Hugh Hewitt Redefines Mormonism for Mitt Romney

Hugh Hewitt, a political pundit radio personality, wants the Mormon presidential election runner Mitt Romney in the Whitehouse—very badly. He casts his pre-election vote in writing A Mormon in the Whitehouse? (Regnery, 2007). In defense of Romney, Hewitt also defends Mormonism better than some Latter-day Saints (LDS). This is strange for a Presbyterian, as what Hewitt claims for himself. It is possible and logically consistent that Hewitt could defend Romney as a republican without defending Mormonism, but he chooses otherwise. The reason that I find this strange is that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claimed that God appeared to him and told him that Hugh’s church, Presbyterianism, is not true. God’s official statement on Presbyterians is found in Mormon scripture. To remain faithful to the prophet Joseph Smith, Romney cannot believe other that what Joseph Smith wrote in his scripture, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:20).

Is Hewitt slipping in his faith? Or is he just plain ignorant that real Mormonism condemns his faith by name? This anti-Presbyterian sentiment (hence, anti-Hewitt’s chosen faith) is recorded where Joseph Smith had a vision of God the Father (as a male being) and Jesus Christ in the spring of 1820. Smith asked God which Protestant denomination was true—the Methodists, Presbyterians, or Baptists. Smith’s vision, as found in LDS scripture, states that these three denominations alone were in Palmyra, New York (1:9). Smith then queried, “Who of all these parties is right; or, are they all wrong together?” (1:10). Clearly Joseph Smith wanted to know if Presbyterianism (Hugh Hewitt’s faith) was “right” or “wrong.” He was answered by a personal appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ in New York, where Jesus directly told him, “join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’” (1:19).

Hugh is in big trouble with Jesus! To be most like his friend Mitt Romney, he needs to repent of his “wrong” Presbyterianism (since Jesus said so!) and repent of his creeds (beliefs) that are so abominable to Jesus, and repent of his corrupt faith. Of the three denominations, Smith singled out the Presbyterians as specifically “not true.” Hewitt needs to get right with the Jesus found in Mormon scripture. Mormon scripture is clearly “anti-Presbyterian.” Yet in the strangest twist of Hugh’s logic, he labels anyone an “anti-Mormon” in his book who has the same opinion of Mormonism as what Joseph Smith did of Presbyterians, but nowhere in his book did he call Smith (or Romney) an anti-Presbyterian.

Here is an example of how Hewitt defended Mormonism from his May 4, 2007 radio program:

Caller Greg: “The question I have is, I know very little about Mormonism, and my question falls into the cult or denomination thing. I think, was it Pastore, a columnist with Townhall, wrote an article a couple of weeks ago? It’s about the sum total of what I know about it.”

Hewitt: “I would encourage you to read my book, which of course is not a surprise to you, it’s available at Amazon dot com. I reject the cult title. I believe cult has about it an element of coercion, which is simply not applicable to the Mormons and it is a sect.”

Caller Greg: “Do you think”…[Greg was obviously drowned out and cut off the air by Hewitt.]

Hewitt: “I just don’t believe that you should call…. Cult carries with it this wheezing of an organ in the background and the idea of chains in the basement and the Branch Davidian and James Jones and I think it is inappropriate for conversation. And when I see Frank next, I’m going to argue that point with him. Cause, I just don’t think…if…if…and I do know where it comes from…Walter Martin wrote the Kingdom of the Cults, but Walter Martin blames that Hinduism is a cult, that Islam is a cult, I don’t think that he calls the Catholic Church a cult, but his definition is expansive. In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons aren’t just simply not sinister. Hey, Greg, thanks.”

There are problems with Hewitt’s definition of cult. Hewitt does not distinguish between the scholarly definitions of cult from different fields of study, namely psychological, sociological, and theological. He first defined cult psychologically, which under certain circumstances is correct. Some cults use coercion on their members. He failed to tell his audience that this is the psychological definition and that there are other equally legitimate definitions in other fields of study.

To separate Mormonism from his “coercion cult” definition, he then tries to separate Mormonism from coercion. Had Hugh watched the PBS special, The Mormons, that aired just three days earlier (April 30 and May 1), he would have seen how Mormonism uses coercion and psychological pressure on its members. I would suggest that he view The Mormons online The Mormons (http://www.pbs.org/mormons/view) and pay special attention to the section on the excommunication of the Mormon intellectuals, many of whom were Brigham Young University educated, but when they intellectually differed with their church, then they were humiliated through excommunication. Also pay attention to the section about the pressure within Mormonism for perfection that gives LDS women a higher than national average of suicide and anti-depressant drug usage.

