Comparative Fundamentalism

Articles:

1. The Reconstruction of the Edifice: A Glimpse at the Attempts of Christian and Jewish Fundamentalists to Reconstruct Their Figurative and Literal Temples.

2. The Role of Women within the Polygamist Enclaves of Mormon Fundamentalism

 

 

 

 

1. The Reconstruction of the Edifice: A Glimpse at the Attempts of Christian and Jewish Fundamentalists to Reconstruct Their Figurative and Literal Temples.

 

            As a direct reaction to secularism and modernity within the world society, fundamentalist groups have implemented extreme movements to reintroduce religious principles into that same milieu.  Each particular fundamentalist enclave initiated a specific response to the paucity of religion and pervasive decadence of the secular world.  While some fundamentalist responses manifested outward militancy as well as internal communal dependency, many fundamentalist groups responded to secularism by enabling the return of a messiah, millennialism, or eschatology, by physically participating in the completion of these prophecies.  Thus, the Christian fundamentalist leader Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority as well as the Jewish fundamentalist group Gush Emunim both believed in physically participating in the pre-millennial and redemption process to further the coming of their appropriate messiah.

            This post investigates the active participation of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority coalition as well as Gush Emunim in the reintroduction and reconstruction of fundamental religious principles vis-à-vis the world milieu.  With the burgeoning secularism in the United States of America and the disregard for her American Foundation Myth, the Moral Majority attempted to reconstruct the “city upon a hill” as a figurative temple to persuade the American populace to emulate the morality of the past in which the United States of America was founded.  This resurgence of righteousness would once again demonstrate the Manifest Destiny of the United States and the importance of Christian values, which in turn would help initiate the rapture, the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the millennium. 

Also, Gush Emunim initially instituted support for the Political Zionist movement as a method in which the Jewish people could physically participate in the Redemption.  In addition, this support provoked a Religious Zionist movement which further propagated the active participation within the Redemption by instigating control and entry of the Temple Mount as well as the belief for the third, literal reconstruction of the Jewish Temple.  Moreover, leaders within Gush Emunim taught it was essential to actively participate in the Redemption, for the Redemption would enable the return of the Jewish messiah.  Hence, the attempt to reconstruct the figurative and literal sanctified edifices by the fundamentalist Christian and Jewish groups not only was an attempt to purify secularism with the reemergence of religious morality, but it was also an active participation in the endeavor to further invoke the end of days, Redemption, and the glorified return of each group’s particular messiah.  

                 

 

 

 

 

The Construction of the City on a Hill as the American Foundation Myth

 

           

With the establishment of colonies on the North American continent by pilgrims in the early years of the seventeenth century, a great myth proliferated concerning the consecration of the land by God for the cultivation of his people and the opportunity to worship Him freely.  This American Foundation Myth maintains a great sense of authenticity and conviction even today.   A myth is a particular dogma armored and protected by tenacious belief.  For it is not especially relevant if a myth is actually true, but rather, the relevance lies in the support by which the myth is believed in.  Thus, the authenticity of a myth rests specifically in the creeds of the people.[1]  Within the American Foundation Myth, the authenticity of being a nation founded and established by men who were inspired and led by the Manifest Destiny of God, retains significant relevance within the outlook of the American milieu today and throughout its history, as well as in regards to America’s role within the world as being a “city upon a hill” or even a New Jerusalem.  In other words, America is the paradigm society placed on a hill or mount as a beacon for those who are below and as a bridge to God above.

            As the Puritans arrived in the New World in 1630, Governor John Winthrop established the importance as well as the significance of the opportunity the Puritans divinely received in creating a Christian society where no previous Old World influence existed.  Winthrop believed that God permitted the discovery and settlement of the American continent to construct a supreme nation or paradigm for all other nations to emulate.  Consequently, a covenant was created between God and the people of the continent, so as long as the people of this specific covenant fulfilled God’s purpose, He would bless them with prosperity.[2]  So for Winthrop, America merited as the paradigm “city upon a hill” mentioned in the Holy Bible.

            Winthrop avidly portrayed this rhetoric in biblical sermons to his Puritan followers, exemplifying their flight from tyranny to God’s deliverance and bestowment of the Promised Land.  In the TANAKH, Isaiah articulates this tyranny and flight, “Bowing before you, shall come the children of those who tormented you; prostrate at the soles of your feet shall be those who reviled you; and you shall be called ‘City of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.’”[3]  Winthrop further enveloped his pervasive rhetoric with biblical references that instituted America in being a beacon to the world and a bridge to God.  Psalms 2:1-6 reads,

 

Why do nations assemble and peoples plot vain things; kings of the earth take their stand, and regents intrigue together against the Lord and against His anointed?  ‘Let us break the cords of their yoke, shake off their ropes from us!’  He who is enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord mocks at them in anger, terrifying them in His rage, ‘But I have installed My king on Zion, My holy mountain!’[4]

 

            Finally, Winthrop correlated the dynamic role of this new society with Matthew’s rendition of the Sermon on the Mount which essentially coined the phrase in which Winthrop attributed to the Puritan society.  Jesus states,

Ye are the light of the world.  A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.  Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that ye are in the house.  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven.[5]                     

 

Accordingly with this Puritan rhetoric of the America Foundation Myth being specifically founded by God as the utopian paradigm set apart as the promised land, Winthrop constructed a figurative temple in which America stood forth as an unambiguous, sanctified site of ritual importance with moral obligations to exemplify obedience and righteousness.

