married wife #2…
Why don’t mormon’s have a word for OY? We sure have the situations for it…
Does he even speak spanish? Have he and wife #2 even said two words to each other?
Comment by britt — January 21, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
Britt, sorry, what’s OY? I’m sure its obvious, but I’m blanking.
Also, by this time this missionary had a good control of the language.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
Oy, Jared — you have not spent time enough visiting Yiddish theater.
(It’s the verbal equivalent of slapping your forehead in disbelief and dismay.)
Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 21, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
When grilled by his wife he’ll just respond, “we were operating under rule .303! I was forced to marry her under rule .303!”
(sorry, that was for #39)
Comment by Alex — January 21, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
Good one, Alex.
“And a (wo)man’s foes shall be they of [her] own household.”
Comment by Mark Brown — January 21, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Yeah, Mark Brown, I’ll confess. Since 1981, when I first saw it.
And props to Alex for yet another reference!
But the grand prize to Mark Brown for a perfect storm of scripture and Breaker Morant.
Maybe when the letter writer approaches the house, his last words will be “Shoot straight, ye b******ds. Don’t make a mess of it.”
(Apologies to Jared for letting Harry Harboard Morant and company take over this thread.)
Comment by Mark B. — January 21, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
Breaker Morant! This post keeps getting better. Yes!
Comment by SC Taysom — January 21, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
Please guys, no limericks.
Comment by Mark Brown — January 21, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
Out of sight is out of mind apparently. I suppose this could be argued to be true to a certain degree, but wow: pretty poor comfort I’d say!
Comment by Tod Robbins — January 21, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
I’m not well read on polygamy and have what may be a rookie question: I always read D&C 132:61 to require the permission of the first wife to marry another (with the exception in 132:64-65). Is this an incorrect reading or did it just not occur in practice?
Comment by Craig M. — January 21, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
Craig, Joseph Smith didn’t even particularly follow that policy. While first wife permission wasn’t uncommon it also wasn’t nearly universal.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 21, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
Oh, haha. Like I said, I thought it would be obvious. It just looked like an acronym and I was racking my brain to figure out what it was
#52, No worries, hehe.
#56, what Stapley said.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
This has really piqued my interest in your blog!
I am, admittedly, ignorant of polygamist history and practices- though I’m now interested in reading any testimonies by participant women. At first read I’m appalled. But no more than I am by gendered language when used in the workplace or when people choose to include “obey” in their marital vows.
After a second read, I’m conflicted. I won’t wax philosophical on the current state of feminism but, suffice it to say, the honesty and respect in the letter is admirable considering the societal importance placed on women in the 1880s. Or, to be fair, today.
Great Read Jared!
Comment by Sara Flores — January 21, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
Love the letter, but I am confused….
Weren’t the Mexican colonies pretty much established as a safe haven for the practice of polygamy? So would it really be surprising for a man serving in Mexico to attach himself to some plural wives?
Speaking as a descendant of Colonial Juarez polygamy….
Comment by ESO — January 21, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
Thanks J. I knew that Joseph Smith wasn’t under the restriction, but thought it may have still been in force for others. An uncomfortable read.
Comment by Craig M. — January 21, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
The following may be sociologically relevant – an entry from my new catalog which comes out on Monday. I do not have ready access to the Smoot hearing volumes, but perhaps someone here (Ardis? Jared?) can qualify or contextualize the testimony selection I quote below from the item . . .
MORMON CHIEFS CONFESS. Admit under oath that they are living in violation of the laws of the land and the laws of God. [caption title]. [New York City: Printed and distributed by Hans P. Freece, Attorney at Law, 35 Wall Street], n.d. (1905?).
22.4 X 14.8 cm. Broadsheet (one leaf printed front and back). Horizontal folds; starting at edges of center fold.
NOT IN FLAKE, which reports an alternate title in a unique copy held by the Church in Salt Lake City and saying “1905?” [Flake 5520b]. OCLC locates one copy of the version now offered here, preserved at Brigham Young University. Excerpts from testimony taken at the Reed Smoot hearings. The text is shocking enough, particularly B. H. Roberts’ matter-of-fact statement that he married his third wife secretly without any witness but for the officiator, Daniel H. Wells . . .
I have quoted this as presented in the broadsheet (without my removing anything in between passages). The broadsheet contains a bit more Roberts testimony (both before and after this selection), but of the same tenor.
Comment by Rick Grunder — January 21, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
ESO, this missionary was in teh MExican Mission which was in and around Mexico City and began 6 years before the Mormon COlonies in Chihuahua up North.