I don’t know how Hewitt missed these things, but a scant Internet research would have shown him a much different story:

Ken Ponder, Ph.D, “MORMON WOMEN, PROZAC® and THERAPY, Mormon Women, Prozac and Therapy Julie Cart, "Study Finds Utah Leads Nation in Antidepressant Use," Los Angeles Times, 20 February 2002, A6.
Degn, L. Yeates, E. Greenwell, B. Fiddler, L. “Mormon women and depression,” Sunstone magazine
Hilton, Sterling C, et al. 2002. Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah. American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 155, No. 5: 413-19. Suicide Rates and Religious Commitment in Young Adult Males in Utah
Even a pro-Mormon BYU study admits that Mormon women use more anti-depressants and commit suidide more than the national average — http://www.usatoday. com/news/health/2004-04-02-mormon-depression_x.htm [Link no longer active]

Contrary to what Hewitt said, coersion, in fact, applies to Mormonism at several levels, therefore it indeed fits within his first description of a cult.

Hewitt’s next foible was to create a self-styled definition that is not found anywhere, “Cult carries with it this wheezing of an organ in the background and the idea of chains in the basement and the Branch Davidian and James Jones and I think it is inappropriate for conversation.” From where did he get this? This is not what most people think when they hear the word cult. Hugh most likely means “Jim Jones,” with apologies to all of the “James Jones” existing elsewhere. There is no question that the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones (the People’s Temple) were cults, but what made them so? Did they have organs or chains in basements? Neither one did, but perhaps Hugh was thinking of the famous organ at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City.

It appears that what Hugh was attempting was, again, a psychological or sociological definition of cult. I would suggest more sound and scholarly definitions of a cult from qualified writers who list Mormonism as a cult like sociologist Ronald Enroth, Ph.D. (Evangelizing the Cults, 1990), theologians Alan Gomes, Ph.D. (Unmasking the Cults, 1998); Drs. Nichols, Mather, and Schmidt (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions, 2007); and a host of others, including some from Hewitt’s reformed Protestant background, like Dr. Jan K. Van Baalan (Chaos of the Cults, 1938; Gist of the Cults, 1944), Dr. Anthony Hoekema (Four Major Cults, 1963; Mormonism, 1973), Dr. Ravi Zacharias (Kingdom of the Cults, general editor, 2006), and Josh McDowell and Don Stewart (The Deceivers, 1992).

Hewitt stated, “I do know where it comes from.” This I doubt, after hearing his answer. The term cult was first used of Mormonism in 1898. Hewitt continued, “Walter Martin wrote the Kingdom of the Cults, but Walter Martin blames that Hinduism is a cult, that Islam is a cult, I don’t think that he calls the Catholic Church a cult, but his definition is expansive.” Since I began working with Walter Martin in 1976 and I have continuously been on the staff of researchers and editors for his works since then, I think that I am better positioned than Hewitt to say what Walter Martin taught.

Hewitt is absolutely wrong. Martin did not state that Hinduism and Islam are cults. Hugh owes Christians an apology for his careless denigration of Martin and his works. Beginning in 1985, Martin included several chapters on world religions in his best-selling Kingdom of the Cults, but he always made clear distinctions between cults and world religions. What Hewitt claims to “know” is a fabrication.

Hewitt’s final statement, “In the modern vernacular it means sinister and the Mormons aren’t just simply not sinister.” This has a twofold problem. It does not define the word cults, but perhaps it describes what some cults do. I challenge Hewitt to find any scholarly work that uses sinister and cult interchangeably as mutually definitional terms. A good theological definition of a cult is “a group of people basing their beliefs upon the worldview of an isolated leadership, which always denies the central doctrines of the Christianity as found in the Bible” (Josh McDowell, The Deceivers, 1992, 15). Mormonism, as what McDowell includes in his book, fits that description with Smith isolating himself from “apostate” Christianity and creating a worldview in opposition to biblical Christianity that contains gods, goddesses, populated worlds, spirit children, and the progression of mankind toward godhood.

The second part of Hewitt’s statement, that Mormons are not sinister, is debatable. Mormons are quite often sinister, in spite of what Hewitt claims. We could talk about such sinister things as the Mountain Meadows massacre, or the numerous scandals through the ages, which is why the Wall Street Journal once stated that Utah is the securities fraud capital of the United States (WSJ, 2/25/1974 and Utah Holiday Magazine, October, 1990), but that aside, I think that Hugh contradicts himself here since he admits that the Mormon Olympic scandal, which was an international embarrassment to the Mormon Church, was straightened out by none other than his wonderful friend, Mitt Romney. How can he say on one hand that Mormons are not sinister and on the other hand state that Mormons were caught in a bribery scandal with the International Olympic Committee that Mitt Romney had to straighten out? Queer, isn’t it? The Mormons even fit Hugh’s last definition of a cult with their sinister actions, which is why Romney had to rescue their reputation.

