Now on the other hand, and this suits Tullidge’s eqivocating nature perfectly, you have other women, like Fanny Stenhouse, who was writing exposes about polygamy and how it was destroying the fabric of society. I found nothing directly anti-Mormon about the book, even though Tullidge felt strongly that Joseph Smith’s mother and brother made a mistake in not making the journey out west to lay claim as the rightful leaders of the LDS Church, just subtle musings about the difference between gentile and Mormon women, and not judging at all, but obviously trying to communicate to the Mormon Elders that these women were not merely subserviant wives to do their bidding, but rather STRONG women who could think for themselves, and rather than standing idly by while their “better halves” ruled over them, they took charge of their lives and fully participated in the Mormon mission and vision. What Tullidge is saying is, hey, there is a hidden potential here that if unleashed, is going to transform society, not just gentile society, but Mormon society as well. And he saw this as the answer to the Mormon question, the question the editors in the eastern magazines wanted Tullidge to write about. Tullidge is saying that Mormon women themselves will decide their own destiny, and that may not seem very profound, but it is rather all the things he says about Mormon women leading up to his conclusion that is of real import here, and why there have been so many reprints of the book, and why it remains relevant today. In a sense, Tullidge captured the popular imagination, because some of the issues are still cogent today, and his viewpoints fascinate both Mormons and non-Mormons alike.

So, Tullidge was, in my opinion, a very early champion of women’s rights, without being overtly political about it (he was mindful of his audience), and this was a very gutsy stance to take in the midst of an entrenched patriarchal society. Sure, at times, especially in the early days, Tullidge was an unabashed Mormon propagandist and religious zealot. His prose was full of exalted and melodramatic hyperbole that make much of his writing unpalatable, but he was at his best as a social commentator and chronicler of the times, and he saw history in the making. He wanted to see Mormon society in “accord with the rest of the nation”, and this was common theme in all of his work. More than any of his other books, Tullidge struck an admirable tone here, and established himself once and for all as a devout feminist. I believe that when he uses the term “apostolic” in regards to women, he is saying, hey, look at what the Catholics and the Prostestants did to women-they sidelined them. We Mormons aren’t bound by old paternalistic ideaologies, we can be part of the movement to free women from their bonds, and let them realize their potential as advocates of the Mormon gospel… let them baptize too and spread the word of God, in the sense that when Jesus died, Mary Magdalene was herself a disciple, even though the later Christian church repudiated her. You see, Tullidge always saw Mormonism as a chance to get it right… to found an empire in the West with universal utopian ideals, that would be a shining example, a beacon of light to the rest of world. This was the promise, as his younger brother John Tullidge Jr., said, that was made to him back in England by the Mormon missionaires. The moment of apostasy for Edward came while he was working in the Church Historian’s Office, and he read some of the journals of the Apostle of Twelve about the heavenly intecession that ordained Brigham Young as the leader of the Church. He wasn’t buying it, and he believed that some bore false testimony, and Woodruff’s account even corroborated this. It shook his faith. He involved himself in the Godbeite protest, became involved in the Reformed LDS church, traded barbs with the Priesthood that brought about his eventual ruin, succumbed to bouts of madness and alcoholism, and died in obscurity, his own history of Salt Lake City eclisped by Orson F. Whitney’s.

But what a legacy Tullidge left behind! Plays, magazines, histories of the theatre, and mining, and of the Apostles, Brigham Young, his contribution to early Mormon history, and to the development of Utah and the West, is incalculable! Tullidge remains today controversial, especially among Mormons, but one of the most widely quoted historians in early Mormon affairs. A Google on his name will return over ten thousands hits. His brother John knew someday that Tullidge’s sacrifice and toil would pay off. He was a force, as was the entire Tullidge family. Today the hymns of Edward Tullidge’s father, John Elliott Tullidge, are still being sung in the Temples; his brother’s paintings adorn the walls of Utah Museums, and even have graced the offices of the Treasury of the United States. I’d say they’ve endured… and despite the stygma of Godbeism and the backlash of standing up to Brigham Young’s authoritarian rule, and seeing their friends excommunicated, their artistic achievements and contributions still resound today. As was noted in this blog, the LDS Church has disavowed many of the controversial early Church doctrines as espoused by Brigham Young and some of his followers,and Mormonism is now mainstream. So we can discuss the past without rancor, and respect the views of others regarding a very fascinating period of American history.

Your assertion that things were more clear in the 1880′s betray a lack of context on your part.

As to the term “apostle,” I do suggest, as Taysom and BiV note, a “literal reading.”

It also seems to me that Joseph Smith, Jr. might have been unhappy if anyone had described his revelations as murky. After all, he saw himself as the restorer of “plain and precious truths.”

In fact, until the seventies we used to feel superior to other faiths for the simplicity of Mormon doctrine. It seems to me that the demise of the gospel’s simplicity remains the legacy of New Mormon History to Mormon theology.

Today, the reconciliation of religious claims with empirical fact is anything but simple. In the 1880s things were more, not less, straightforward than today.

Nonetheless, you may well be right that Tullich used the term apostolic differently. You might be able to persuade me with a reasonable alternative reading.

In the absence of an alternative interpretation, however, your claim remains somewhat of a leap. Without an alternative reading and textual evidence, it is even possible that your claim is a greater anachronism than a literal reading of Tullich’s text.

Right, J. The point of this post was to explore the different ways that Tullidge used “apostolic” to describe women. I have purposely avoided comparison to the modern vernacular, choosing to highlight how the word “apostle” was used in several different ways in which it is not used today. (I must, however, admit an interest in the apostolic priestly authority he connects with women and plural marriage.)

The priestly function of the temple, with its robes of the holy priesthood, fullness of the priesthood, and colloquially described high priestess is perhaps the murkiest waters to navigate. Modern readers are generally so invested in modern concepts that they fail to see how Joseph Smith often used the same words to mean different things. Women, without question receive liturgical authority in and out of the temple. The scope of that authority is dynamic with time. But to employ the modern vernacular, is generally very unhelpful.