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
Sorry, taking notes at the Nibley lecture…be back in a few…
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
Sara,
Annie Tanner’s autobiography A Mormon Mother is widely assigned in classes in universities that deal with polygamy. It’s a faithful and frank personal narrative of a polygamous wife. It’s book length, but an important work and if the link provided works, it’s free online. I know you’re a reader, so no problem for you
Comment by Jared T — January 21, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
You know exactly what will happen to you if you send me a letter just like this!!…..
Comment by Aileen T. — January 22, 2010 @ 12:34 am
Haha, yep, yes I do.
Rick, thanks for that excerpt. That’s quite the situation for all parties involved.
Comment by Jared T — January 22, 2010 @ 12:51 am
She’ll post it on JI and we’ll all laugh at you.
Comment by Steve Fleming — January 22, 2010 @ 1:10 am
Great post, Jared.
Comment by Steve Fleming — January 22, 2010 @ 1:53 am
Thanks, Steve.
Comment by Jared T — January 22, 2010 @ 2:24 am
That you have the wife’s answer is awesome. Can’t wait.
Comment by Michelle Glauser — January 22, 2010 @ 2:27 am
Wow! Thanks for posting this. I don’t really know what else to say that has not already been said
Comment by KirkC — January 22, 2010 @ 8:26 am
Jared T–thanks for clearing that up. Looking forward to the next one.
Comment by ESO — January 22, 2010 @ 8:53 am
I hope you will tell me just how you feel about it in your next.
‘Tis a juicy pitch thrown right over the plate. It’s begging to be blasted.
Comment by Justin — January 22, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Someone above mentioned that they thought the first wife needed to consent. In D&C section 132, verse 61 states that the first wife must give her consent, but verse 65 takes it back. If the wife says “no”, “she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah….”
D&C 132: 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.
Comment by djinn — January 22, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
In regards to #77–I’ve read bit about the FLDS (“Lost Boys”) and they too, in theory, must have the wives consent. However, in reality, none of the wives want to be the one to “turn down a blessing”, despite their true feelings.
Comment by Clean Cut — January 22, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Clean Cut is correct. If you examine the accounts of women who were approached and introduced to the doctrine it was an extremely coercive situation.
More often it went something along the lines of this:
God has commanded me (either directly or via prophet) to take you as a wife. If you accept you will gain eternal blessings. If you refuse you will be damned. If you speak of the practice or this conversation the prophet’s life / my life will be in danger.
Comment by Happy Lost Sheep — January 22, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Happy, you need to revisit the data. There are some cases of pressure and/or coercion. However, these cases are generally exceptional. I would venture to say that they are a small fraction of a percent of all plural relationships. Even the sealing ritual includes language to assure lack of coercion. This isn’t an effort to justify any actions–just trying to make sure the record is accurate.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 22, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
I should have clarified, my example was of plural marriages when it was first introduced and was still being practiced in secret.
Comment by Happy Lost Sheep — January 22, 2010 @ 5:16 pm
Additional clarification from my part–I was referring to what I read in terms of the “Fundamentalists” and the Law of Sarah. While there may have been some crossover, I really feel the FLDS got it all twisted.
Comment by Clean Cut — January 22, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
Lol – how the FLDS figured out how to take a twisted doctrine and twist it even further is beyond me
Comment by Happy Lost Sheep — January 22, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
Happy, I’ll be the first one to say that the way polygamy went down in Nauvoo could be disturbing. And while I agree with you regarding the secrecy and promises of blessings, how many cases were the women threatened with damnation? [Sorry for the threadjack.]
Comment by J. Stapley — January 22, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
No one has mentioned this puzzling line:
“I can hardly expect this will be pleasant news to you but as I intend leaving her in the colony when I return you will not quarrel with her”
Was it a common practice to leave wives behind in the colony?
Comment by Clair — January 23, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
85: Yes. And more so as the anti-polygamy campaign intensified.
Comment by Edje Jeter — January 23, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Clair, good observation. Ed’s right that these incidents increased. It’s important to remember that the colonies begun basically in 1885, “only” 5 years before the Manifesto. Many families were in hiding in the United States, but often men would “hide” plural families in the Colonies. Though, I don’t remember before seeing anyone mention leaving a wife in the colonies for the purpose of keeping her from coming into contact with the first wife.
Comment by Jared T — January 23, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
I, likewise, don’t recall any mention of locating part of a polyg family in the colonies just to keep the wives apart.
Comment by Edje Jeter — January 23, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
I’m imagining a journal article: “Mormon Funerary Ritual” by Aileen T.
Comment by Edje Jeter — January 23, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Haha, good one, Ed.
Comment by Jared T — January 23, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
[...] If you haven’t read the first part of this, A Mexican Missionary Takes A Plural Wife…And Breaks The News To Wife 1 in a Letter…, read that [...]
Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » A Mexican Missionary Takes A Plural Wife, Part 2: Wife 1 Responds — January 29, 2010 @ 8:34 am