Apples and Oranges this is why I find having a discussion with you anti just an endless mission to jumping from one issue to another.

I really don’t care if the anti’s have issues with Polygamy there was religion freedom and than the law was enacted not the other way around!

It was a revelation and which could not be with drawn until the Lord give the manifesto.

These are hard things to understand for all but that is what is it is nothing more.

The LDS does not use the Lord religion as a weapon as I have witness here how many use the Bible as weapon which the Lord never intend his word to be used.

There are times the Lord hid things from the world but never to
use Ceremony to condemn the United States it is not the way the Lord works.

Those ceremony are all about returning back to the Father in Heaven and has nothing to do with corporal government.

When man keeps the Lord commandments than those who rule the country will be a blessing.

But this has nothing to do with what goes on in the House of the Lord.

Even in the Bible the Lord has council his children how to walk upon the earth so man isn’t living under tyrants.

There is more work to be done so this topsy-turvy of government we have today can be made right side up!

All of us should strive to live closer to the Lord and to do His will by keeping the Lord’s commandments.

No it was not illigal it was enacted in 1862!

Smith started practicing it in Illinois

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition)
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

The 1862 federal Morrill Act was not the first law which made bigamy illegal; it was merely the first law which specifically reinforced existing state anti-bigamy laws. It was enacted specifically to close the "loophole" that the Mormons mistakenly believed they were operating under.

Even after the passage of the 1862 Morrill Act, the Mormon Church continued to practice polygamy in violation of the law for another half-century, and repeately challenged those laws. So anyone who argues that "The Mormons stopped practicing polygamy when it was made illegal" are either misinformed or misrepresenting the truth.

I'll have to say you're just continuing to spew your hatred.

My, my. Any other "loving" thoughts from you?

And you work wonders as far as taking things out of context. The Jews' comment was only about Pharisees. And I didn't say anything different than what Jesus said to them in the latter part of John 8. Be careful of the ground you walk on when by implication you start accusing Jesus Christ of "spewing hatred."

NIV sub-heading: The Children of the Devil (Jesus said) 41You are doing the things your own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:41-47)

II, your ignorance isn't invincible, it's frankly overwhelmingly pathetic.

...until you can post something that doesn't charge some other group of people as being under the influence of the devil...

I don't apologize for mentioning what an apostle of the Lord uttered: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)

But if you want to explain all this world's darkness in other ways, I've got a listening ear.

Resty, please be careful when you say "never happened". The 1990 Endowment changes were not the first changes to the Temple Ceremonies.

Zakeet, what you are referring to is called the "Oath of Vengeance", it is more about avenging the blood of Joseph Smith than overthrowing the US government, but there is an element that the entire US was guilty for JS's murder. It was removed in the 1930's so while Mitt did not take the oath, his Grandfather probably did.

Oath of Vengance:

... Brigham raised his hand and said, "I swear by the eternal Heavens that I have unsheathed my sword, and I will never return it until the blood of the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, and those who were slain in Missouri, is avenged. This whole nation is guilty of shedding their blood, by assenting to the deed, and holding its peace." ... Furthermore, every one who had passed through their endowments, in the Temple, were placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same, thus making the entire Mormon people sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation (The Confessions of John D. Lee, p.160).

About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant.... In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs ("Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon," December 6, 1889, pp.205-206).

Elder Kimball showed the right fashion for a leaf, spoke of Elder Richards being protected at Carthage Jail, having on the robe, while Joseph and Hyrum and Elder Taylor were shot to pieces, said the Twelve would have to leave shortly, for a charge of treason would be brought against them for swearing us to avenge the blood of the anointed ones, and some one would reveal it and we shall have to part some say between sundown and dark.…and I have covenanted, and never will rest nor my posterity after me until those men who killed Joseph and Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth. (Journal of William Clayton).

Increase McGee Van Dusen, who later left the LDS stated: “We are required to kneel at this altar, where we have an oath administered to the effect, that we will, from this time henceforth and forever, use our influence to murder this nation, and teach it to our posterity and all that we have influence over, in return for their killing the Prophet Joseph. They say the murdering of Smith is a national offense. It is true that all was not personally engaged in the act; but the nation has long winked at the abuse of the Mormons, and in this way they have encouraged mobs from time to time, until they have finally taken the life of the Lord's Prophet, and now it is the will of the Lord, that the nation should be destroyed; and this is his will, that we shall enter into this secret conspiracy against the Government, &c., for the above reasons and many more given.”