            The American Foundation Myth, being the “city upon a hill,” greatly influenced the founding fathers as well as political rhetoric in both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  Even though the enlightenment ideas, which filtered in from Europe to the vigilant American revolutionaries, evolved the central religious implications of the American Foundation Myth, for the founding fathers still maintained an anchored link between the myth and God.  Instead of the American nation being a “New Jerusalem,” it became a new and free society.[6]  Also, the founding fathers disabled the connection between church and state, patterned after secular European ideas; yet, the religious ties were still evident when necessary, correlating the will of the newly formed American nation as being synonymous with the will of God.[7]  Thus, America still retained the outlook of being a “city upon a hill” and Winthrop’s rhetoric to justify certain domestic and foreign policies that may have been questionable in moral righteousness.

            For instance, as the “city upon a hill” expanded west with pioneer settlers, the Native Americans maintained the allocation of being savage and inferior products of the devil, so God granted the white Protestants the divine right to retain the land and expand the “city upon a hill.”[8]  In addition, since America enjoyed both beneficial geography and God’s divine will, America played a significant role in securing peace within a foreign perspective.  Thus America initiated foreign policy in the rescue and conversion efforts of the Cubans from the Spanish, diplomats from the Boxer rebellion in China, and the South Vietnamese from communism.[9]

            However with the affluence of intellectualism which proliferated movements such as nationalism, secularism, and Darwinism, America experienced a sense of adversity in regards to the decline of the moral implications associated with the American Foundation Myth and in being a “city upon a hill.”  In particular, Charles Darwin created a great upheaval in the institution of education with his theory of evolution and survival of the fittest.[10]  For Darwin challenged notions of divinity and advocated a sense of atheism.[11]  But, Darwinism was just another addition to the already prospering phenomena of secularism.

            After World War I, antiwar sentiments, coupled with growing secularism, grappled with the idea of the American Foundation Myth to justify America’s involvement in the war.[12]  Not only did these sentiments reflect ambivalence in regards to the American Foundation Myth being divinely instituted, it also brought rise to questions concerning America’s role in the world.[13]  Does America have the right to interfere in world affairs?  For if America was so divinely guided, why did God bestow a great depression on the American nation?  These were the questions posed after World War I which greatly advocated secularism within the United States.[14]

            In response to this rise of secularism and skepticism, specifically in regards to America’s divine foundation, the response was a polarized opposition with the organization of a Christian fundamentalist movement.  Sharon Georgianna writes, “The fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century was structured and identified as a reaction to the neglected theological affirmations of the mainline Protestant churches.”[15]  The best example of this opposition was demonstrated in the Scopes trial.  Again as Georgianna states, “The Trial exemplified the polarization of Protestantism in the 1920’s and many saw the trial in terms of the fight between cognitive domains of authority: between skepticism and faith.”[16]  Consequently, the battle between skepticism and faith continued to create a dichotomy within the American society, but with World War II on the horizon, America once again retained the responsibility in being the “city upon a hill” in both rhetoric and action.

            Again America found itself in a battle between good and evil, with the armies of God battling the armies of Hitler or the Anti-Christ.[17]  Notwithstanding, America quickly remembered itself as a nation founded by God and righteousness, subsequently, it was America’s duty to emulate this to the world.  Since World War II was so decisively won by the Allied forces, most importantly the United States, the American society saw, not only a reconstruction of the American Foundation Myth, but  a reemergence of religious morality.[18]  These sentiments continued with the American involvements in Korea and Vietnam in regards to America’s role as a protector and proselytizer of righteousness and democracy in contrast to the ever so threatening, satanic communist movement.  Also, in the times of decline, such as the civil war and the depression, these times were a direct result of secularism or more specifically America’s abandonment of religion and righteousness.[19]

            Nevertheless, as America persisted to exaggerate involvement with the war in Vietnam, a growing element of apprehension stewed in the American milieu, especially following reports of United States government officials involved with collusive fallacies.  As a consequence, again the cycle revolved in favor of the growing element of secularism and vehement doubt of the American government and her role within the world.  Furthermore, the American society, as well as government leaders in general, began to more openly demonstrate an infestation of hedonism with the adoption of the right to be unmoral.  Abortion, pornography, and excluding prayer and the teaching of religion and God in schools, for the Christian Fundamentalists, demonstrated the evolution and adaptation of the individual’s civil liberties within America.[20]  The reaction of the fundamentalists, particularly Jerry Falwell and the coalition of the Moral Majority, attempted to actively influence politics to safeguard religion and moral obligations that come from being the “city upon a hill.”

            As in the Bible, Christian fundamentalist adopted the imminence of using extreme measures as Paul had done to reach the heathen Roman masses.[21]  One of the central figures who opposed the liberal government, liberal clergy, and secularism in general was Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.  Initially, Falwell disagreed with the idea to politically influence the government, but since extreme measures deemed to be imperative, Falwell changed his ambitions.[22]  Thus Falwell participated in the formation of the Moral Majority in June of 1979 with the aims to curb all that they deemed the American people believed to be immoral.  Again as Georgianna states, “Though engagement in political activism has not been valued in the past, today it becomes apparently permissible for born-again fundamentalist to fight government policies which are perceived as immoral or against traditional values.”[23]  So, it was Falwell’s design to reemerge religion and morals into the political sphere of government.[24] 

Falwell also desired to promote morality and religion on a public level.  Thus in order to redeem America’s covenant to God as a “city upon a hill,” the Moral Majority supported the fundamental beliefs founded by the American Foundation Myth and opposed the decadence that became prevalent in society.  Falwell writes,

 

We are Americans who share moral convictions.  We are opposed to abortion, pornography, the drug epidemic, the breakdown of the traditional family, the establishment of homosexuality as an accepted alternate lifestyle, and other moral cancers that are causing our society to rot from within.  Moral Majority strongly supports a pluralistic America.  While we believe that this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian ethic by men and women who were strongly influenced by biblical moral principles, we are committed to the separation of church and state.[25]         

           

In his writings, Falwell supports that which the founding fathers instituted when forming the United States of America, namely the separation of church and state.  Falwell agrees that there is no need for a theocracy within the American government.  Albeit, he does establish that with the reemergence of morality within government, especially pertaining to its leaders, America may retain the essence of divine guidance.[26]

            Likewise, the creation of the Moral Majority and the reemergence of Christian fundamentalism within the influence of the political sphere in the 1980’s was an attempt to reconstruct the “city upon a hill.”[27]  For the American Foundation Myth still emanated influence within society and even though secularism diminished religious morality within America, there was still remnants of moral resolve that believed America still maintained the Manifest Destiny of God and exemplified a light for all others nations to see.  Since the idea or rhetoric of the “city upon a hill” implied that America stood as a beacon or light for all other nations to see, for Falwell, it was an essential tool in which to disseminate morality and religion to the world.

