LOGAN, Utah -- Elizabeth Kane had married for love, and expected to see nothing resembling her ideal when she visited Utah in 1872.

But she was surprised at what she found.

Kathleen Flake likewise has her "own monogamous biases." She acknowledges the documented failure of some 19th century plural marriages and the criticisms of this social structure, but her curiosity is piqued by "the fact that some people did thrive under this form of human relationship."

"These plural hearts, it seemed, could beat in one breast," she said.



Flake, an assistant professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt University, spoke to a large crowd at the Logan Tabernacle on Thursday, Oct. 1, at the 2009 Leonard J. Arrington Mormon History Lecture Series. Her talk was titled "The Emotional and Priestly Logic of Plural Marriage."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandoned the practice of polygamy in 1890. As a historian, Flake has sought to understand what early Mormons "thought they were doing" within a social context of "high romance and low tolerance for Mormonism."

"I want to understand how they made sense of their marriages when everyone else thought they were irrational and unjust as well as immoral," she said.

Flake explained that by 1850, marriage had evolved into a new ideal "based on individual choice and companion love." Previously, it had been a practical institution, and love was simply the product of marriage -- not the reason for it.

"This was a big change," she said.

Kane had accompanied her husband, Thomas, who came to Utah at the invitation of Brigham Young. She visited several LDS homes and lived in St. George among polygamous societies.

This "new marriage," or Victorian marriage, had become the norm, and plural marriages "seemed to contradict these marital ideals in every respect."

Kane came with a critical yet open mind, Flake said.

"Essentially she was surprised that notwithstanding their multiplicity of partners, their relationships conformed substantially to her ideal of Victorian domesticity," Flake said. "She was especially surprised to find among plural spouses a depth of emotional attachment that she considered romantic love. She noted that wives were not treated as a collective, but as individuals."

Flake explained that wives were often introduced separately and "given the benefit of the same introductory conversation, giving Elizabeth a 19th century version of 'Groundhog Day.' "

Kane found the individualism and parity in plural marriages that she assumed impossible, Flake said.

Kane met one man who carried a Daguerreotype of a deceased wife and assumed he was monogamous, only to find that he had three other wives.

However, she also observed independence among the women, whose marriages didn't necessitate strict emotional attachment.

Flake also delved into the "priestly" logic for plural marriage, suggesting that participants viewed marriage as a means of salvation and that God, not the spouse, ruled the heart.

Flake remained a resolute historian throughout, saying she limits herself to understanding and explaining. She opened by clarifying her use of the term "logic."

"I am not endorsing it or even arguing that it was logical to any but those who practiced it, and not even all of them," she said.

Email: ashill@desnews.com