Brigham and Anna Eliza Young

[_karl61]

I'm reading Zion in the courts by Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum. There is a discussion on page 250 where Anna Eliza Young sued Brigham Young for divorce claiming neglect, cruel treatment and desertion. Brigham denied this and pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce and alimony for a marriage not legally recognized. He said that he married Mary Ann Angell at Kirtland Ohio 1834 and was still lawfully married to her and the court should not grant divorce and alimony unless it recognized plural or celestial marriage.

This seems odd to me: does he belive in plural marriage or not - being the President of the Church you would think that he would take the stance of yes she is my wife which means she can get alimony. Is right and wrong or what is true or false based soley on money. It would seem he would take a higher ground and say that she is my wife.

Good book - but more "faith promoting". If you are intersted in church legal history this book cites probaly a hundred cases the church was involved from Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and Utah. You can read what the nation thought about polygamy and how they addressed it. I'm just finishing up the 1880's and the church is getting it's butt kicked. Brigham should have had a little more insight. I can see that he too wanted to be King, President, Chief Judge and the Richest man in Utah, and basically was in the 1850's, 60's and 70's. Anyone challenge him and you are excommunicated and you will need to leave the state if you want to survive.

[_Mercury]

Brigham would do anything to wriggle out of legal issues.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I'm reading Zion in the courts by Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum. There is a discussion on page 250 where Anna Eliza Young sued Brigham Young for divorce claiming neglect, cruel treatment and desertion. Brigham denied this and pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce and alimony for a marriage not legally recognized. He said that he married Mary Ann Angell at Kirtland Ohio 1834 and was still lawfully married to her and the court should not grant divorce and alimony unless it recognized plural or celestial marriage.

This seems odd to me: does he belive in plural marriage or not - being the President of the Church you would think that he would take the stance of yes she is my wife which means she can get alimony. Is right and wrong or what is true or false based soley on money. It would seem he would take a higher ground and say that she is my wife.

Good book - but more "faith promoting". If you are intersted in church legal history this book cites probaly a hundred cases the church was involved from Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and Utah. You can read what the nation thought about polygamy and how they addressed it. I'm just finishing up the 1880's and the church is getting it's butt kicked. Brigham should have had a little more insight. I can see that he too wanted to be King, President, Chief Judge and the Richest man in Utah, and basically was in the 1850's, 60's and 70's. Anyone challenge him and you are excommunicated and you will need to leave the state if you want to survive.

Interesting. I remember reading that there were quite a few divorces going on back then, and that Brigham charged $5 to grant them and it went straight into his pocket. I assumed that a good many of those divorces were given to plural wives, but maybe not. Or, maybe when it came to BY himself paying out the alimony, it was a different story?

[_karl61]

the funny thing was when Brigham told the court that he found out after they married that she was really married to someone else (as if he believes there is something wrong with that).