            This mission also played particular relevance with the rapture and second coming of Jesus Christ.  For the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill” underlined the establishment of a figurative temple, or a holy edifice to physically entice the Christian messiah, Jesus Christ, to return.  Falwell explains,

 

            If we are going to reach millions of Americans with the gospel, we must live the message we proclaim.  Personal integrity is a must in our own lives, in our families, in our churches, and in our communities.  As we stand for the truth, we must also show compassion for a lost world in need of our Savior.  Our mission is to see, not how many people we can hate, but how many we can love for Christ’s sake.  Further, we must extend our vision to evangelize the world.[28]

 

Hence, America has the opportunity to stand as a paradigm of correct worship as the “city upon a hill,” and not only influence itself, but also influence those who stand below the city and in the world.

Notwithstanding, it is also essential to note the possibility that the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill” may also exude a literal establishment of a transcendent edifice in reference to the rapture and salvation of the true believers.  John states in Revelations,

 

And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for a husband.  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away[29]              

 

Even though this scripture may be interpreted differently, such as describing the city of Enoch returning to the earth, for Falwell, it may also illustrate the descent of the true believers, after the rapture, back to the celestialized earth to live out the millennium in the presence of Christ.  In this scenario, the New Jerusalem is a physically constructed place, and if this interpretation is somewhat correct, it highlights the importance of the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill” as the New Jerusalem, for it being the literal kingdom in which will be inherited by the righteous.  Furthermore, the reconstruction of the “city upon a hill,” as the American Foundation Myth, played an essential role within Christian fundamentalism especially pertaining to Jerry Falwell as a Baptist minister and the coalition of the Moral Majority, since both their beliefs benefited from a figurative and literal reconstruction.

           

           

 

Zionism as a Tool of the Redemption and the Reconstruction of the Temple

 

           

After the destruction of the second Temple in the year 70 CE, the Jews suffered an immense Diaspora at the hands of the Romans, which dispersed the Jews all over the world.  Within Jewish theological considerations, this Diaspora inherited the idea of the Galut or exile from the Land of Israel.  The Galut explained the destruction of the Jew’s most holy edifice, as well as why God seemed to have abandoned His people.  For the Galut obviously punished the Jews for certain wickedness, or more specifically, a lack of remembering of God.

However the Galut was not the ultimate destiny for the Jews, within Jewish theology God would remember the Jews and redeem their monarchy as well as their sovereignty within the Land of Israel.  This redemption was known as the Geula and would come to pass by the hands of God, through his miracles, and through the Jewish Messiah.  In addition, the full redemption enabled the reconstruction of the third Jewish Temple, or literally, the most holy edifice.

               Notwithstanding, after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the flourishing Political Zionist movement, many conservative Jews saw Political Zionism as taking the Geula out of the hands of God and establishing a state of Israel by the hands of men.  Yet some Jewish fundamentalists maintained that Political Zionism was in fact a tool God used to initiate the Geula.  One of the main proponents of Political Zionism was Rabbi Kook and his son Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, who led the Jewish fundamentalist enclave of Gush Emunim and adamantly believed that Political Zionism was actually the hand of God initiating the Geula.  Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda proclaims,

 

            We are fortunate to have merited this, to be witnessing the word of Hashem [God] being realized in our time.  This is the way the Geula unfolds, a little at a time, and one must recognize and see the hand of Divine Providence in it.  The world has a Master.  The Creator of the Universe hasn’t abandoned us, and in the End of Days, our return to the Land is promised.  This is happening in our midst, through our actions, now.  The end of the Galut comes in this developmental way, bringing the beginnings of Geula.[30]

 

            In response to Political Zionism, Rabbi Kook preached that not only was the Geula in fact taking place in their day and age, but also required all Jews to return to Israel to specifically complete the prophecy and finalize the redemption to bring forth the messiah.  Albeit, this Zionists movement experienced adversity within the Orthodox Jewish communities and their desire to wait for the land to be prepared by the messiah.  Yet the Kooks explained that to stop the exile, all Jews would have to return to Israel.  For as Rabbi Kook taught, Am Kadosh [holy nation] and Eretz HaKadesh [holy land] were both sanctified and Jews should consider themselves in having the divine right to the land and nation of Israel.[31]

            With the horrid remains of the lingering destruction of the Holocaust, those same Orthodox Jews who opposed Political and Religious Zionism found difficulty in explaining the specific reasons and cause for such a tragedy.  The Orthodox Rabbis chose to attribute the Holocaust as a punishment for the secular trends inherited by Reformed Jews.[32]  Although Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda taught that just as “Hashem is One, the nation of Israel is one,” he maintained that the blame for the Holocaust did not rest on the Reformed Jews, it rested on the nation of Israel as a whole because they refused to participate in the Geula.[33]  In other words, the anti-Semitism that exhibited within the twentieth century directly resulted from the disobedience of the Jewish nation and was a method in which God would bring the Jews to the Land of Israel and initiate the coming of the messiah.[34]