Richard K. Fox wrote “We were then made to swear to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, the martyr, together with that of his brother, Hiram, on this American Nation, and that we would teach our children and children’s children to do so.  The penalty for this grip and oath was disembowelment (Mysteries of Mormonsim).

The attitude of many LDS at the time shows antagonism toward the United States:

Heber C. Kimball wrote: “James Buchanan now occupies the chair of state. He and his counsellors, his coadjutors, his cabinet, and Congress have met and planned the destruction of this people—of brother Brigham and his associates in particular; and the priests of the day say amen to it; and they exhort the people to say amen to it; and the whole people of the United States are under condemnation. They consented to the death of Joseph, Hyrum, David, Parley, and lots of men, women, and children. (Journal of Discourses, Vol 5, page 253).

“The order of God's church and kingdom is the strongest government ever known on this earth, and if the people of this great nation entertain any fears of the consequence or effects of such a government, why, I ask, don't you of the nation, you of Congress, you of the Cabinet, if you please, embrace this order of government and establish it over the nation! You can do it. You can repent of your sins, every one of you, and be baptized for a remission of them. You can adopt and extend this strong government which God has established in these mountains, and if you will do it, God will establish you and the government and this nation never to depart from before His face; and you shall be made the means of helping to bring everlasting righteousness—the millen[n]ium—upon this land, and of causing the Spirit of God to rest down upon all flesh. Is it not worth your while to engage in a thing of this kind? But, ah! The terrible fact exists that the blood of the prophets is upon this nation, although the nation has not shed their blood, yet a sovereign state permitted it, and the nation have not washed their hands from it. (Apostle F.D Richards, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 26, page 345).

Apostle Orson Hyde wrote the following: “The blood of Joseph and Hyrum was shed—mingled too with the blood of brother Taylor, who survived, and who is here a living witness to the facts that occurred in connection with their death. Has the nation atoned for that blood? No. Have they offered to do it? They never have. But if one poor scamp should happen to be killed in this country, in this region, the whole of the United States are ready to fly to arms to avenge the blood of that individual, that never was worth the powder and lead to kill him. But the Prophets of God that are inspired of the Almighty to do a work for the benefit of the human family can be killed, and no man lay it to heart. Oh, it is all very well: to be sure, it was an outrageous deed to murder them when they were in the hands of the law—when they were held as prisoners; it was a horrid act: at the same time, we are glad it is done. That is the feeling, and the universal feeling almost throughout the United States. There was hardly a man, woman, or child that did not assent to the death of Joseph and Hyrum, but objected to the way in which it was done. "It is not exactly honourable or pleasing, but we are glad of it anyhow." That is the sentiment of the nation, and by that very sentiment they have drawn upon themselves the anger of God; and that blood has to be atoned for, and it has to be atoned for upon all those that have said, We are glad of it!—that have secretly said so and cherished that idea. It will extend to them all who have consented to the death of the Prophet of God. Now, says the Lord, "To him that overcometh will I give power over the nations." Did Joseph Smith overcome, even unto death? Yes. Was God with him? Yes, he was. When they were about to cut off his head, behold, the power of the Almighty came down, and the men stood as it were like marble statues: they could not move, but stood there like Lot's wife—not pillars of salt, but pillars of petrified corruption. The power of the Almighty came down with the vivid glare of lightning's flash, and they had no power to take his head off. Was God with him? Yes. Was his death glorious? Yes. What was his glory? One portion of it is—"To him that overcometh will I give power over the nations." A portion of his honour and glory will be to enforce his word and see it take effect among the people and nation that have said, We are glad that he is killed! They cannot avoid it by going through death. They will have to be arraigned under the government and jurisdiction of their murdered victims. (Journal of Discourses, Vol 6, p. 154)

I never intend to winter in the United States except on a visit. We do not owe this country a single sermon. We calculated to go all the while, for I do not intend to stay in such an Hell of a Hole and if this be your mind, signify it by saying Hie--which was loudly responded to by the assembly--they are continually accusing us of stealing their horses and cattle. I wish some of the brethren would steal and kill them. (On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861, Vol. 1, p73).

the Mormon Temple Ceremony used to condemn the United States for allowing persecution of Mormons in Missouri in 1838 — and called for the overthrow of the United States government.