            After World War II and the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, many Jews returned to Israel in regards to both aspects of Political and Religious Zionism.  Conversely, many Jews remained in the United States and Western Europe.  Once more, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda proclaimed that many Jews “fell in love with Galut and refused to return to Israel,” yet the exile cannot last indefinitely, so God will sever those who refuse to actively participate in the redemption and the messianic process.  For everything including Zionism and the Holocaust was part of the redemption and that was why the state of Israel was established immediately after the end of World War II.  Additionally, it was God’s will to create the state of Israel, through the hands of men, just like it is the work of men that will also bring forth the redemption.[35]

            The redemption continued to manifest signs of divinity with the immediate success of the state of Israel.  Even when Arab nations united in confrontation against Israel in the Six Days War, Israel dominated and further annexed territories and ameliorated the resolve for the redemption.  However with the victory of Jerusalem following the Six Days War, the question arose concerning the status of a newly acquired benefit, the most holy Jewish site or the Temple Mount.  Chief Army Chaplain Shlomo Goren, who was greatly influenced by the Gush Emunim leader Rabbi Kook and was friends with Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda, reveled at the new opportunities enabled by the recapture of the Temple Mount.[36]  Goren significantly understood the implications of the recapture of the Temple Mount, especially in being a part of the worldwide process of the redemption.  Therefore, the Jews must have retained the Temple Mount to enable the future construction of the third Temple by the Jewish Messiah when the prophecy would be completed.[37]

            Nonetheless, even with the recapture of the temple mount, which Shalom Freedman describes as the “Heart of Jewish longing for 2,000 years was not the Western Wall, but the Beit HaMikdash on HarBayit, the Temple on the Temple Mount,” there was immediate controversy in regards to keeping the Temple Mount under Jewish sovereignty.[38]  Defense Minister Moshe Dayan believed the center of Jewish longing was not the Temple Mount, but rather the Western Wall.  Also, Dayan attempted to alter a permanent conflict with Islam by finally restoring Islamic control over the Temple Mount and al-Aqra Mosque.  As a student of the Kook Rabbis, Goren refused to give up any of the holy places because of the sanctity of the land, but Dayan maintained the appeasement of Islam was more important than the sanctity of the land when trying to avoid war.[39]

            With the abandonment of the Temple Mount and the attainment of the Western Wall, this confusion inspired further fundamentalist movements in Israel including the movements to establish both prayers on the Temple Mount as well as the reconstruction of the Temple.[40]  As Motti Inbari writes,

 

The underlying ideology of the Movement for the Establishment of the Temple is based on the perception that historical developments form part of a Divine plan for this world, with the objective of bringing redemption.  Redemption is interpreted as the establishment of an independent political entity that acts in accordance with Jewish law, reinstating the sacrifices on the Temple Mount and rebuilding the Temple.[41]

 

Since the redemption of the land began with the Jews physically participating in ending exile to begin the redemption process in regards to the proliferation of Zionism, a growing opinion to physically participate in establishing prayer on the Temple Mount as well as the construction of the third Temple deemed possible as well.  Even though Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah vehemently prohibited the idea of Jews entering the Temple Mount, after his death, Gush Emunim demonstrated a growing opinion to in fact permit entry into the Temple Mount to pray in accordance to halakhic restrictions.[42] 

Additionally, the movement for the reconstruction of the Temple on the Temple Mount also maintained steady growth particularly pertaining to ultra-Orthodox Jews and traditional sectors.[43]  The growth of these movements linked directly to the Oslo process and demonstrated the Jewish desire for redemption. Due to the loss of Jewish control over the Temple Mount following the Six Days War, many Jews feared the same ramifications of the Oslo process, thus changes in the Jewish religious law at the requests of Jewish fundamentalists groups, such as the Gush Emunim, were instigated to enable Jews to actively participate and aspire for the reconstruction of the literal Temple, as well as in the entry and worship on the Temple Mount.[44]  This change in tradition, showed the growing sentiment to complete the redemption and bring forth the Messiah.  Consequently, the contributions of Gush Emunim, in actively participating in the redemption, may cause these growing sentiments to one day actually attempt to reconstruct the Temple.

Due to the efforts of Jewish fundamentalists groups like Gush Emunim, religious movements like Religious Zionism, as well as the contemporary growing movements to reconstruct the Temple, maintained the essence and necessity of active participation by the Jews.  Therefore in other words, the process of redemption could be initiated by the active participation of Zionists and those who are willing to adapt and change halakhic in order to facilitate the coming of the Jewish Messiah, including the physical reconstruction of the Temple on the Temple Mount.

 

Jewish Zionism and Construction of the Third Temple as a Tool for the Millennium

 

           

It is interesting to note that the Political and Religious Zionists movements of the Jews, as well as the construction of the Jewish state of Israel and the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple maintains a strict relevance within Christian fundamentalism.  The Jews play an essential role in regards to the rapture, second coming of Jesus Christ, and the millennium; for within the “End of Days” scenario as well as the Battle of Armageddon, it is vital for the Jews to establish their nation and temple. 

            As a reaction to the growing secularism within the last dispensation of time, Christian fundamentalism maintained a heighten emphasis on their premillennial-dispensationalism, particularly in the destruction of evil.[45]  However, the role of the Jews within Christian dogma became an apparatus in ensuring the second coming.  The two most inherent elements of the role of the Jews within the second coming of Christ are the establishment of a Jewish state and the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple.  In hind site, Jews retained the special role as being the chosen descendants of Abraham and in bringing forth the return of the messiah.[46]

            As ideas of Political and Religious Zionism warranted an appeal to Jews in creating a nation state, Christian fundamentalists realized the support of these movements would benefit in completing the millennial prophecies.  Thus not only was the Balfour Declaration a means to undo the Sykes-Picot Agreement between the Anglo-Franco partisans, it also revealed and underline desire to further the second coming of Christ.  This support for the creation of the Jewish state as well as support for Zionism emanated from the deeply rooted “Gentile Zionism” which derived from the British evangelical revival of the eighteenth century.  In particular, Lloyd George of the English government ascribed to this belief and thus initiated Balfour to publish his declaration to Lord Rothschild on November 2^nd of 1917.[47]  After the Balfour Declaration, as previously mentioned, many Jews returned to Israel to establish their independent state and participate in the redemption.  This fulfilled the Christian fundamentalist prophecy in regards the restoration of the state of Israel.[48]

            Next the Jews need to reconstruct the Temple on the Temple Mount, this is essential for the second coming of the Christ.  As Hal Lindsey writes,

           

            There is only one place this Temple can be built, according to the Law of Moses.  This is upon Mount Moriah.  It is there that two previous temples were built…There is one major problem barring the construction of a third Temple.  That obstacle is the second holiest place of the Moslem Faith, the Dome of the Rock.  This is believed to be built squarely in the middle of the old temple site.  Obstacle or no obstacle, it is certain that the Temple will be rebuilt.  Prophecy demands it.[49]

 

With the construction of the Temple, the great destruction of the world will get so severe all true believers will be sucked into heaven within the rapture.  The Jews will be left to defend their nation and the earth in the Battle of Armageddon where Christ will return to save them.  After the second coming of Christ and the return of the believers, the Jews will finally accept Christ and again enjoy the blessings of their heritage.[50] 

            The role of the Jews thus continues to sustain as indispensable within the second coming of Jesus Christ.  This role retains great support by Christian fundamentalism regarding Jewish Zionism, as well as in the growing Movement to Reconstruct the Temple on the Temple Mount.  Yet it still remains to be seen if the third Temple can be constructed and the prophecy fulfilled.

            In the reaction to the rise of secularism and modernity principally within the twentieth century, Christian and Jewish fundamentalist groups found it was necessary to combat this pervasive and diminishing phenomenon with a counter-offensive reaction.  Hence, fundamentalist groups like Gush Emunim as well as leaders like the Jerry Falwell and the Kooks, initiated an active participation in the reconstruction of their figurative and literal edifices with the reemergence of the Puritan rhetoric of the “city upon a hill” and initiation of the redemption which would bring about the coming of the Jewish Messiah and construction of the third Temple.  This reaction manifested the active role in which needed to take place in order to help prophecy along.  Therefore, the Christian and Jewish fundamentalist believers were no longer just going to wait for the “End of Days,” in fact, they were going to participate in its completion.      

 

Bibliography

 

Bible.  The Holy Bible.  Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1979.

 

Cobb, Jr., William W.  The American Foundation Myth in Vietnam: Reigning Paradigms and Raining Bombs.  New York: University Press of America, 1998.

 

Falwell, Jerry.  “An Agenda for the 1980’s.”  In Class Essay.  NEJS 193b.  Brandeis University, Waltham, MA,  2008.

 

Freedman, Shalom.  Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General.  Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2006.

 

Georgianna, Sharon Linzey.  The Moral Majority and Fundamentalism: Plausibility and Dissonance.  Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

 

Hawkins, Peter S.  “American Heritage,” One Nation Under God: Religion and American Culture.  New York: Routledge, 1999.

 

Inbari, Motti.  “The Oslo Accords and the Temple Mount: A Case Study-The Movement for the Establishment of the Temple.”  Hebrew Union College Annual 74, (2003), 279-323.

 

Karsh, Efraim and Inari Karsh.  Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

 

Kook, Zevi [Tzvi] Yehuda.  Torat Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1991), 140.

 

Lindsey, Hal.  The Late Great Planet Earth.  Zondervan Books, 1970.

 

Meacham, Jon.  American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.  New York: Random House, 2007.

 

Rausch, David A.  Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Anti-Semitism.  Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1993.

 

Rausch, David A.  Proto-Fundamentalism’s Attitudes Toward Zionism, 1878-1918.  Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1981.

 

Sutton, Matthew Avery.  Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.

 

TANAKH.  JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH.  Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003.

 

---

[1] William W. Cobb, Jr., The American Foundation Myth in Vietnam: Reigning Paradigms and Raining Bombs, (New York: University Press of America, 1998), 2.

[2] Cobb, 4-5.

[3] Isaiah 60:14, JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2003), 986.

[4] Psalms 2:1-6, JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH, 1413-1414.

[5] St. Matthew 5:14-16, The Holy Bible, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1979), 1193.

[6] Cobb, 6.

[7] Jon Meacham, American Gospel: God, The Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, (New York: Random House, 2007), 4-5.

[8] Cobb, 12.

[9] Cobb, 12-13.

[10] Matthew Avery Sutton, Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 237.

[11] Sutton, 237.

[12] Meacham, 17.

[13] Cobb, 23.

[14] Cobb, 22-23.

[15] Sharon Linzey Georgianna, The Moral Majority and Fundamentalism: Plausibility and Dissonance, (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), 1.

[16] Georgianna, 12.

[17] Sutton, 259.

[18] Sutton, 266.

[19] Cobb, 24-25.

[20] Georgianna, 25.

[21] David A. Rausch, Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Anti-Semitism, (Valley Forge: Trinity Press, 1993), 13.

[22] Meacham, 208-210.

[23] Georgianna, 24-26.

[24] Peter S. Hawkins, “American Heritage,” One Nation Under God: Religion and American Culture, (New York: Routledge, 1999), 258.

[25] Jerry Falwell, “An Agenda for the 1980’s,” 113.

[26] Falwell, 116.

[27] Falwell, 121.

[28] Falwell, 121.

[29] Revelations 21:2-4, The Holy Bible, 1587.

[30] Zevi Yehuda Kook, Torat Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1991), 140.

[31] Kook, 185.

[32] Kook, 260.

[33] Kook, 260.