Anybody know if this is correct?

Nana: It was correct in SLC in 1854...
________________________________________________

On Friday, February 10, 1854, pursuant to notice I had received, with no other instructions than to wear a clean shirt, myself and wife went to the Council House, Salt Lake City, at about seven o’clock in the morning. About thirty persons were previously waiting there, who were to be “endowed from on high” that day. Our names, with full particulars of birth, marriage, etc., were all registered in a record; our tithing-ofice receipts examined, because, before hearing the music, it is first’ necessary to “pay the piper.” All those who had not been previously “sealed” to their wives, were then sealed by Heber C. Kimball, who has under his peculiar direction the giving of the endowment, and we were nshered into a long room which was divided into many little compartments by white screens.
.................................................

Man and woman, we were ranged around the place; Kimball in the same, and Brigham in the next room looking on; Parley Pratt officiating, and the fourth oath was administered. The allegory presumed that man, now in a fair and certain way to salvation, had a great temporal duty to perform, not an “abstract theory” of obedience, nor obedience in “abstract things”, but a great positive, present, immediate duty.

We were, therefore,

“SWORN TO CHERISH CONSTANT ENMITY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT for not avenging the death of Smith, or righting the persecutions of the Saints; TO DO ALL WE COULD TOWARD DESTROYING, TEARING DOWN, OR OVERTURNING THAT GOVERNMENT; to endeavor to baffle its designs and frustrate its intentions; to renounce all allegiance and refuse all submission. If unable to do any thing ourselves toward the accomplishment of these objects, to teach it to our children from the nursery; impress it upon them from the death-bed; entail it upon them as a legacy. To make it the one leading idea and sacred duty of their lives; so that “the kingdom of God and his Christ” (the Mormon Church and its priesthood) “might subdue all other kingdoms and fill the whole earth.” “

Curses the most frightful, penalties the most barbarous, were threatened and combined in the obligation either on failing to abide or in daring to reveal these covenants. A new sign, a new key-word, a new grip, and the second degree of Melchisedec priesthood was administered.

We were now acceptable to God, and could approach him as children, but had to learn how to pray. We were now told that our robes were on the wrong shoulder and as a sign of our entire dependence on the priesthood in spiritual things, they set them right. In order to impart a deeper religious tone to these proceedings, and to feed the flame here kindled, a new method of praying was shown to us. All the endowees were to stand in a circle; silently to repeat all the signs with their formula, and then to be united by a fantastic intertwining of hands and arms. While in this position one who is previously chosen to be “mouth-piece,” kneels on his right knee, takes hold of the hand of one of the standing brethren, thus completing the “4 circle,” and prays slowly; all repeating his words after him.

Thus to meet in circle, to solemnize our thoughts by assuming the garb, to refresh our memories and realize our obligations by repeating all the formula of sign, token, keywords and penalties; and then to pray standing in a mysterious position, using abracadabratic terms, is thought to call down from heaven an immediate answer to prayer, because, finding peculiar favor in the eyes of God. These circles meet every week, and Brigham and the Twelve Apostles often meet every day in this manner and for this object. Standing thus, Parley P. Pratt prayed, and we slowly repeated his words, calling on God to bless or curse as we obeyed or neglected the covenants we had made.

We were now brethren, members of the holy ot,’r3 of God’s priesthood; admitted to the full participation in the privileges of the fraternity; recognizing ealch other readily; constantly wearing a garment as a protector and remembrancer; bound to each other by tremendous secrets; chained to the priesthood by fearful oaths.
..............................................

From first to last, the intention of the mystery is to teach unlimited obedience to Brigham, and TREASON AGAINST THE COUNTRY. However infatuated, they all’see this plainly; and the stronger their infatuation, the prompter their obedience. To many strange extremes do they carry this obedience.

(Hyde, John, (1833-1875) Mormonism: its leaders and designs, (1857) Pp 90, 97, 98, 101)

(John Hyde was an Apostle in one of the “Seventies” in SLC )

Polygamy was illegal from day 1 and even forbidden by the laws of mormonism - yet smith felt he could flaunt the law.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Tennesse nana posted the following on another thread, by common law polygamy was illegal before the federal legislation of 1862:

Bigamy was recognized as an offense by the early English ecclesiastical courts, which considered it an affront to the marriage Sacrament. Parliament enacted a statute in 1604 that made bigamy a felony cognizable in the English common law courts. After American independence, the states adopted antibigamy laws, but they received little attention until the nineteenth century in Utah.
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/Legislation_EOM.htm
“Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred.”
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.