[34] Sutton, 248-249.

[35] Kook, 272.

[36] Shalom Freedman, Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General, (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2006), 25 and 60.

[37] Freedman, 64.

[38] Freedman, 69.

[39] Freedman, 70-71.

[40] Motti Inbari, “The Oslo Accords and the Temple Mount: A Case Study-The Movement for the Establishment of the Temple,” Hebrew Union College Annual 74, (2003), 279-323.

[41] Inbari, 41.

[42] Inbari, 43 and 44.

[43] Inbari, 44.

[44] Inbari, 45.

[45] Georgianna, 3.

[46] David A. Rausch, Proto-Fundamentalism’s Attitudes Toward Zionism, 1878-1918, (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1981), 72 and 75.

[47] Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 252-254.

[48] Rausch, Proto-Fundamentalism, 83.

[49] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, (Zondervan Books), 1970.

[50] Rausch, Proto-Fundamentalism, 74.

 

2. The Role of Women within the Polygamist Enclaves of Mormon Fundamentalism

 

            The modern phenomena of fundamentalist movements within religious sects manifested generally, in the early twentieth century, an outspoken indignation and response to the rise of secularism, modernism, and assimilation within specific sectarian religious congregations.  This element of traditionalism and dependency on intrinsic fundamentals initiated a schism concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormons, which consequently created a dichotomy revolving around the assimilation and secularization of the Mormon orthodoxy within the United States by the abandonment of polygamy as a tenant of the Mormon religion.  Thus, Mormon Fundamentalism consequently resulted after the dissolution of polygamy along with the biblical law of consecration or communal subsistence living by the orthodox sect of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in order to assimilate within the sphere of religious acceptance of the United States government to reconcile statehood for Utah in the late nineteenth century.  Notwithstanding, even with the added persecutions and prosecutions by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the United States government, Mormon Fundamentalists burgeoned directly as a result of the innate role played by women within the enclave as the focal and pivotal strength of the community.  While polygamy has sometimes been associated with the enslavement of women in order for men to benefit from the decadence of sexual indulgences, not only has the women’s role manifested a central importance within the polygamist enclaves of Mormon Fundamentalism as the key element within the everlasting covenant of eternal marriage and sealing of posterity, polygamy has exuded a unique sense of prosperity for women within the enclaves which resonates appeal and growth regarding fundamentalist converts.      

            After the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, from whom the Mormons attributed the restoration of the true gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth in the modern dispensation as well as modern day prophecy and the re-emergence of the sacred priesthood authority, subtly instituted the biblical principle of polygamy in 1831 among particular high ranking families within the nascent church.  Joseph Smith later canonized the revelation for the reinstitution of polygamy in 1843, along with the principle of the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage patterned after the prophets of the biblical Old Testament in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[1]  Albeit, even though Joseph Smith canonized the revelation as a modern commandment from God, the practice of polygamy still did not warrant public implementation; so, polygamy continued to appear only within certain families in the highest echelons of the faith.  Yet within the investigation of Mormon history, some historians maintained the idea that the assassination of Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844, had significant ties to his belief in polygamy.[2]  However even though polygamy perhaps displayed malign discontent amongst Mormon critics, Joseph Smith, along with Mormons in general, received persecution for a myriad of unique theological doctrines, namely the charismatic resonance of Smith, his prophetic visions, and the discovery and translation of the keystone of the Mormon religion, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.  Consequently, the assassination of Joseph Smith in 1844 culminated from a myriad of malevolent sentiments demonstrated by incredulous, mob-like persecutions.

            After the death of Smith, the mantle of prophecy, bestowed by the authority of the council of the twelve apostles, presided with the famous Utah pioneer Brigham Young.

On August 29, 1852, Young publicly announced the implementation of polygamy within the Mormon community and its vast importance pertaining as the utmost vital and imperative saving ordinance required for the highest degree of exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom or eternal post-mortal existence being as kings and priests within the presence of the God.[3]  This key ordinance, which explained in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants functioned as the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage and enabled both polygamy and monogamy to invest the potential of receiving exaltation from the most high God, which according to Mormon theology, provided the opportunity to rule kingdoms in heaven amongst eternal posterity.  This dogma associated with the eternal marriage pertained contingently to obedience or merit associated with Mormon diligence.[4]

            However, why did the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wait twenty-one years to employ polygamy publicly within the Mormon congregation, and what significant role did women play within polygamy?  Due to the vast degree of persecution of members by eastern and mid-western townships within the United States along with the assassination of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young led the Mormons across the mid-western plains to settle a communal, agrarian society, based on the biblical law of consecration, in the federal territory of Utah.  This mass exodus provided the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the opportunity to venerate freely without the persecutions which plagued their community.

            Yet during their journey, the Mormon pioneers suffered great hardships.  Not only was the initial women to men ratio disproportionate in favor of the women, during the journey many of the men were called to serve in a Mormon military battalion along side the United States government in the war with Mexico.[5]  So the war and the unstable mortality rate during the pilgrimage to Zion only enhanced the population ratio in heavy favor of women vis-à-vis men.  Thus, from 1844 to 1852, Young found an undeniable dilemma concerning an exponential element of unmarried women, widows, and orphaned children that were unable to maintain socioeconomic stability; also, these members were unable to proliferate or procreate within the new Mormon Salt Lake City community or enjoy the potential opportunity to achieve exaltation within the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage.[6]  Hence, polygamy granted an over dominant element of women a chance to marry within the everlasting covenant as well as eliminated social taboos and provided extra economic stability to women and orphaned children.[7]

Accordingly, polygamy never manifested reasons of sexual indulgence for men.  In fact, historians and sociologists have maintained arguments of quite the opposite result within the phenomena, that polygamy has manifested more benefits for women rather than men.[8]  Within the polygamist element of the mid-nineteenth century, many women enjoyed benefits synonymous with those who maintained polygamist relationships later in Mormon Fundamentalist enclaves.  The similarities of the role of women within polygamy will be discussed later within this essay.  The main differences between polygamy practiced by the orthodox sect or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormon Fundamentalists differed directly in the initial implementation of a polygamist relationship.

When the Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy, polygamy flourished as a special calling practiced only by elite members in whom they were directly called by the prophet.  Studies revealed that during the second half of the nineteenth century only between 15 and 20 percent of marriages within the church were polygamous; and of that 15 to 20 percent, 66.3 percent were only allotted two wives.[9]  Also, any man called to a polygamous relationship had the opportunity to either accept or decline without any type of demotion within the priesthood body.  Finally, the decision to accept a polygamous relationship ultimately presented heed to the first wife and her permission.  The first wife always inherited the right to accept or decline the calling before the husband could offer his acceptance or decline.[10]  Thus, in a sense, it is self evident that the role of the women in the orthodox sect manifested a sense of equality in regards to the institution of marriage even though women did not possess the priesthood authority.   Albeit, women in polygamist enclaves of Mormon Fundamentalists never manifested such equality; in fact, the role of the women in regards to marriage, even though within polygamist society there is a strong contingent element of great satisfaction for women, women vis-à-vis men are subordinate and must submit to the prevalence of men, the prophet, and the priesthood council.[11]

            Due to continual pressure from the United States government and the desire for Utah to reach statehood, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discontinued any newly appointed polygamist relationships after the Manifesto of 1890 by Prophet Wilford Woodruf.[12]  However, since many Mormon families already sustained polygamy, it was difficult to negate that relationship.  Thus in 1904, a Second Manifesto solidified the dissolution of polygamy within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[13]  The Second Manifesto not only caused extreme dissidence between members who continued to practice polygamy with those who had sustained the laws of the land and adopted only monogamy,[14] it also drove polygamist families underground and virtually in hiding.[15]  Polygamist families who received the sentiments of disdain inherited traits of zealotry and greatly disassociated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, especially after the church started excommunicating members who still practiced polygamy.  The polygamists initiated sectarian schisms after the Second Manifesto and the Final Manifesto of 1933;[16] for they believed the church had lost the rudimentary traditions preached by Joseph Smith and the authority which sustained revelation and the priesthood in exchange for the secularization and conformity to federal recognition and assimilation within acceptance of main stream Christianity.[17] 

            Once Mormon Fundamentalists completely separated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon Fundamentalism continued to divide themselves asunder into different enclaves.  The main enclaves preserved leadership by a hierarchy of prominent polygamist families, mainly the Johnson, Musser, and LeBaron families.[18]  However even though the different factions differed in modern revelation, for each faction maintained their own prophet, the traditional principles of polygamy, fostered by Joseph Smith, maintained the same principles.  Thus the role of women within each enclave retained similar dynamics.

            Surprisingly, the role of women warranted similar appeals and benefits in fundamentalist enclaves as it did when it was initially implemented publicly by Brigham Young in 1852.  Because of the benefits of polygamy for women, converts have rapidly accumulated within Mormon Fundamentalism.  In a sociological perspective, approximately one to six families converted and joined Mormon Fundamentalist enclaves each month in 1993.  Of those converts, 70 percent are women.[19]  For, women are able to assimilate within Mormon Fundamentalist societies quicker than men.[20] 

            Yet how do women, inherently divulged within a patriarchal society, benefit from polygamist enclaves more than men?  In a paradoxical sense, because women within a Mormon Fundamentalist enclave are structured within patriarchal elements of subversion as previously mentioned, women have opted to emphatically maximize opportunities for autonomy, mobility, solidarity, and goddess worship.  It is this intrinsic structure that has provided a greater benefit for women rather than men.[21]

            Within the polygamist enclaves of Mormon Fundamentalist societies, women enjoy socioeconomic security.  The priesthood not only exists as a means for a hierarchal structure within the enclave, it also purports a responsibility for men to provide security for each of their wives as well as treat each wife equally fair.  Therefore each man must allow equal time devoted to each wife.[22] 

For women, this promotes interdependence between the sister wives as well as allot time for each women to function independently.  While the husband is gone, the women may maintain the authoritative roles over the children and are permitted also to independently function and pursue ambitions.   So when the husband is not in a particular home, it is the mother’s role to act as the authority and cultivate the celestial family as both the father and the mother.[23]  Also, since men provide financial stability, the women are free to pursue educational exploits or any other ambitions they desire.  It is quite common for women within the enclave to pursue higher degrees of education as well as supplemental income.

Women also benefit from marital mobility.  Since the primary role for women within Mormon Fundamentalism is to cultivate celestial families, it is necessary that women are satisfied within there marriage.  In regards to second marriages, after the primary husband dies, which frequently occurs since marriages occur between elder men and teenage girls, women select second husbands in terms of hypergamy.  Due to the fact that women are always selected and sealed by and to their first husbands for eternity in the everlasting covenant of marriage, a second marriage is for only a temporal earthly gestation; thus, women may finally select a husband that may provide a greater means of economic stability.[24]   

Also, women maintain the option for separation from their husbands or “release” if the husbands are not honoring their priesthood or providing a satisfactory marriage.  Thus within Mormon Fundamentalist enclaves, the divorce rate could be as high as 35 percent.[25]  Unlike women, it is exceptionally difficult for men to receive a release from a marriage contract since they have the option of just marrying another wife.  Conversely, even if men do not get along with their wives, it is still obligatory to maintain financial stability for each wife.

Within the enclave, women enjoy a great forum in midst of a contingently larger female population.  Many women convert to fundamentalist enclave due to loneliness, desperation, or because they are widows with children, or even women who cannot find a worthy husband in mainstream Mormonism.  Once in the enclave, women are able to build a rapport with other women and build relationships upon the dynamics of common foundations.  Thus, women are able form strong bonds of sisterhood, self confidence, independence, and even sense of solidarity.  These communal relationships not only manifest benefits for women within the enclave, but also establish a fellowship of esoteric commonality which may prevent women from leaving the enclave.[26]

            Finally, women play the most essential role within the Mormon Fundamentalist enclaves because of the very nature in which the enclave exists.  As mentioned previously, the most vital and essential ordinance within all Mormon theology is entering the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage.  Therefore on earth, Mormons are essentially building their kingdoms in heaven.  For if members are exalted to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, they inherent and rule as kings/queens and priests/priestesses over their eternal posterity in their proprietary kingdoms.  For Mormon Fundamentalist, this paradigm of divine hierarchy is also implemented on earth emanating from the enclave’s prophet, to the priesthood council of apostles, and through the hierarchy of the different levels of both Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods.[27]  Thus, for women, they are the ones physically bearing children to build these earthly kingdoms that in a sense mimic their potential celestial ambitions.  As queens and priestesses, the women are directly responsible for the cultivation of their children which are their primary obligation.[28]  Thus, women operate as the central heart within communal family as well as the nuclear family in which gives them a goddess like quality, worshipped by those surrounding them. 

This divine heritage has also created an evolution of paradigms for hierarchal development within women vis-à-vis their communal society.  Women, in a sense, have aspired to priesthood revelations in regards to bearing children.[29]  Many women testify of visions and dreams in which manifest their children appearing to them in particular scenarios.  These revelations permit women to escalate within their inner hierarchy.  Also, the number of children that they give birth to and cultivate not only allocates a higher position within the social hierarchy, it will provide additional blessing in heaven as well.[30]  Consequently, women within Mormon Fundamentalism have opted in the refusal of the use of birth control.  Conversely, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints advocates a person’s right to determine their own private use of birth control, except in cases of abortion, fundamentalist further dichotomize the secularism of the church with the true traditional practice of the fundamentalists.[31]

Even though polygamy in Mormon Fundamentalist enclaves resonates on the male dominance of the patriarchal society, women have ameliorated and maximized their standing within the community inhibiting a social hierarchy as well as a position of venerated, altruistic kingdom builders.  While many outsiders may condemn or lament Mormon Fundamentalist women as zealot casualties caught in a modern-day white slavery ring, in actuality, fundamentalist women are benefiting from their roles within the enclaves and burgeoning the membership of their factions by means of child bearing as well as manifesting a desired milieu for non-fundamentalist women seeking not only socioeconomic stability, but also a sense of autonomy, independence, solidarity, mobility, communal camaraderie and manifest destiny. 

 

Bibliography

Bennion, Janet.  Women of Principle: Female Networking in Contemporary Mormon Polygyny.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Driggs, Ken.  “After the Manifesto: Modern Polygamy and Fundamentalist Mormons.”  Journal of Church and State (Vol. 32 Issue2), 367-390.

 

Driggs, Ken.  “This Will Someday Be the Head and Not the Tail of the Church: A History of the Mormon Fundamentalists at Short Creek.” Journal of Church and State (Spring 1992), 49-80.

Friel, Breton.  “Rethinking Mormon Polygamy: A Different Perspective.” Crescat Scientia: Journal of History (Spring 2004).

Hardy, B. Carmen.  Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage.  Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992.

 

Hyde, John.  Mormonism: Its Leaders and Design.  New York: W.P. Fetridge& Company, 1857.

Smith, Joseph.  The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Smith, Joseph.  “The Articles of Faith, 12.”  The Pearl of Great Price.  Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

 

White, Daryl and O. Kendall White Jr.  “Polygamy and Mormon Identity.” The Journal of American Culture, Vol. 28 No. 2 (June 2005), 165-177.

Woodruf, Wilford.  “Manifesto: Official Declaration-1.” The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

---

[1] Joseph Smith, The Doctrine of Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), Section 132.

[2] John Hyde, Mormonism: Its Leaders and Design, (New York: W.P. Fetridge & Company, 1857), 84-85.

[3] Breton Friel, “Rethinking Mormon Polygamy: A Different Perspective,” Crescat Scientia: Journal of History (Spring 2004), 92.

[4] Daryl White and O. Kendall White Jr, “Polygamy and Mormon Identity,” The Journal of American Culture, (Vol. 28 No. 2, June 2005), 166.

[5] Janet Bennion, Women of Principle: Female Networking in Contemporary Mormon Polygyny, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5.

[6] Hyde, 86-87.

[7] White, 167.

[8] Friel, 91.

[9] Friel, 95.

[10] Smith, D&C, 132:61, 272

[11] Bennion, 43.

[12] Wilford Woodruf, “Manifesto: Official Declaration-1,” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 291.

[13] B. Carmen Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 259-261.

[14] Joseph Smith, “The Articles of Faith, 12,” The Pearl of Great Price, (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 61.

[15] White, 169.

[16] Ken Driggs, “This Will Someday Be the Head and Not the Tail of the Church: A History of the Mormon Fundamentalists at Short Creek,” Journal of Church and State (Spring 1992), 58.

[17] Ken Driggs,, 49, 71

[18] Ken Driggs, “After the Manifesto: Modern Polygamy and Fundamentalist Mormons.”  Journal of Church and State (Vol. 32 Issue2), 375.

[19] Bennion, 5.

[20] Bennion, 143.

[21] Bennion, 7.

[22] Friel, 91.

[23] Bennion, 41-43.

[24] Bennion, 88-89.

[25] Bennion, 88-89.

[26] Bennion, 4.

[27] Bennion, 93.

[28] Bennion, 44.

[29] Bennion, 53.

[30] Bennion, 81, 138.

[31] Bennion, 81.